If everything exists for an instant only, as with Sautrāntika Buddhism, then doesn't that mean everything dies at the exact same time it is born? Isn't that impossible? I am not asking for an analysis of the sutta pitaka, but to understand how anyone could hold those two positions. Did it ever come up in historical debate?

What is the connection between time and impermanence ? Are they different terms for the same thing ? I heard this from philosopher, "*Nibbana is like a timeless space*".

💚Did the Buddha teach anything about scheduling or time management? Did the Buddha ever recommend anything relating to play (as opposed to work that requires effort) as part a good practice routine? Do you know why he taught or did not teach play or time management?

In my years of meditation practice, I have both experienced time contracting (appearing to pass at great speed) or dilating and seeming to come to a near standstill. I begin my meditation practice by relaxing and following the breath. As this settles, respiration becomes very slow. During this slowing of breath, the awareness of the heartbeat becomes more prominent, and it also appears to slow down to where the heart's contraction seems to occur in slow motion. I can feel/witness the contraction and sense (or imagine I am sensing) the opening and closing of heart valves. There is no striving or effort to do this, it is occurring along with the awareness of the rest of the body. What I find unusual and have not been able to explain is that I am wearing an iWatch during this to record my mediation, and it shows that during these super relaxed periods when I am consciousness and experiencing a slowing of time and heartbeat, the iWatch is measuring an increase in heart rate! The HRV can get rather wonky and large as well. This perception of space and time becoming distorted (I meditate mostly with eyes open) seems to occur more often the more I practice. After deep retreats, the phenomena can lead to strange occurrences around feeling or seeing future and past events as converging or simultaneously occurring. This recent article https://boingboing.net/2022/08/17/is-precognition-real.html aligns with what I have experienced about these time distortions. The characteristics and phenomena that enhance precognition seem to relate to deep meditative practice. What have you experienced in your practice around time and space distortion, and has this led to any precognition experiences, as mentioned in this article? What does the Buddhist philosophy in different traditions say about time itself? Does time exist? If so, how do we experientially know this? There appears just to be a never-ending change of state. Here and now seems always to be here and now, although how spacious that here and now "feels" does change.

I have heard this sutta referenced in dhamma talks by Ajahn Thanissaro, although I don't have a specific talk to point to. I know I have also read the sutta, but I can't remember when. In the sutta, various monks state that they practice by contemplating something along the lines of "If I live so long as one year... one month... one day... one hour... one breath... the time it takes to chew one bite of food... then I can accomplish a lot in the practice." The Buddha then states that the last two monks who cast their intention across one breath or one bite of food are heedful, while the other monks are not. Does anyone know which sutta this is? Thanks!

If yes, what would happen if someone would travel back in time to prevent other person's birth?

Genjokoan says > Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression > complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call > winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring. Dogen says here that spring is not after winter, but there is still "before" and "after", which is included in spring, and spring is independent of them. etc. ---------- If not the beginning of spring, what is before spring? Not winter. ---------- And if - likewise - the end of life is discontinuous with the present, does that mean life does not end when I only exist in the present?

I read the discussion between Bhavaviveka and Buddhapalita, and there's a reference to "no cognition" (anupalabdhi) of emptiness, as liberative, though I forget which one of the two were supporting it. e.g. Garfield and Westerhoff in *Madhyamaka and Yogacara*: > The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty > of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to > cognize, no cognition arises. Or Eckel in *To See the Buddha*: And obviously the heart sutra includes (emphasis mine): > No suffering, no origination, > > no stopping, no path, *no cognition*, > > also no attainment with nothing to attain. ---------- Does anyone say that there is "no cognition" of *the present*, either at all times, or that only this "no cognition" has conventional validity? Or, can we have conventional knowledge of the present?

Supposing mahayana nirvana is permanent (and I believe it is called this) does it have substance? I'm just asking due to some completely trivial insights: it seems that a quality of my experience of time doesn't change, perhaps even arise or end. And I'm wondering what that permanent quality is, or might be.

I understand that i act **harmfully** by my words also when i struggle at **hard** **situation**. (male 37 years old)  For example today forced my mother ( elderly) to do some work which i thought it could be good for her but dont consider her disability and health problem because of her Brain stroke like some partly depression and maybe her scares about her life. I think if have some view point of the reasons of happening  this situation could be useful to suggest proper meditation for this situation. So i think is because of becoming sensitive and like to be kind, so try to give her an advice which in during the conversation my reactions change to showing that i am leader or supportive but not in controled of others!.  so at this situation finally i sence her hurted by my words and reactions. ( my brother some times before said to me your **speaking tone** is some not interesting and maybe could be changed by some meditation?!!) Also sence to have cached by my psychological system and some other limitations , and can not find other situation and have **more freedom** for choosing some others actions and sensing more **kindly**. So what kind of **meditation** do you suggest for this situation to try?   Thanks for your attention.  

Buddhists talk about discontinuity > ordinary consciousness consists of the ***discrete*** cetas and illusion > all is illusion and the external objects are nothing but the creations > of our mind 1. In Yogacara, are all moments discontinuous -- the idea that nothing is ever the same thing twice and no two times meet -- and an illusion? 2. Does that mean that durations -- even-though consisting of impermanent events -- only *seem* to arise persist decay or cease? Why? I can intuitively see a link between 1 and 2, and I am in effect asking about that. Put another way: is the flow of time we psychologically experience itself permanent?

In the doctrine of no arising does the past and future still exist, and if so do they exist in the same way as the present does? And if not, *why*? From Dogen's Genjo-koan: > Firewood becomes ash. Ash cannot turn back into firewood again. However, we should not view ash as after and firewood as before. We should know that firewood dwells in the dharma position of firewood and it has its own before and after. Although there is before and after, past and future are cut off. Ash stays at the position of ash and it has its own before and after. As firewood never becomes firewood again after it is burned and becomes ash, after person dies, there is no return to living. However, in buddha dharma, it is a never-changing tradition not to say that life becomes death. Therefore we call it no-arising. It is the laid-down way of buddha's turning the dharma wheel not to say that death becomes life. Therefore, we call it no-perishing. Life is a position at one time; death is also a position at one time. For instance, this is like winter and spring. We don't think that winter becomes spring, and we don't say that spring becomes summer. I wondered whether Dogen is saying that there is a before and after and these are the same as the past and future that are cut off -- from the present: so that anything that occurs only does so in the past or future.

Buddhists advise against "me and mine" does that include times? Do Buddhists really talk about "my" future past and present? If so, what are the nature of those times? Specifically: will "my" present always be "my" past? ---------- I'm just asking because I'm trying to work out if there's any reason to believe that, if this will be "my" past, will "I" then exist in the future. ---------- It's often said that impermanence is the Buddha self. Could that be one answer: and why believe it?

It echoes in my mind that space time is not fundamental. I thought I read this in some psychics experiments, saw it in YouTube videos and/or read it in a book related to Buddhism. But I far from recall the details. I searched for space time not being fundamental on the topic of Buddhism but I am not really finding much about it. With space time not being fundamental I mean to say that it is a construct of the mind. One can understand it is a mental construct, but still experience space time. I am asking about the Buddhist view on space time, and the implications of that view. I am asking because of the following experience I had. Recently I experienced some different perception during meditation. It was like my perception of the room I was sitting in vanished and there was no perception anymore of me having a body, sitting in a room. But I would not say I changed, I was still present. And I had my eyes closed all along. This experience of no longer having a body happened to me a couple of times during meditation now. More recent I was doing a mental exercise to get the difference more clear about experience coming from sensory perception, and experience coming from the mind. I did so by focusing on my body, and then on some memory of how something felt tactically, and then switch focus back on my body, and so forth. I was switching like this continuously. Every time that I switched I mentally called out the difference (using my inner voice, so not out loud): > Experience from sensory perception and > Experience from mental perception At some point the distinction became more clear. At that moment it was clear to me the experience of space time arises because of a mental process. At that moment I could solely focus on sensory perception, and the awareness of space time was gone. And I could go back as well to experience space time again. I then experienced having a body again, sitting in the car, on a parking lot in front of the office. And I could go back again, focusing solely on sensory perception, where there was no experience anymore of me having a body. It was like space contracted to be dimensionless and I had no awareness of my body anymore, nor the car I was sitting in. Or maybe I should say that there was nothing more but the experience of the body. The bodily awareness was different. All encompassing vs being part of something else. I am having difficulties to describe my experience. I could still think of my body and the car though, but the experience of having a body and sitting in a car stayed away. It stayed away for as long as I kept this focus on sensory perception. It was like I was withholding my mind from creating the spatial awareness or something. I'm so curious to explore this more. Also how it relates to the self-awareness and experience of space time in dreaming (so a lucid dream). And I am really curious if there is some perspective from Buddhism on this kind of experience.

I find this guy fascinating but during that time I can only think that he may have played eye-spy on the banks of the river Ganges or flicked pomegranate seeds at the bodhi tree. I'm probably way off here though with my silliness. In all seriousness, what was leisure to him?

Seems to me that memory is notoriously fallible, whatever we think about the nature of the self. I have a copy, but rather than reread it, I thought to ask, whether Dogen's wholehearted way, or right effort in general, from moment to moment, involves relying only on those memories of immediate relevance?

Is Nagarjuna is arguing that time cannot really be both infinitely divisible and extended, so is a conceptual construction? I'm asking because verse 2.23 suggested that to me, taken completely out of context, anyway. > 23. **[A going] which is other than the going by which a goer is made *evident* does not [enable a goer to] go**. Because it is impossible for > going to be twofold within a single goer. Emphasis, obviously, mine. I really like the idea that Nagarjuna was saying that time must be infinitely divisible, but time as we experience it (***evidently***) is not infinitely divisible, because if it was it would take forever to compose it. ---------- As I think it was pointed out in an answer, it is often I think said that Nagarjuna means time cannot inherently exist because it is infinitely divisible. I'm just adding that it ***can neither be infinitely divided nor not***. I would not conclude that time does not flow, but that anything that arises has already passed, radical impermanence, suggesting that extinction and so on is already present.

I've been reading books written by, or associated with Alan Wallace, that describe a period of time that is new to me - Ghatika (24 minute period). > A session of twenty-four minutes is a good starting interval; for most people, it is neither too short nor too long ... and this is the session duration that the eighth-century Indian Buddhist contemplative Kamalashila recommended for begining meditators. *(Minding Closely: The Four Applications of Mindfulness By B. Alan Wallace p.33)* Wallace goes on to claim that in the Vajrayana tradition a Ghatika is also considered an ideal meditation time because it is the time it takes for the subtle energies to do a full body circuit. Longer duration sits will of course be multiples of a Ghatika. Some poking around on the internet reveals it is a Vedic measure of time - Vedic calculations of time and creation and was measured using a Ghatika Yantra, an ancient Indian water clock . I can find no reference to meditation apart from Alan Wallace references. Can anyone else perhaps shed more light on this?

Has pure Buddhism now been lost from the present sociological environment (lost from today's world, lost from present society), until the [Maitreya Buddha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya) will be born?

Why do Buddhists argue that nirvana is nothing in addition to the skandhas? I found this, and I hope it suffices to demonstrate that's what the Buddha taught: > "What do you think : Do you regard the Tathagata as being in > form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than > feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In > fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... > Elsewhere than consciousness?" > > "No, my friend." > > "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as > form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" > > "No, my friend." > > "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without > feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without > consciousness?" > > "No, my friend." > > "And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a > truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to > declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a > monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is > annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?" The quote seems to say that the Tathagata is not without form feeling etc.. If nirvana were something in addition to the aggregates, then I'm thinking the Tathagata would be *without the aggregates*. On the grounds that nirvana is all that the Tathagata is.