“The past is imagined – but somewhat real –
yes ? It happened – but ofcourse now exists in
thought only – although physical ramifications of
past actions are real – yes ? therefore from that
point of view there is a reality ?”
But let us go slowly. It happened — so it seems.
It surely makes our life simpler to think so and
not to doubt that. But how do we know it really
happened? All the evidence is only PRESENT
evidence, PRESENT memories of past events. Let
us go one step further. What difference would it
make if the past was not real? Could we ever test
that hypothesis scientifically or otherwise; in what
way could we go about that?
And yes, we do normally live in the unquestioned
belief in linear time and its inescapable rule of
past events with its consequences governing
This is our real religion, more
unquestioned and more ingrained in our bones
and nerves than any more teneous `belief’ in any
form of religion or science. But this does not
make it more likely to be true. On the contrary.
That what escapes investigation because it is so
unquestioned is more much likely to have holes,
to be only partly true and possibly seriously
flawed in important ways.
What guarantee do we REALLY have for the law
of karma and the scientific rules of cause and
effect? I often think we are prisoners of linear
time, cloistered by shackles that are totally
imaginary. With Karl Marx I suggest that we,
finally, have nothing to lose but our shacklers:
our belief in being enslaved in linear time.
> the paper work I threw into the rubbish bin
yesterday – still lies
> there today in this moment and the action is
confirmed by the memory
> of others that saw me do it.
at first this seems totally powerful and
convincing, but couldn’t this be on the same level
as “you can see that the Sun goes around the
Earth” or that “mass and energy are inherently
different, cannot be converted” and similarly for
time and space, which turned out to be at least
partly transformable into each other in relativity
I’d like to start asking, slowly slowly, who is the I
in your quote. The I of today is not the same as
the I of yesterday. By identifying those two, are
we not already doing part of the work of putting
on our shackles to linear time? What is the world
would be REALLY created afresh in each moment,
not as a poetic metaphor or romantic dream, but
what if this would be the only reality — in which
we use this infinite freedom at each moment to
recreate a sense of bondage to linear time.
Wouldn’t that be a terrible realization? The point
is: sages in many times and places and very
different cultures have reached such type of a
conclusion. And I am beginning to see how
science is moving in a similar direction. I would
be willing to be a lot that this picture of true
freedom in every moment is correct. In
accordance with that, I’m trying to live my life in
resonance with such a perspective.
> So perhaps it is not us that are imprisoned by
time – but Time that is
> imprisoned by us. We have to let it go and
watch it flow freely with a will
> of it’s own. But how do we divest it from it’s
rlationship with action ?
AND there is the `us’ we normally identify with
that is imprisoned by the `us’ whom we realy are.
Like in a tapestry, you cannot cut out a single
figure from a scene to `liberate’ it. You cannot
liberate the image of a person from a snapshot
from a movie. You can liberate the actor; or
better, the actor is already liberated, was never
really `caught’ by the movie. Similarly, the MAIN
struggle in any spiritual path is that we tend to
waste a couple decades trying to liberate the
picture we have of ourselves, trying to enlighten
that picture, something that will NEVER work.
Then, tired from trying, and with a little guidance
and lots of luck, we may stumble upon a way to
find out more of who we really are. Together with
that goes the realization that there was nothing
to liberate or enlighten in the first place. These
stories crop up here and there in esoteric
literature, but are never offered for popular
consumption; it would be pearls before swine,
completely undigestible and leading to angry
reactions. But they all point to the fallacy of
linear time, in my opinion.