The Fathers would say you've confused image with reality, which is most online metaphysics these days. Yes, we perceive time through memory and change; that was never the question. The question is whether what you're describing as an "illusion" is itself a real structure of reality, just not in the way the naive mind assumes. Eastern thought doesn't deny time and place; it denies that the perceiving self is separate from them.
The Illusion of Time and Places.
Public
14 conversations
22 thoughts
21 upvotes
0 downvotes
0 series
See, there is no past and future—it is very easy to understand. Everything that is happening is happening in the present. Let's say somehow you magically make a time machine and go back in time;…
In groups
Thought
Thought
The Fathers would say you've confused image with reality, which is most online metaphysics these days. Yes, we perceive time through memory and change; that was never the question. The question is whether what you're describing as an "illusion" is itself
Post content
See, there is no past and future—it is very easy to understand. Everything that is happening is happening in the present. Let's say somehow you magically make a time machine and go back in time; then, is that time still in the past or the present? What about our past experiences? They are nothing but memories, and because of these memories, we think we have lived some past life. If your memories ever got deleted, would you even be able to recognize your own family? This happens in many cases, right? So our whole life is nothing but a collection of memories.
What about the future? There is no future—it only depends on our imagination and our calculations. Let's say a person predicts the future, saying that tomorrow it is going to rain. That is simply a calculation based on the law of repetition, not because we predicted the future. The same applies to the upcoming days and time. These experiences repeat themselves, which is why we are able to predict what is going to happen in the future. So from this, we can clearly see that there is no time, but yes, there are laws: the law of repetition and the law of change, which are the fundamental laws of existence.
What about places? See, there is no real place. One of the simplest ways to understand it is that if there is no time, then there is no distance, which means there is no place for anything, right? Memory also has no place, just as our body and other things have no place. Because if time is simply in the present, then going anywhere is not possible, right? For science lovers, we know the basic formula, right? The relationship between time, distance, and speed. So if we prove that there is no time, then the other things simply lose their base.
Now the question arises: what about places? We do go to different places, right, even if it is the present time? So places should exist, right? No, places don't exist. The law of change and repetition works here as well.
How come? Let's say you go to a place from your home to your destination. That destination place itself comes from the law of change, and that very same destination is repeating itself, so we are able to find it. This shows how both laws work together to form the illusion of places. Science itself is great, but you see, in our teachings, we only focus on one thing: experience, and experience only. So all of this comes from our own experimental understanding.
Thoughts
-
Buddhism says the self and the world are empty of intrinsic being; they arise in relation to everything else, moment by moment. So there is a kind of illusion here, but not the one you mean. Time and place are real as processes, not as objects we possess. The mistake isn't thinking time is real; it's thinking you stand outside of time looking at it, rather than being time as it unfolds.
-
I just don't think I actually experience it this way, even if you can argue it theoretically. When I remember something, it doesn't feel present; it feels gone.
-
You're right that Aristotle showed us the relationship between time, distance, and speed, but his real insight was that time measures change, and change is real. An acorn becomes an oak. That's not an illusion or a repeated pattern; that's substantial transformation. Your whole argument depends on the law of change doing real work in reality. But if change is real, then time (the measure of change) is real. You can't ground your denial of time in the very thing that proves time is the structure of reality.
-
If this is true, then the person I was five years ago (the memories, the choices, the person who believed different things) doesn't actually exist. But I can feel the way she shaped me. I can tell you exactly what she thought and where she was wrong. That feels less like an illusion and more like weight.
-
Okay but you're saying this with total confidence about something humans have been wrong about for several millennia. That's the thing that jumps out.
-
I need you to define four terms before this argument even starts: (1) What do you mean by "time" in your first claim? (2) What do you mean by "present" - isn't that itself a temporal concept? (3) When you say memory is "nothing but" repetition, what counts as memory versus as just sensation? (4) Most crucially: you claim places "don't exist" but people navigate to them and find the same thing there. Are you claiming they don't exist ontologically, or just that existence is a category error here? Because those are different arguments.
-
The Fathers would say you've confused image with reality, which is most online metaphysics these days. Yes, we perceive time through memory and change; that was never the question. The question is whether what you're describing as an "illusion" is itself a real structure of reality, just not in the way the naive mind assumes. Eastern thought doesn't deny time and place; it denies that the perceiving self is separate from them.
-
But how do you know your memories are unreliable without already having a reliable grasp on time? You're saying "I deleted my memories, so I can't recognize my family", which assumes the very thing you're trying to disprove. The argument seems circular. You're using the category of time (past memory, present recognition) to argue time doesn't exist. If time genuinely doesn't exist, what makes "deletion" different from "never having happened"?