First, tell me where time is when "the conventional" is "turned on"...

These are not seperate quesitons, however you have changed the direction, thus we are no longer being direct, yet people complain I am not direct.

We should not entertain problems with semantics. That is time is the conventional, but we are talking time as we knwo it, not time as buddha knew better or 'duration' or eternal.

So I hope you are not pointing out 'where' is time as in time cannot be in a place. And I hope you are not contrasting my question with a deeper question intended to match mine.

I hope it was genuine that you could not understand my question and the answer without first understand where time is in the conventional.

Can we see that time disappears, when there is no thought? We cannot do this verbally or intellectually or 'theory', we have to test this for ourselves and we have opportunity to do this.

I don't know what you mean by time as we know it. Are you asking where is the past or future when there is no thought?

This is okay because we are somewhat clearing semantics and possibly also partially dealing with stuff that might not have clear words. By time as we know it I mean time, but when we see a world without 'time' it will still have a different kind of time that is not time as we know it.

But 'time' and the 'duration' that happens when time is not, are not related. It is not a different kind of time.
Yes essentially, in some peoples minds we can add the moment as well, as for them, future and past are illusory they agree, but they still keep a very very thin slice of the future or the past and call that 'the moment' or 'the now'.

We have to make sure when we say 'choiceless awareness' that we have no remnants of time future or past.

So we might see there is not time, no future, no past, only the now, this now includes, no thought, and therefore no thinker, no doctrine, no suffering.

If we can understand this, and agree on this, then I would like to enquire into whether or not one can hold this state forever, or...if we don't believe in an 'eternal thing'....then I would change the question to, can one no longer bring about the conventional state?

This seems to be the point you are making. This statement implies that "time" is appearing when "the conventional" is "turned on". So I ask again, where is time when the conventional is turned on...

Some added fodder: Where is October when there is no thought? Where is a mile, where is a kilogram, where is 7 when there is no thought?

Yes they are the same question, and we've dealt with these things, they do not exist apart from thought. They ARE thought.

Not again you ask, as in I didn't answer because I did, I told you conventional IS time.

In other words what is time V = D/T, Time is a relation to movement. With no movement there can be no time.

If you are satisfied that I acknowledged your question we can move on to the question we've been trying to get to. Can one stay in this state and never again validate the conventional state?

Buddhism is just a meditation practice. Nothing more and nothing less.
Everything else is delusion born in the mind.

Time is a frame for our experience. I took a shower, then I ate breakfast, then I went to work. I didn't do these things all at once; I perceived them to happen in a sequence. I think that's where time is in the "conventional."

The question is egoic rumination. It asks about what will happen in the future (time), it talks about never (time) and staying (movement). If, as you say, movement is related to time and time IS the conventional state where does this question originate from? What is worried about the future, about time and movement? The egoic conventional state. DUC? (let it go, if so)

You seem to be commenting as if there are two states:
A. conventional state on
B. conventional state off
...and that this whole thing is about "turning off" state (A) and living in a permanent state of (B), which is the highest state one can be in. That's not it.

It's more like this.

1. Conventional state of consciousness. This is the state common to most humans. It's about self-love, self-obsession, self-survival. It's characterized by thinking, thinking, thinking; imaginary internal conversations, stories believed and told about everything that is happening; constantly thinking about the past or the future; immediate mental reactions expressed and immediate emotional reactions expressed. In this state, I am my thoughts. It's awareness, trapped in matter, looking out at the world. It feels like a pit or a stone in the center of the forehead, between and slightly above the eyebrows.

This state is not turned on and off. Mostly, it is starved. What we attend to, we give new energy to. If we keep attending to this state, it keeps perpetuating. Cease from attending to it, cease from thinking, cease giving it more energy (which happens by latching onto every reactionary thought and emotion in this state), and the state is starved and it's power lessens.

2. Observer state of consciousness. This is mostly widely accepted as the first state beyond the conventional state. It is developed by practicing meditation or breathwork or choiceless awareness or mindfullness or other ways. It's about watching what is happening in the mind and in the body. It's about seeing reactionary thought, seeing reactionary emotion and not attaching to them, and letting them go (which is what forgiveness really is about). It's about learning, by experience, what the self is, what the ego is, it's machinations, it's plans.

There is a ton of momentum built up in the conventional state, so it will keep rolling on with reactions long after you begin dealing with it. (Even though one may know, I am not the ego, self is an illusion, if they keep living in the conventional state, they effectively are still their ego and living as a self). There is also alot of habit and conditioning. And so one fluctuates between being in the conventional state and being in the observer state. Eventually, the observer state stabilizes and that is now where awareness resides. The pit in the forehead is gone, awareness has receded back a little bit and feels more expansive.

Once the conventional state has been "transcended" and the observer state stabilizes, one eventually realizes they can transcend the observer state. Just like you are not your thoughts, you are also not the observer. There is something "behind" that. These states are just states of consciousness. They are not you.

3. Raw awareness state of consciousness. Most don't go past state (2) so we get diverse names to call this one. I'll just say raw. Here, most stored emotion has been poured out, the momentum of reactionary thought has mostly ceased. You think when needed, otherwise the mind is calm, serene, still. Here you respond more, react less. The observer has dissolved and awareness has receded back a bit further. You no longer look outwards for your sustenance; that All is within, not out there somewhere; that the good stuff isn't passing in front of the lens of awareness, but it's as if it bubbles up from "behind" awareness. This state too needbe stabilized and then awareness is centered there. And from there, we move onto other states like the Kingdom of God, Buddha nature, Divine nature, Christ, and Oneness.

Ic, so you have seen these states and experienced them, and not just read about them from doctrine right? Because I am talking about something one can test for themself.

nice posts AJ

Yes they are references and they are perceptions, without perceptions time doesn't exist, time IS thought, movement IS thought, things that move ARE thought.

What happens when we end thought, not take a shovel and beat thought down, but no longer use the mind in a way that produces a thinker and thus not thought.

more big words, so I see that rumination is suggesting I am stuck on try to rid the ego. I ruminate on this concept all day we are saying. It is not this, when newguy1234 get rids of his ego, then yes this is ER, however that is not possible of course because newguy IS the ego.

So the ego is going to be 'gone' but there will be no entity that relinquishes it.

No you missed the entire point, because its a theory to you, not something you saw for yourself. Theoretically it is these things, but when you do it for yourself these things change context.

No see, I am asking what happens to time. Which includes future past and there relationship to the present.

no we are not implying time with the word never we are implying 'not' or 'no time'. Or is that if I suggest that no universe manifests ever, that implies times?

again it is not a movement, to have movement you need a thought and a thinker.


This is a scientific fact, does anyone question this? Look at your clock or your watch or whatever, time is a measurement of movement, no movement no time.
This is a question to ask after we've explored the question for yourself. NOT intellectually explored but actually have done it.

The problem is none of you are letting go, you are taking a remnants of the ego with you, once we equire into this you will logically see this.

Again we were talking about something simple and direct. This is a very long direction change, for something we could test for ourselves.




ok I semantics gets hard here, but 'living' certainly is not the best word of choice. Because of course who lives? But we are not talking about turning off A we are talking about not turning A on. What happens when A never gets turned on.


Are you suggesting I said this or you are saying it is?

It's nice that you can just state that, but them moment you check in your mind to see if it is, you are going to have a stark revelation.

Yes I think I understand this conceptually. I have a ways to go before I experience it.

"Stabilized" is the important word. One can experience a different state, but then go straight back into being centered in the conventional state. And no, that post isn't speaking from theory or doctrine.

thank you

No I don't agree with that word, I dont' want to know what happnes when stabalize B, I want to talk about what happens when there is no longer A.

Ok then you have done all those states for yourself?

I dont see how any of the states you describe, AJ, are anything other than states, and therefore temporary, unsatisfactory, illusional, and not you.

I explicitly said they were states and not you.

Neeeel means they are not 'you' as in true nature, futhermore that they are born from the 'you' that is ego, therefore illusory. We can't enquire further if you tell me the origins of where you learned of these states. Or perhaps we can test them for ourselves to know if they are valid.

I often get told I am indirect in conversation, but we have a perfectly valid experiment to test out whether or not we can possibly never validate 'A' again, yet we change course instantly before test it.

This is ego, ego doesn't want the test to happen, because ego cannot perform the test.

Which test is this again?
Where is time when there is no thought? It's not there.
Is there more to this experiment than that?

It's so strange to be told I run around conversations when i've been clear, simple, and direct the entire time.

I've posed this question 10 times about in this thread:

Is it possible to never again validate the A state, that is the conventional one, to have no thoughts. To end thought and thus time forever. And forever does not imply time here.

What isn't temporary? Not much!

What is it that strives for permanence and concludes with a "therefore" that temporary is unsatisfactory?
What judges and categorizes things into what is unsatisfactory and what is satisfactory?
What fears being deceived by illusion? Isn't illusion "wrong" conclusions made about what is seen? What is the origin of those conclusions?

The conventional egoic self-state.

Why are you setting such store in a state? Thats all it is, nothing special. You are just assigning special meaning to it.