Three Levels of Time

I appreciated what Chapparal wrote about the different types of time.  With Siva, I believe that they are all variations on a single, albeit slippery, non-thing we call time.  You can observe that humans at different developmental stages have conceived of, and experienced, time in different ways.  Often we oppose the subjective and objective forms of time to each other, usually inserting the word “merely” before the subjective forms of its appearance.  But perhaps subjective and objective 'times' are just a matter of perspective, neither of which can truly be asserted to be primary.

In the Time-Space-Knowledge vision of Tarthang Tulku, three levels of time are described as being available to human awareness.  These levels are not held to be abiding metaphysical entities, but are rather are a sort of pedagogical device to take us deeper into the mysterious, vital nature of time.

Here are some brief descriptions of the different levels of time:

 

Time, Level 1

            “As transmitted by the dynamic of time, experience unfolds along a continuum from past to present to future. Active in the present, we take form from the past and live forward into the future. The three aspects of time seem inseparable: manufactured by the same process, composed of the same substance, conducted forward by the same mechanism” (Tarthang Tulku, 1994, p. 73)

            “When time's momentum is measured out as the lifeless ticking away of linear temporality, the intrinsic 'aliveness' of time is channeled into mechanisms for multiplication and duplication. Played out into a world of positions, time sets up

boundaries, identities, partitions, and limits, affirming a 'from-to' order that moves away from the centerless center of time's flow. Filtered through such 're-presentations' of knowledge, the creative energy of time disappears from view, and becomes inaccessible. The 'self' as 'bystander' serves as guardian of this order. When the self 'stands by', it claims the right to possess what time presents, assuring that time's momentum will 'take form' in accord with a specific logic” (Tarthang Tulku, 1990, p. 19).

            “Shaped into a structured sequence, occupied by a 'bystander-self', permitting only the sequential knowledge available to the 'owner-occupant', time's creative potential is stripped away beyond the point of recognizing that anything has been lost” (Tarthang Tulku, 1990, p. 38)

            “On the ordinary level of experience, we still think very much in terms of an 'object-with-characteristic-power' orientation. Because we do not take time seriously, considering it only as an abstraction or an index, some aspect of it has become a hidden factor” (Tarthang Tulku, 1977, p. 120).

Time, Level 2

            “[We come to perceive] 'timing'–as being an embodying process which leads to our restrictive conventional reality in which subject and object, things and `space' are seen as different” (Tarthang Tulku, 1977, p. xi).

            “'Time' at this second stage can be seen to be the essential force that lets moment give way to moment, and the factor which permits items within a situation or moment to have their own identities….An actual appreciation of 'time' shows that the way in which it presents identities, differences, and interrelations is a direct evocation of 'space', of 'no-things', of non-plurality” (Tarthang Tulku, 1977, p. 146).

            “We may see all serial `timing' to be occurring in the same place, rather than establishing an extended `world out there'. That is, all going from place to place, experience to experience, which validates the picture of a spread out world, actually occurs as a succession of 'timed out' experiences in the same 'spot'” (Tarthang Tulku, 1977, p. 151)

            “Solid things, places, and directed processes seen on the first level become appreciated–in their second-level 'time' aspect–as being very fluid. This fluid quality is a central feature of 'time', which has been rendered more dry and friction-filled in order for us to play in a first-level way” (Tarthang Tulku, 1977, p. 161).

            “A focus on momentum lets us consider subject and object alike as projections of the underlying energy of second-level time. 'Time' in this second-level sense distributes experience through past and present and future, presenting the 'logos' that informs the first-level temporal order. Its dynamic allows knowing to 'build up' and interpret a world. As active vitality, 'time' is the essence of our being and our becoming, on which we feed and draw our sustenance” (Tarthang Tulku, 1990, p. 77).

Time, Level 3

            “The Great Space perspective shows everything to be more integrated–an infinite form … without an infinitely extended temporal dimension. From this perspective, different times express only an openness and accommodation of Great Space; they do not establish temporal succession, discrete moments, or `things in time'” (Tarthang Tulku, 1977, p. 81).

            “Different times do not violate the nondistributive nature of Great Time. They are not linked, in a way that irrevocably separates them, by their respective positions in a temporal series. The 'series' is a fiction” (Tarthang Tulku, 1977, p. 106).

            “When fully appreciated, Great Time is seen to be a kind of perfectly liquid, lubricious dimension–it is quintessentially 'slippery'. For this reason–although there seems to be movement and separate places to move to on the first level, and still more open, fluid possibilities of movement on the second level–on the third level there is no 'going' and no separate places. It is as though all the friction in the world were removed–nothing can then walk away from anything else. So, from a third level view, an eternity of `straying' still leaves us very much `at home', intimately united” (Tarthang Tulku, 1977, p. 162).

Best wishes,

Balder

     permalink

Re: Three Levels of Time

A quick read of  “Three levels of Time” convinced me that I have to study this post several times more so that the meaning appears to trickle inside my mind. A great job done.

     permalink

Re: Three Levels of Time

Three things which struck me most are:

1. When the self stands by it claims the right to possess what time presents.

2. Time is the essence of our being and becoming, on which we feed and draw our sustenance.

3. An eternity of 'straying' still leaves us very much at home, intimately united.

Now the following questions arise as corollary to the above respectively, in that order.

1. Does the self which stands by is the 'soul', who is the eternal witness, itself remaining unperturbed?
 
2. Since time is the essence of our being and becoming, on which we feed and draw our sustenance, it appears quite akin to the nature. In that case are the two namely time and nature are the one and the same?

3. Does this 'straying' mean  bodily death? Is that why we remain at home even after death at the same spot, intimately united? We may or may not assume another body and travel along the first level to eventually upgrade to level three through a 'fluid' level 2.

Siva.

     permalink

Re: Three Levels of Time

One Earth, One People, One Time.

In all of the universe it is neccesarily 'now' at the same moment.
That means the the whole universe is united by time, by the now.

The speed of time is instantly infinite. That's slightly faster then light…

As I said in another post: Time is of the mind. Space is of the body.
If we are all centered in the now, we are all connected.
In time, as time, through time.

That's where telepathy comes from.

To me it makes sense that there but one time, which is now.
All time is now. The synchronic order of T(E)=Art ** holonomically reflects in
the now the whole evolutionary energy-mind spectrum. Normalization of functions,
whether inorganic, organic, hyperorganic or post-organic, equalizes all orders into now.
From the http://prophessional.zaadz.com/blog/2006/12/dynamics_of_time_-_establishing_the_norm_0-6" target="_blank">Dynamics of Time postulate 18.13 White Cosmic Mirror.
**T(E)=Art >> time factored by energy equals Art (Aestetic Regeneration in Time)

Here's a few more on 'now'.
Dynamics of Time postulate 0.5 Yellow Overtone Sun
Synchronic order is a “vertical,” now-centered, all-inclusive fourthdimensional
order in relation to the “horizontal” order of the third-dimensional space.
Synchronic order can only be comprehended mentally or consciously as a whole system
construct.

Dynamics of Time postulate 13.1 Red Magnetic Skywalker
In the Dominion of Time, everything comes from a natural sense of opening to
the now. Superior intelligence dwells nowhere else but in the now. In the now is the
synchronic experience of the union of the third-dimensional entity and its fourthdimensional
holon double or alternative personality.

Dynamics of Time postulate 16.3 Yellow Electric Warrior
Any moment of self-reflective experience of the galactic whole, the synchronic
order, is totally conditioned by the level of self-reflective consciousness which is
perceiving. Self-reflective purity of now-centered experience conscious of T(E)=Art
precipitates increased activation of time vector potentialities.

There is no way out of the now. There is however “an amnesiac
compulsion to materially incorporate all human needs and services into functions of a
privately controlled value system called ‘money’. In this system money represents power
over time”(…). Read more on this in this article.

Lot's more where that came from!

Happy tuning!

     permalink

Re: Three Levels of Time

Hi, Siva,

I appreciated your questions.  Here are a few thoughts:

1. Does the self which stands by is the 'soul', who is the eternal witness, itself remaining unperturbed?

According to the TSK perspective, the bystander self is a product of a restrictive focal setting on space and time.  The bystander self is a kind of “construct” with which we identify, but it only pretends to stand apart from time.

Claiming to be an occupant of a particular point in space and time (here and now), the self is experienced as fundamentally different from both. When it does not take them for granted, as the unacknowledged background of its concerns, the bystander tends to exist in an oppositional relationship to them, as their owner or victim.

Discussing the temporal impact of the model that establishes the self as the owner of experience, Tarthang Tulku explains,

“For this basic structure to work, the self must adopt a specific position that puts it outside of experience. Thus, while experience is inseparable from the flow of time, and is in fact the way that the flow presents itself, the self is an `outsider' with respect to the temporal dynamic.

As an `outsider,' the self occupies the specific role of bystander, unaffected by the passing of time. The objects and forms that it identifies and defines are also `outsiders,' but in a different sense: Like rocks in a stream, they are in time, carried or carved by its flow, yet separate from the flow itself.

`Outsiders' form the self's `world,' and self and world together comprise the whole of existence [from a first-level perspective]. Past, present, and future, considered as static structures, are among the `outsiders' available to be known; time as an active dynamic medium cannot be grasped directly, and so is largely overlooked.” (pp. 24-25)

This condition of estrangement is the characteristic mark of first-level experience, although it is not often directly recognized as such, showing up instead in a sense of flatness and artificiality, a dullness of the senses, or in feelings of frustration, boredom, opposition, or intimidation. The positioning adopted by the self, while clearly beneficial in its power to order and make sense of our experience, appears also to leave us cut off from the vital roots of our being.
 
2. Since time is the essence of our being and becoming, on which we feed and draw our sustenance, it appears quite akin to the nature. In that case are the two namely time and nature are the one and the same?

According to TSK, everything in existence is time-space-knowledge – nature, world, self, mind, soul, Spirit/Brahman. 

3. Does this 'straying' mean  bodily death? Is that why we remain at home even after death at the same spot, intimately united? We may or may not assume another body and travel along the first level to eventually upgrade to level three through a 'fluid' level 2.

As I understand the TSK teachings, “straying” may refer to bodily death, but it may also be understood on a “momentary” scale as the experience of alienation and “fallenness,” of being isolated, mortal subjects suffering and bound to samsara.  Tarthang Tulku is saying that even in an infinity of “samsaric existence,” ultimately, we are intimately united with Great Time-Space-Knowledge, the pure source and ground of all Being.

Best wishes,

Balder

     permalink

Re: Three Levels of Time

Dear Balder,

Thank you very much for answering my three questions. I cannot, of course, claim that everything you said trickled in substantively. I am gradually trying to understand. The three entities of Time, Space and Knowledge, all together is very difficult to comprehend like graduating from the two dimensional to the three.

 A piercing wisdom and razor sharp intellect are perhaps the minimum that are required to attempt to get an inkling of the issues involved.

The alternative is perhaps the path of total submission or Bhakti, which frees the mind of all the trouble to work overtime to peep a glimpse at the metaphysical goings on. As  a  way out   I am tempted to  submit myself  to mother Goddess Kali and leave the rest to her by writing a kind of a general power of attorney, perpetual  and never ending.

But the thread of ego persists in time dangling a carrot of hope that perhaps the infinite is achievable through human rudimentary intellect. Time is that thread with which we attempt to weave a net. Perhaps.

Siva.

     permalink

Re: Three Levels of Time

Hi, Siva,

If you are interested, the following paper presents one scientifically-oriented approach to understanding the relationship of knowledge to the timespace continuum.  One of the scientists is a student of TSK, but the way they approach the subject does not rely exclusively on TSK.  Their general thesis is that rather than trying to understand knowledge, or knowingness, as a process which arises out of insentient activities in space and time, it may be more appropriate to take knowingness to be on par with time and space.

Since they explain the argument quite well, I won't try to summarize more here.  Here is a link to the paper:

http://www.ids.ias.edu/~piet/publ/turning/tuc2.1.html. />
Best wishes,

Balder

P.S. For some reason, the forum software is not activating the entire url, so you may need to copy and paste it in your address window.  I did just visit the website, so I do know that it is still active.

     permalink