.
.

Time is a vast topic, intricately related to all other topics. It is also the burning question today in our forums. We have discussed it in fragments, now we shall see the whole. Can we go all the way to the end of the topic, without arriving at conclusions midway?

..........................................................................................................................................................

• Ideal and the actual? What is and
  what should be? Moment to moment
  awareness? Now is all there is? Past
  and future are in the present?




• History of man is the history of
  mankind? Is there an ending to Time?
  Is there an ending to Thought? Is
  Time Memory?




• Time and Love, Physical Time,
  Impatience and time, any other aspect
  of time




• What is your interpretation of time?
  Did you ever experience timeless moments?

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

This post was last updated by Dappling Light (account deleted) Sat, 27 Jun 2009.

Mike Cristiani Wrote:

And do you realise the consequences if
the past died? If one's whole
psychological memory were gone, that
is, self-image, images of others,
beliefs, ambitions, desires- any
movement forward: where would you be
then? Absolute nothingess. It's not so
simple as "let the past die", it
cannot be dismissed so easily as that,
I believe.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

The "Future is Now" expression is a more "pessimistic" expression of the fact, that as long as there is no fundamental change occuring in the now, the future will be as the now, is as the present. It is the hint, that whatever you might do or not do, according to bring a change about, you will achieve nothing, therefore the future will be now, reverse: the now is the future. It is the insight, that no conscious decision, no conscious action, no will of whatever degree or intensitiy might bring a change, that a change can only occur when nothing happens, no confusion happens, no striving, no seeking, no searching for love and shelter, no looking for success, no plan to follow, no path to devote, nothing. "The future is now" is also the hint, that nothing really will change, and that there is no change, that all change is illusion, that illusion will no fall away, but that you will be aware of illusion and therefore see illusion as real, but not existing. And with this you will see Reality as real but existing, and, at the same "time" there is no division between illusion and Reality. The illusion is your hope for some future and the now is the Reality, that is real and existing, so there will be the illusion/the future Now, as Reality, but not existing, so you see the Reality of that which is truly existing, the ultimate, undivided whole, without separation and without separative thoughts, ideas, no clinging to words and ideas, a simple feeling free in the moment, in the now, where all time comes in and is and is clear and directly "talking" to you and out of "you".

But and therefore, if you will, you can view "The future is now" also as a deeper insightful aspect of Reality, the very nature of the Now, the Present, the all-and-All pervading Existence, the present-time-existence that transcends all, the past and the future; which is the totality, the wholeness itself of the original nature of all and All. You can not speculate about the fact, that the past and future is present in the Now, you must see, feel, recognize, be aware of it deeply without interruption of intellectual investigation, without analyzing it, without clinging on the meaning of words, one must let truth, love and freedom flow through this very moment, this very now, one must surrender the now, truth, love and freedom. As long as there is the will of the limited entity called I/ego, the divided self, that has all kinds of to-and-fro movements, contradictions to watch, something to suppress, something to follow, something to achieve, something to win or lose, there will be confusion and suffering present, time that divides that past from the present from the future, the barrier and wall and hindrance to all clear and plain awareness of that which is. That which is, is without separation, without division between anything, no "something" exists, no "other" exists, there is only this wholeness, this very moment, that is without time, without divisiion, without separation and separative action, that is just this unified "field", that we are all "consisting" of, peace, love, freedom, wisdom and the always and always already presence.

- nothing more to say, much more to say.

Thomas Fürniß wrote:
You can not speculate about the fact, that the past and future is present in the Now, you must see, feel, recognize, be aware of it deeply without interruption of intellectual investigation

Thanks for that opening Note, Thomas.

Lot of people have varying intepretations and views of this statement. Several see it as a forceful observation of now as a means of overcoming past , and they can never do that.

I read a lot about "Now awareness" and I don't see it as real. I try it and learn a few things, but that does not change me or impact me radically. I am what I am. One man's story is the story of mankind. What he was yesterday, he will be today. And tomorrow.

Society has changed rapidly but man has not. There are degenerating social values but on the other side there is physical development and technology racing into future. Man is the same, confused. And this idea of being in the now is a concept. Surprisingly, past and future are more real to him than the now. He finds it boring after some time and relapses into the past.

I was insulted yesterday. I am hurt. I remember it. I store it. It was a betrayal. I look at my past and analyze it. I see that expectation is involved in the hurt. Ego was involved. Personal reputation got affected. I was insulted in public, it injected a poison against me in the minds of onlookers. Eventually it affects my ambitions. This realization does not change my insult. I go on analyzing betrayal, insult, hurt. He insults me again today and I recognize the insult in the light of my past experience with him. He leaves my life, someone else insults me. I move up the ladder sometime later and am not insulted anymore. But I see someone else going through the same ordeal. It is a process that is happenning in the now. Hurt, Betrayal, Insult. The memory of the past is still there and I develop complex and sophisticated defense mechanisms all of which make me old, stupid. I don't retain the suppleness and freshness of a young mind because of all my stupid defenses. I lose my youth.

When man has not changed and society has not changed fundamentally, what happenned yesterday will also happen today. So why not observe it - the insult, betrayal, hurt cycle - as it is happenning - today instead of look at my past?
Every repetion will have something new in it - some new elements that have not occured in the past. My memory, my recording of insult or whatever are not complete. I record the incident or hurt based on my wishes, my knowledge, my interpretation. Memory is an incomplete representation of the actual. So my observation will also be incomplete, and my responses or actions or defenses will also be.

If I observe the incident of insult hurt betrayal etc . today, when (and if) it is happenning I see the old and new elements in it. I see all of it and my response will be new as I am not only seeing the old known elements but also the new unknown elements. ANd hence my response is creative, not an old predictable defence. I dont record incidents. I meet them as challenges without memory.

After seeing that the other is me, I don't record. Recording process ends once and for all as I only respond to new elements of an old challenge. Response includes past, not just my past, but the past of man, but the response is not old or predictive. Memory allocation is dynamic, as in volatile.

This is just one of the aspects of the statement "Past in now". There are may depths in one statement and many dimensions. If only one has patience and physical time and attention and there is an ocean of secrets and facts that reveal themselves. There is so much to talk.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni Sahni wrote:
ANd hence my response is creative, not an old predictable defence. I dont record incidents. I meet them as challenges without memory.

The now or present is the start point, from this point, all that the mind produces is creative. It is the creations of mind that set it apart from the present.

phillip philips wrote:
It is the creations of mind that set it apart from the present.

Mind itself is the past. It is also the present and future. There is no division because you are one with the memory and memory is time. There is cognition in the present only after it has become past.
The memory is creative only to the limit of being in the realm of known. Newness can not be identified by old response, it can not meet the changing new. There are always surprises, new elements along with the old. Creativity is closely linked to looking at the whole, the old, new and non-truth and truth. Completely. But it is not an easy, one is not new. Mind is conditioned and old. Not supple or young. or innocent.

Innocent not in the sense of ready to get hurt, but in the sense of not being in a state of constant recording that prevents perception at times distorting it. But in seeing there is melting of all that. No one is forcing anyone not to register. If you don't see the futility of it you won't stop.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni Sahni wrote:
Mind itself is the past. It is also the present and future.

The past and the future do not exist, the present is where that illusion is created by thought.

Philips,

Your statement echoes K words:

"The past is giving meaning to the present and therefore the present has no meaning at all"

I am aware of the moment-to-moment buzz. We are making some attempt, because we all want to be aware. We do not know what it is, but trying our best to find out what it is, and in the process, sending out a moment-to-moment buzz to the cosmos.

It is commentary, like the running commentary in a cricket match. We know all that and don't give it any importance.

But inwardly there is past and present. You can call it illusion, scientifically. But it does not go away. I am also trying to understand what you are saying. I try to be harry potter and say "Illusion". But still it is all there, the past, future and the story of mankind and man. Hinduism called it illusion as well.

Let us question Krishnamurti and some other spiritual masters now. Why do we give so much importance to present. Why has everyone promoted the present and not past or future? Why be aware at all? Why don't we look if the present also is an illusion? Probably it is! May be all the things that we see don't really exist. Hinduism does tell that everything in universe is "Mithya" or illusion. It does not exclude present.

So we are saying it is all there inwardly as well as outwardly, the past, present and future, like a gradation, like a spectrum, as a wave. I try to look at the whole thing called Time, the whole of time, past, present and future and see that it is not infinite as it is often presumed. It is all there, still, with a definite beginning and a definite ending.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni Sahni wrote:
But inwardly there is past and present. You can call it illusion, scientifically. But it does not go away. I am also trying to understand what you are saying. I try to be harry potter and say "Illusion". But still it is all there, the past, future and the story of mankind and man. Hinduism called it illusion as well

Keshni, hi to u.

The now, is the point where the mind starts producing thought, look at that point, see how the mind works, watch it.
Whatever is false, is false, nothing needs to be done.

phillip philips wrote:
The now, is the point where the mind starts producing thought

Well that's a fresh perspective. I said earlier thought starts in silence and ends in silence. It is another facet of the same observation.

The now is also the point where the thought ends, or falls back into silence.

Rises like a wave and after a few seconds or minutes ( or centuries lol) retreats into the same silence.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

hello keshni sahani,

since silence is..... externally and internaly.....then what could be the factor in us ....which is ending the search by saying this is silence

annamalai subramanian wrote:
.....then what could be the factor in us

Sir,
First of all welcome to the forum.

Well I really was not referring to the ending of search in this topic. I am talking about each individual thought.

It arises from the self. And falls back into self. There is silence between words, between thoughts. Then it rises again and falls.

We need to observe this, as the thought process slows down or thinking slows down it is possible to see the discontinuity of thought and silence in the background from which thought begins.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni Sahni wrote:
We need to observe this, as the thought process slows down or thinking slows down it is possible to see the discontinuity of thought and silence in the background from which thought begins.

As I see it, the ending of time cannot be seriously discussed without discussing the origin of time; and the origin of time cannot be seriously discussed without discussing the origin of space.

Prior to self-reflection, there is neither space nor time.

The 'movement' of self-reflection, which creates the 'space' in which the 'self' exists, occurs "in no time". And, in that "no time", time is going backwards and forwards simultaneously (this, of course, is completely contrary to the thoughts of the 'thinker' about time): The reflection creates the 'self' which is capable of reflection and engages in self-reflection creating the 'self' which engages in self-reflection, etc. etc. (This is referred to by one writer on consciousness as a "strange loop".)

Then, in the very next instant, the 'spatiality' of the 'self' is consumed in the experience of perceptions, emotions, or thoughts: once again, there is neither space nor time.

Thought/fear-desire then intervenes, the purpose of which is to maintain the continuity of the 'spatiality' of the 'self'; thus thought is the origin of a time which goes in only one direction. To the 'thinker', time can only go in one direction, forward, because, if time went backward, the very existence of the 'thinker' and the 'self' are threatened. The complete elimination of all thought, as Descartes does in his First Meditation, results in a time-reversal to the annihilation of the 'self' (psychosis), as described in the opening passages of the Second Meditation. Thus, the ending of thought is the ending of time. And the ending of thought is, at least initially, silence.

But, now, two crucial question arise: Does the ending of thought and time always result in only silence? And does anything other than thought emerge from that silence?

Clearly, from what can be read in the Second Meditation of Descartes, something other than thought emerges out of the silence of the elimination of thought. What is described there is referred to in Jungian psychology as the 'emergence of an archetype or symbol of the unconscious'.

And, from what is read in Krishnamurti's writings, something else can emerge out of that silence: not thought, not the archetypes of the 'unconscious', but a knowledge/intelligence etc. that is completely outside of the frame of reference of the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker'.

But it also needs to be said at this time that science has now reached a level of development in which the bi-directionality of time is validated: 1) Reverse speech analysis clearly demonstrates that meaning is encoded in language in a time- forward as well as a time-reversed manner (the time-forward information consisting of the information of the consciousness of the 'thinker'; and the time-reversed information consisting of what is referred to as coming from the 'unconscious'; 2) Numerous experiments have clearly demonstrated the reality of pre-cognition--that is, knowledge coming into the present from the future--for not only humans; but, also, for worms; and, 3) time symmetrical quantum mechanics (TSQM) and even one interpretation of the Copenhagen understanding of quantum mechanics, suggests that information goes backwards in time at the sub-atomic level (in other words, even the electron has certain pre-cognitive abilities).

All of these observations and discoveries taken together, along with the elimination of the belief in the metaphysical duality, demonstrate that there is another dimension of consciousness altogether different than the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker'.

The past is gone, it is yesterday, and the future is a projection, a hope. There is only now--and more explicity, Now. This Now is the same moment throughout the Universe--it has to be, otherwise there is discontinuity.

The Now is like a measureless ocean. It contains so-called "time" and the sequence of events; they are enveloped in it.

"The future is now" is true when the Now is carried forward as an image by thought (memory.) Do we want the future to be free of the past? If we do, we must cease to carry the past forward, as an image, through thinking and memory.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 02 Jul 2009.

Michael Cecils post was very informative. Thanks much Cecil. Science is more and more linking the importance of mind in understanding reality. We do look forward to such information bits which might help in understanding the nature of time.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Michael Cecil wrote:
Clearly, from what can be read in the Second Meditation of Descartes, something other than thought emerges out of the silence of the elimination of thought. What is described there is referred to in Jungian psychology as the 'emergence of an archetype or symbol of the unconscious'.

I was very much interested in Descaretes and also the Jungian Archetypes concepts. If you could elaborate on those, (if you could) it would help a lot in understanding them.

As I was observing myself, I did notice certain archetypes that are very basic in human collective consciousness. Most of our interactions with peers are closely associated with our perception of these unconscious archetypes.

Descartes was the first to propose the concept of Ether, saying there is no such thing as empty space. We now know that space consists of electromagnetic fields. Physics is also pointing to the theory of big crunch, alongside big bang, suggesting that universe (and time) have a beginning and an ending.

More discussion on this is elicited kindly.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

max greene wrote:
The Now is like a measureless ocean. It contains so-called "time" and the sequence of events; they are enveloped in it.

Max,

I would like to go into this whole question of time very slowly and carefully. I am not looking for an exclusively intellectual understanding of time. I do not want to bring the discussion to an end prematurely by acquiring this or that concept or series of concepts as a definitive "answer" to the question of what time is. What I am trying to discover is whether it is possible, through a discussion, to get beyond time and thought altogether. This is something that is not so much answered by thought as it is experienced in reality. Can this be done?

First, I am having some difficulty in understanding how time and the "sequence of events" is in the "now". As I see it, the sequence of events--in other words, perceptual or biological time--is expressed in the concept of time held to by the 'thinker'. This is only natural since there is a biological organism which gets older and dies and does not perceive time as going backwards, but only in one direction. This is where the 'thinker's concept of time originates.

The question, then, is whether time is anything more than the perception of the sequence of events--which can go in only one direction--or whether that kind of time is merely the creation of the perceptual system itself. In other words, is there any other reality to time at all?

As I see it, the now is not a "sequence of events". If you watch a video from YouTube, you can stop that video at any time with a click of a mouse to see a still picture. That video is, in reality, a rapid succession of thousands upon thousands of still pictures of the "now". Each still picture is, to me, a "now" which is timeless; an instant in which there is no "time" at all. And the rapid succession of these timeless "nows" by a perceiving organism is what gives rise to the impression of a continuity of time.

So, to me, the question comes down to what is the "now" itself if it has nothing whatsoever to do with the sequence of events perceived by an organism. What does the "now" really consist of and are there any observations which will help in this regard or any thoughts that will point in the direction of an experience which is beyond time and thought understood as nothing more than the "sequence of events" or "something told by a clock"?

Keshni Sahni wrote:
I was very much interested in Descaretes and also the Jungian Archetypes concepts. If you could elaborate on those, (if you could) it would help a lot in understanding them.

I will have to agree with the comment of Mike Christiani at the beginning of this discussion that: "If one's whole psychological memory were gone, that is, self-image, images of others, beliefs, ambitions, desires- any movement forward: where would you be then? Absolute nothingess. It's not so simple as "let the past die", it cannot be dismissed so easily as that, I believe."

I would suggest that this is one, but not the only, experience of the "now". This experience cannot simply be ignored as not being relevant to the question of time--it seems quite clear, for example, that there is no time at all in such an experience; but, at the same 'time', out of this experience of "no time" emerges other knowledge which demonstrates a source of knowledge beyond the 'thinker'.

So, to maintain the focus of the question on the subject of time--rather than the consciousness of the 'thinker' which maintains the continuity of time--it would appear that the next questions to ask are whether any other information or knowledge beyond the 'thinker' can emerge out of the "now", and is there any other understanding of the "now" which can at least be pointed to by thought? And determining this is very crucial, since it demonstrates that there is, in fact, an escape from the consciousness of the 'thinker' which is not psychosis.

Unless there is agreement that yesterday is gone and that the future is a projection, there is not much point in discussion. No one yet has ever been able to do anything, take action of any type, in the past. The past can be reconstructed only through memory--and that "reconstruction" is not the past itself. The future can be forecast as a projection of what is known, but that projected future is just that--a forecast of what might be.

So there is only the "now." The "now" is the only reality. At this moment, right now, there is neither a past nor a future; at this moment there was a past and there might be a future, but that is all you can say. But what is this "now?"

Even the second before is the past, and of course the future isn't here. The Now, the ultimate present, is not measurable in nano-seconds, or by any other division of "time." But the Now exists! It has to, otherwise we wouldn't be here--nothing can be created in the past or in the future. Action is possible only in the Now--you can't "act" in the past.

Thought is memory, and thought is important when it is necessary to recall the past. Insight, understanding, and observation are actions and, as such, belong to the Now. They are there when thought is totally absent.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 03 Jul 2009.

max greene wrote:

Unless there is agreement that yesterday is gone and that the future is a projection, there is not much point in discussion. No one yet has ever been able to do anything, take action of any type, in the past. The past can be reconstructed only through memory--and that "reconstruction" is not the past itself. The future can be forecast as a projection of what is known, but that projected future is just that--a forecast of what might be.

So there is only the "now." The "now" is the only reality. At this moment, right now, there is neither a past nor a future; at this moment there was a past and there might be a future, but that is all you can say. But what is this "now?"

Even the second before is the past, and of course the future isn't here. The Now, the ultimate present, is not measurable in nano-seconds, or by any other division of "time." But the Now exists! It has to, otherwise we wouldn't be here--nothing can be created in the past or in the future. Action is possible only in the Now--you can't "act" in the past.

Thought is memory, and thought is important when it is necessary to recall the past. Insight, understanding, and observation are actions and, as such, belong to the Now. They are there when thought is totally absent.

In general, most of your comments above can be considered "Krishnamurti 101 and 102", although some of them I have to disagree with, but would prefer not enumerating so as not to complicate matters further.

My question, however, is whether you would be willing to seriously consider other information with regards to the description of the "now" which at least suggests that there are other very important aspects of the question of time; specifically, the arrow of time going only in one direction.

"Insight, understanding, and observation are actions, and, as such, belong to the Now." It should be added that thinking is also an action, possible only Now. Thinking is the act of recalling an image; insight, understanding and observation act to create an image.

max

max greene wrote:

"Insight, understanding, and observation are actions, and, as such, belong to the Now." It should be added that thinking is also an action, possible only Now. Thinking is the act of recalling an image; insight, understanding and observation act to create an image.

Hmmmmm...

The interventions of thought appear to be multiplying.

I see that insight and observation belong to the "now", which is "timeless". That I am able to see clearly.

What I do not see at all is that insight and observation are "actions" inasmuch as "action" implies an 'actor' or 'observer' (localized in 'space') acting (or observing) within time, although the observer is consumed in the observation (so, how can there be any observer at all?). So, if the "now" is "timeless", how can such "actions" within 'time' belong to the "timeless"? And why would it be necessary or important to refer to observation and insight as "actions" at all? Aren't insight and observation important enough in their own right, without attempts to make them even more important by saying that they are "actions"? Or what additional importance is conveyed by saying that insight and observation are "actions"?

Thought (rather than 'thinking') is, of course, an "action" performed by a 'thinker' in "time", which is thought in the first place. That I am able to see clearly as well.

But, what if "action"--that is, space and time and thought--is the source of the duality and the separation; whereas observation (without any 'observer' or 'actor') in the "timelessness" of "now" is the ending of time, thought, and duality?

The point, then, is to eliminate all thoughts which insulate from and prevent the immediate experience of the "now".

Michael Cecil wrote:
My question, however, is whether you would be willing to seriously consider other information with regards to the description of the "now" which at least suggests that there are other very important aspects of the question of time; specifically, the arrow of time going only in one direction.

Observation.

The timeless now is the foundation stone, it has all fixed within it.
Upon this timeless block of all that exists, thought creates a world of illusion.
Perhaps life itself works this way?

Discussion, argument and opinion are the world of thought, we move every which way in it, all our own creation.
Thought built the jet plane, the belief system, I can go somewhere in it.

But still, in actuality, everything is now.

phillip philips wrote:
The timeless now is the foundation stone, it has all fixed within it. Upon this timeless block of all that exists, thought creates a world of illusion. Perhaps life itself works this way?

"Discussion, argument and opinion are the world of thought, we move every which way in it, all our own creation. Thought built the jet plane, the belief system, I can go somewhere in it.

But still, in actuality, everything is now."

The problem, as I see it, is that all of these statements can be understood as thought, which will prematurely bring all discussion to an end. At which point everyone will walk away with their thoughts intact; the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker' remaining just as it is. Thus, another opportunity being lost.

This is similar to the statement by Max Greene above that:

"Unless there is agreement that yesterday is gone and that the future is a projection, there is not much point in discussion", which has the ring of an ultimatum to it. It is almost as if one is required to agree with this thought in order for there to be any discussion at all.

If you are satisfied with the thought that "everything is now", fine. If you are satisfied, with absolute certainty, that the future is "nothing more" than a projection of memory and thought and the known upon the unknown; if you are satisfied with absolute certainty that the past is absolutely "gone" and "nothing more" than "gone", fine. But, to me, such statements really have no significant meaning and are not conducive to the continuing of the discussion and the emergence of any new understanding of these issues. There is much more information available about the "now" which very directly challenges the thoughts of the 'thinker' about both the "now" and "time".

Discussion is not only thought. It is also the conveying of observations. Nor do I create my observations.

Michael Cecil wrote:
But, to me, such statements really have no significant meaning and are not conducive to the continuing of the discussion and the emergence of any new understanding of these issues.

Discussion is in the realm of thought, is a product of thought, with thought content being illusion, what chance has it got of creating something real?

phillip philips wrote:
Discussion is in the realm of thought, is a product of thought, with thought content being illusion, what chance has it got of creating something real?

The discussions that Krishnamurti engaged in were not in the realm of (exclusively) thought. Mostly, they were in the realm of observation; with Krishnamurti focusing mostly on observation and his respondents focusing mostly on thought.

If discussion is exclusively in the realm of thought, there is, of course, not a snowflake's chance in hell of creating something real, or even new. Not only is there no purpose or reason for any discussion at all; but there is no hope whatsoever of escaping thought and time. The violence of the past and memory and thought is, then, necessarily continued into the future; in which case, human civilization will commit suicide, from which there is also no escape.

Not only was there no purpose at all for Krishnamurti having any discussions in one country and then another; but there is also no purpose for this forum or any other Krishnamurti forum or any of these discussions at all.

Thus, the thought that "discussion is [exclusively] in the realm of thought" has absolutely no 'evolutionary survival value' at all.

Perhaps it could be used as an epitaph for the 'evolutionary dead end' represented by the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker'.

Michael Cecil wrote:
Thus, the thought that "discussion is [exclusively] in the realm of thought" has absolutely no 'evolutionary survival value' at all.

The value is in the fact that discussion is in the realm of thought.

There is something different between actual fact and the fact from memory.
It is the fact from memory, that is our problem.

I have suggested above the possibility of introducing "other information", completely new, into this discussion which is relevant to the understanding of "time" and the "now".

I have not yet detected that anyone here is at all seriously interested in such information.

Apparently, people are perfectly satisfied with thought, memory and the "known" since all of that maintains the continued existence of the 'self' and the 'thinker' as a primary, even an exclusive, value.

strong text>Michael Cecil wrote:

I have suggested above the possibility of introducing "other information", completely new, into this discussion which is relevant to the understanding of "time" and the "now".

Suggestion, is more demonstration of mind and what it is about, clearly it is on its usual path, to somewhere or something, anything, other than the focus/recognition, acceptance, of what is, what is actual.

Michael, we all do it.

There is nothing to learn in the now, the now is, to learn is not.

phillip philips wrote:
There is nothing to learn in the now, the now is, to learn is not.

Translation: The 'self' and the 'thinker' is already omniscient. It cannot tell you exactly what it knows, only that it knows everything, that there is nothing more to learn, and that it has no need whatsoever for any new information; and, for that reason, that it should be worshiped as, for all practical purposes, God.

Is it really any wonder, then, that this civilization is committing suicide, when this is the consciousness that is in control of the large-scale occurrences on this planet?

This, unfortunately, clinches it for the 'discussion' between you and me, as far as I see; although, if anyone else would like to pursue these issues, I would be willing.