Bill, First sentence is correct. But both kinds of time are NOT illusion. The time of the present moment, and the clock time that continually flows through the present moment are part of the reality of the world of forms which is a direct manifestation of Buddha Nature.
These are real, what is illusion is your incorrect mental interpretation of them. Edgar On Oct 9, 2012, at 3:23 AM, billsmart wrote: > Jim, > > There is only Now. Past is just a memory. Future is a projection. There is > only Now. > > Time is an illusion. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote: > > > > Yes, of course. We don't know what Bankei meant, and wouldn't even if the > > words were translated exactly, because words are inadequate to fully > > describe consciousness. > > > > In some of the world's traditions, there is a theory that all times exist > > simultaneously, and we just think me are moving through time. If that is > > true, then when enlightened, we would have a NOW which included all the > > past and all the future, seen all at once forever. > > > > I can't say whether or not that theory is true. I don't know whether the > > real NOW moves through time, so the past really is gone and the future > > really hasn't happened, or the real NOW forever includes all moments of > > time. > > > > If we could find out, it would affect our judgment of when we are seeing > > accurately. For example, if NOW spreads eternally, and we see a NOW which > > is only a short moment, we would know that we aren't actually seeing the > > real NOW yet. On the other hand, if the real NOW is only a short moment, > > then we would know that we either are seeing the real NOW, or we are close. > > > > But since I am unable to tell you which theory is true, I couldn't decide > > whether or not your experience is true, even if I could directly detect > > what is in your consciousness. > > > > Jim > > > > --- In [email protected], "billsmart" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > Bankei did mean something profound. He was doing his best to describe the > > > raw, unfiltered, holistic (non-dualistic) experience Zen Buddhists call > > > Buddha Nature. He did this in the context of hearing a bell. He did not > > > try to explain it. He tried to describe it. > > > > > > He used some terms that are very important. Now these terms have been > > > translated into English so we don't really know EXACTLY what he said, but > > > if the translation was close then he's using terms in a way that we don't > > > use them in everyday English. > > > >
