Then what is time?” St. Augustine asked himself in his Confessions. “I know what it is if no one asks; but if anyone does, then I cannot explain it.”
Augustine saw the present as a vanishing knife edge between the past, which exists no longer, and the future, which doesn’t yet. All that exists is the present; but if the present is always present and never becomes the past, it’s not time, but eternity. Augustine’s view is what the metaphysicians call “presentism,” which holds that a comprehensive description of what exists (an ontology) can and should include only what exists right now. But among the things that do exist now are surely such things as the memory of former present moments and what existed in them, and the archives and old calendars that denote or describe them. Like the dropped mitten in the Ukrainian tale that is able to accommodate animals of all sizes seeking refuge in it from the cold, the ever-vanishing present is weirdly capacious—“There’s always room for one more!”
Time is continuous, but calendars are repetitive. They end by beginning again, adding units to ongoing time just by turning in place, like a stationary bicycle. Most calendars these days are largely empty, a frame for our personal events and commitments to be entered in; but historically calendars have existed in order to control time’s passage with recurring feasts, memorials, sacred duties, public duties, and sacred duties done publicly—what the church I grew up in calls holy days of obligation. Such a calendar can model in miniature the whole of time, its first day commemorating the first day of Creation, its red-letter days the great moments of world time coming up in the same order they occurred in history, the last date the last day, when all of time begins again. The recent fascination with the Mayan “long count” calendar reflects this: the world cycle was to end when the calendar did.
It’s possible to live in more than one time, more than one history of the world, without feeling a pressing need to reconcile them. Many people live in a sacred time—what the religious historian Mircea Eliade called “a primordial mythical time made present”—and a secular time, “secular” from the Latin saeculum, an age or a generation. Sacred time, “indefinitely recoverable, indefinitely repeatable,” according to Eliade, “neither changes nor is exhausted.” In secular time, on the other hand, each year, month, second, is a unique and unrepeatable unit that disappears even as it appears in the infinitesimal present.
To live at once in a time recoverable by a particular sacred calendar and also by a time without qualities, counted as it passes, involves a sort of mental doubling that is perhaps comparable, in the richness it grants to thought and feeling, to growing up bilingual: two systems, each complete, funny when they collide, each supplying something the other lacks, bearing no command to choose between them. Like a hamster in a Run-About Ball, we can explore an endlessly generated world freely by turning inside the vehicle of our closed and demarcated calendars.
Toward the middle of the thirteenth century, a Dominican friar in Genoa, Jacobus de Voragine, set out to chronicle all that he knew about the history of the world, and to express that knowledge through the sacred events of the Christian year and the exemplary stories of the saints whose feast days filled it. There were many collections of saints’ lives and works extant in his day, called “legendaries”; Jacobus de Voragine’s very long work had larger ambitions than most. His Readings on the Saints became the medieval equivalent of a bestseller, its popularity reflected in the nickname bestowed upon it by fans and printers, The Golden Legend.
In the first sentence of his book, Jacobus divides history, “the whole time span of this present life,” into four periods. Beginning with Adam’s fall out of timeless Eden into temporality and extending up to Moses, who called mankind back to God, is the period of Deviation. The succeeding period of Renewal reaches from Moses to the birth of Jesus, the center point of history for Jacobus. That event begins the era of Reconciliation (“God and sinners reconciled” as the herald angels sing), which culminates in Jesus’ resurrection from the tomb. The last period Jacobus calls the Pilgrimage, which starts with Jesus’ departure from earth back to heaven and continues to the end of the world.
In a new study of Jacobus’ work, In Search of Sacred Time, the great medievalist Jacques Le Goff, who died in April of this year, calls The Golden Legend a “summa on time.” Jacobus, says Le Goff, intended to integrate three sorts of understandings of how time moves in order to “structure and sacralize the time of human life in such a way as will lead humanity to salvation.” The first of these time frames is the sanctorale, the history of the saints and prophets as they appear one after another through historical time. Next is the temporale, the calendar of the church and its annual feasts, offices, and celebrations, which is cyclical and begins again where it ends. Third is the eschatological time of our progress toward Judgment Day, when time stops and eternity begins. Jacobus sets a sort of temporal algorithm, three modes of time working through four periods of history yielding a yearly calendar of feasts, celebrations, and saints’ days which in turn sanctifies the life of Christians in time.
Calendars of the thirteenth century didn’t have uniform start/end dates for the year—there were a few choices—and Jacobus begins his summa not with the first day of the Roman year but with a study of the four weeks of Advent that lead up to the key event of the Nativity. Among the saints whose story Jacobus includes here is Nicholas (December 6), famed for resurrecting dismembered or drowned children, which recalls the death and resurrection of Jesus long before in history and also foreshadows their reenactment at Eastertide. The effect aimed at was to give memory the power of event, to cause a part of the past to occur in the present.
It wasn’t only the sacred calendar that could be made to govern temporality. The four seasons themselves and even the parts of the day are subjected to arithmetical sanctification in The Golden Legend. The Mass, said at least once every day of the year, could also be interpreted as world-shaped and -sanctifying. When I was an acolyte, the Mass began, as it had for centuries, in the uncertainty and doubt of deviation: Quare me repulisti, I’d ask God, age twelve, kneeling at the altar in my cassock, et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me inimicus? Why do you reject me, and why must I go on in sorrow, while my enemy afflicts me? Renewal and reconciliation are figured in the miraculous changing of bread and wine into the body of Jesus Christ, the center point of the Mass, as the birth of Jesus in a living body is the center of human time. And at the end, the Pilgrimage must continue—Ite, missa est. In those days I could have served at Mass in any Roman Catholic church in the world: it was everywhere the same.
The sacraments that, one by one, I partook of as I grew also had each a temporal aspect. Baptism began life anew after the mess and pain of birth and original sin; first communion began a cycle of subsequent communions, but confirmation occurred just once, marking (like the bar mitzvah) the leaving of childhood and the beginning of adult life. On ahead lay marriage and the anointing of the sick, or extreme unction, as it was alternatively named, pronounced by youth in my part of the Catholic world as “X-tree Munction” and as mysterious as it sounded. If the Christian sacraments are, as critic Terry Eagleton has lately written, “signs which accomplish what they signify,” then for me what they accomplished was the inscription of sacred time in my soul.
But even as my family and I lived by the temporale of the Catholic calendar, we measured time by an unsacred sanctorale, one just as rich with incident as Jacobus’ but that reached far further back and extended forward without limit. One that accounted for my existence but asked nothing of me; one whose truth to time was established by instances of refutation as much as by confirmation.
In November 1953, when I was eleven, Time magazine reported on the exposure of a long-ago scientific hoax; the title of the article was “End as a Man”:
For more than a generation, a shambling creature with a human skull and an apelike jaw was known to schoolchildren, Sunday-supplement readers, and serious anthropologists as “the first Englishman.” He was “Piltdown Man,” and he was supposed to have lived anywhere from 750,000 to 950,000 years ago. Last week three British scientists, armed with modern chemistry, demolished Piltdown man.
My family had a subscription to Time—its general pro-Catholic, “American Century” disposition aligned with my father’s, and it had a middlebrow aura of intelligent probity. I may have read this article—probably would have, if I saw it. I was fascinated by fossils and archaeological finds. I looked for fossils in Kentucky slate, and faked one myself when I grew restive at finding none: a nice little trilobite, etched into stone by knifepoint and pretty convincing (to me). Piltdown Man’s relics were made from a human cranium and the jaw of an ape—an orangutan, actually—and a single canine, ground down to resemble an early human’s tooth. The oddity never fit with other early humans in that ascension shown in old textbooks (and still seen in cartoons) from remotest knuckle-dragging ancestor to modern man. The fake ancestor, Time said, may not have been planted by his original discoverer: “More likely, the difficult hoax was perpetrated by an erudite joker who enjoyed in silent satisfaction his success in fooling the experts.”
One of those jokers, it would later appear, may well have been a young paleontologist and Jesuit priest who went on to formulate his own highly original theory of the descent of man from nonhuman ancestors and man’s future ascent through millennia of evolution to a posthuman omega point. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a hero to a certain class of educated Catholics of the 1950s: a priest and a scientist, a thinker who seemed able to reconcile two kinds of time: the immensity of unfigurable pastness and futurity, and Jacobus’ box of time shaped by God from the fiat lux to the Apocalypse.
Born in 1881 and enrolled in a Jesuit boarding school at ten years old, Teilhard in one sense exemplified the old Jesuit belief that if they have the boy they will ever after retain the man, but orthodoxy never quite retained Teilhard. He entered the novitiate at eighteen, studied the standard subjects as well as physics and geology, and later did a course in theology at Ore Place, a seminary in Sussex, England, founded by French Jesuits. It was there, he said, that he became convinced of the truth of Darwinian evolution, which “haunted my thoughts like a tune.” Ore Place was located very near to Piltdown, and Teilhard became close friends with the amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson; they often went fossil hunting together, and Teilhard found the canine tooth that appeared to match the Piltdown jaw. Dawson announced the finding of the Piltdown fossils in 1912, the year after Teilhard was ordained.
Three years before the debunking of Piltdown Man was described in Time, Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis declared that certain aspects of Darwinian evolution weren’t intrinsically in conflict with church teachings, though (Pius said) Catholics certainly didn’t have to believe in evolution if they didn’t want to. A family like mine—observant, loyal to church tradition and doctrine, but also open-minded and disputatious, certainly did. We knew that the seven days of Creation could be taken as seven eons of vast duration, time enough for bacteria and algae to produce dinosaurs and mammoths through the workings of chance and possibility. Though for several years he worked for the church—as the medical director of a small Catholic hospital in Kentucky and then as the infirmary doctor at Notre Dame—my father leaned toward the idea of two churches, one for the smart and learned who could handle ambiguities and don’t need miracle stories or blessed crucifixes, and another for everyone else, who loved and cared for such things. A family friend, a priest who taught in the history and philosophy of science program at Notre Dame, once told us about a conference he’d attended at which he had a dispute about time with another scholar, an unbeliever; while the unbeliever’s theory of time allowed for the (theoretical) existence of angels, the priest’s did not. He thought that was amusing, and so did we. We sometimes attended his masses; he married two of my sisters. If and when Catholics like my family felt the need for a system to account for how they thought, there was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
Teilhard was a believer in deep time, the long processes of geological and biological evolution that stretched out over the billions of years of earth’s existence. He hunted fossils with Roy Chapman Andrews of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, a hero of mine in boyhood, and in the 1920s participated in the excavation of Homo erectus in China, then dubbed “Peking Man.” No one’s time scheme was longer than Teilhard’s: none began further back, or went further on. In his best-known book, The Phenomenon of Man—the one we owned—Teilhard built his universe carefully from primal atoms and molecules through living matter to consciousness and the human world, evolving without cease until transitioning finally into eternity.
For Jacobus, time begins with Adam’s fall; for Teilhard, it is the coming into being of a biosphere—the life layer of earth, as opposed to the underlying inorganic geosphere. From the Russian scientist and metaphysician Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, Teilhard adopted a tripartite hierarchy of geosphere, biosphere, and noosphere, from the Greek nous, mind: the realm of thought and self-reflection, the vast and growing network of mental connections belonging only to humans. The noosphere was Teilhard’s sanctorale, that by which time makes sense in consciousness; in Julian Huxley’s formulation, which Teilhard embraced, humankind is how evolution becomes conscious of itself. As science and communication technology stretches a membrane of human connection over the whole earth, and any person can be in all places at once, then sooner or later—a very long time from now in either case, but helped on by human striving—an omega point is approached, where the universe reassembles all consciousness in itself, yet in which every individual consciousness remains separate. The last step depends on God and Christ: “a prodigious biological operation,” Teilhard wrote, “that of the redeeming incarnation.” Not so much a Second Coming as the final instantiation of an evolving divine person born in Bethlehem, Jesus is both beginning and end for Teilhard, as central to his immense loom of time as he was to Jacobus’ brief span from Adam and Eve to the end of the world.
Whether or not Teilhard as a youth at seminary was really involved in the faking of the Piltdown relics—Stephen Jay Gould thought he was, and made a circumstantial case for it in Natural History magazine in 1980—I wonder if those mismatched bones might stand metonymically for the temptation to reconcile the irreconcilable, mix the immiscible. Early in his career Teilhard was censored for unacceptable writings about original sin; in 1925—and in the very week the Scopes trial began—he signed a statement repudiating his opinions. As in the case of Galileo, it was less the threat of new knowledge that alarmed the church than the threat to doctrine. When he submitted the manuscript of The Phenomenon of Man to church censors for scrutiny in 1941—surely a year of backward progress in human evolution—it was rejected for publication, and after the war he was forbidden to teach or write on philosophical subjects. Not until after his death in 1955 did the book appear in French, and in the wake of its worldwide popularity the Holy Office—the same body that condemned Galileo—issued a warning (monitum) stating that Teilhard’s writings “abound in such ambiguities, and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine,” and Catholic institutions were instructed “to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers” they presented. Whatever Teilhard himself imagined, his thought couldn’t be easily reconciled with standard catechisms.
Then came John XXIII (recently canonized) and aggiornamento, or modernization, and the hierarchy began to perceive in Teilhard’s grand synthesis a path to resolving the tension between faith and science, which at that time seemed so urgent and so hurtful to the church. Instead of standing pat, faith had to ante up, lay a very big bet, if it was to recoup its losses. Teilhard’s thought held out the possibility that nothing needed to be given up or painstakingly reconciled; no matter how big the universe got, how long the time frame, deep time was sacred time, and the story that could be told about it could be seen to be the simple Christian story after all.
Of course the bet was hedged: “It must be regarded as an important service of Teilhard de Chardin’s that he rethought these ideas from the angle of the modern view of the world and, in spite of a not entirely unobjectionable tendency toward the biological approach, nevertheless on the whole grasped them correctly and in any case made them accessible once again”—so wrote a German theologian named Joseph Ratzinger in 1968. Such delicate reservations. Long before then I had vacated the premises.
I can’t say how or by what gradual steps the sacred calendar was erased within me, but I remember a time and place when I knew it had vanished away. It was a feast day, a holy day of obligation, in fact, August 15, the assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven in her sanctified body. As I see it in memory I am returning from church alone along the dirt road to my house, in the Indiana August heat and dust, and—at the advancing tip of a chain of thought that I can’t recall—I said aloud I give it up; I just don’t care. I had (I thought then) no argument against it all, no case for its general untruth or absurdity; for all I knew the world was just as the church claimed it to be. I simply had no soul investment any longer in it, I was outside it then and always would be. It didn’t feel like loss, nor like liberation; it was more like the moment when you understand without surprise that you are not actually walking the streets of a strange city with odd companions but awake in your own bed. I had lost my faith, as the church would say it, though I think the reverse is just as true. In fact I’m not sure that faith was ever what I had. I think I was not capax Dei, in Augustine’s phrase: I had, and have, no capacity for God. Living in the sacred time you didn’t really need it; you didn’t even need belief. All you needed were five senses, a sacerdotal language, and the solemnities of repetition.
One by one all my family “fell away,” as the phrase used to be. My father assumed that Vatican II would be more thoroughgoing in scrubbing away indefensible doctrines than it was; what instead were removed were rituals and observances as cherished as they were peculiar, whose force in practice lay deeper than reason. My mother, for whom evolution meant mostly the advancement of the human species from exasperating stupidity and cravenness to strength and beauty, loved Teilhard, but maybe for just the reasons the church was wary of. Her other two daughters were not married by a priest, and nor was I.
It was a net loss, counted one way at least. Sacred time is also human time, linking generations to one another, binding those who do this in this way at these times with all those who in the past did likewise. My Jewish wife, from a large extended family which now includes me and our children, never had difficulty retaining many of the practices and prayers she grew up with, which connect her to past generations and to a timeless realm as well. I have never succeeded wholly in convincing her that continuing with my own traditions (those that remain) would require sincerely committing to certain metaphysical propositions, as hers—in her estimation—do not. She disputes the distinction I make between sacred and secular time. What about Halloween? A commercial holiday that the whole nation participates in, as it does in Memorial Day (both days of the dead, it occurs to me); a public community festival with roots in immemorial folk practice, that was at a particular time turned to the uses of the church. Jacobus de Voragine extols it, the feast of all the saints that ever were or ever will be, whose feast days mostly can’t be known but which fill the calendar beyond repletion. It’s among the last of the feasts he celebrates before Advent comes around again.
Presentism—the notion that everything that exists is only what can and does exist right now—is countered in metaphysics by eternalism: the idea that time is not a process but a dimension, and in that dimension all reference points have equal validity, and thus all time, past, present, and future, exists at once, extending (like space) in all directions. Augustine believed that while we live along the vanishing knife edge of the present, God has the eternalist view: God perceives time as a block, everything existing simultaneously, all complete to his sight. Teilhard might say: time is Christ’s body, and once in it we too will know all of time at once, and share that eternalist perspective.
You could say that a calendar, which seems to mark time moving from future to past, is actually an eternalist device: all possible pages, all possible dates, are already present in it, endless marchers around a Möbius strip of here-and-nowness. Most calendars measure only a year, but they also measure any year; they keep our old appointments and anniversaries forever, Christmas an eternal December 25, only the moveable feasts sliding within their fixed round of possibilities as the moon comes and goes.
I’ve never been good at keeping calendars, and my family says that I am lax on anniversaries and insufficiently moved by feast days (though I do love fireworks and Thanksgiving dinner). I keep one calendar, though: one so singular and private I can’t know if everyone, or even anyone else, has one like it—though I suspect some must. It’s without dates; the occasions that fill it have no fixed number and don’t recur in any sort of chronological order. Each is a return of some long-ago circumstance in a kind of momentary entirety: the flavor, the taste, the total sensation of it; a past moment in the present. Marcel Proust tasting his teacake was led to remember in detail an earlier, a first instance; and (I suppose) other bites of similar cakes produced that moment for him again ever after, though perhaps with diminishing intensity. For almost all of mine I can’t discover an original, though I believe an original is what I am visited by. I can’t keep them; the calendar is self-erasing.
These instants give me nothing to ponder or to celebrate; they aren’t joyful or somber, express nothing but the intensity of felt existence. Some return many times, some never again. Sometimes they have a catalyst: lately I have felt them brought on by the deeply saturated colors of certain new cars passing me on the highway, chrome yellow, cherry red, teal. What am I reminded of? What in the chaos of my interior is being drawn out, like W.C. Fields plucking just the desired document from the apparently hopeless disorder of his rolltop desk in Man on the Flying Trapeze? Maybe nothing; maybe after all these aren’t memories—discrete moments of the past drawn into the present—but rather glimpses into a timeless time in which all moments have equal standing, are therefore not moments but the signs that Terry Eagleton says accomplish what they signify. If all that can exist in past, present, or future exists now, then the time that has passed through our consciousness, flowing continuously without marks or stops in parallel with the tick of clocks, resides there still when it is gone: choosing, in effect all by itself, what we are to know of it.
Time’s violence rends the soul; by the rent eternity enters.—Simone Weil, 1947
A watch is always too fast or too slow. I cannot be dictated to by a watch.—Jane Austen, 1814
John Crowley is the author of eleven novels, including Little, Big, the Ægypt cycle, and, most recently, Four Freedoms. He teaches creative writing at Yale University.
Back to Issue
How Thoughts Create Atoms and Emotions Formulate Time
Authored or posted by Pao Chang | Updated on | Published on December 13, 2016
By Gil Dekel, PhD, contributor for AwakenedVibrations.com
It seems that the connection between thought, emotions, space and time is far greater than understood before.
Here is a short introduction to the idea that thoughts can manipulate physical reality, and emotions can render the concept of time:
Part 1: Awareness to atoms.
A serious problem facing the world today is actually a very simple one, and it can be solved easily. The problem is that people are unaware of their own atoms… People do not have the awareness or an understanding of the atoms that make their own body; how these atoms are created, how they operate and how they draw energy that enables the body to exist. When people are unaware of their own atoms, then they are unaware of how the planet operates…
The prevailing assumption that most people hold is that we all have a body, and the body exists out of its own ‘energy’, out of its own ‘accord’. Many people seem to believe that the only relation, or ‘exchanges’ between the human body and the exterior world (the surrounding area) is by exchanges of such as water, air and light. Apart of these forms of exchange, people assume that the body exists separately of nature.
However, many studies reveal that this is not so. In effect, the human body seems to draw energies that are beyond what we tend to think. These energies operate on a level that is finer than the atom, and they give the body its initial energy. The human body draws ‘oceans of energies’ from the universe, in order to maintain the functionality of its atoms, molecules and cells. The body draws ‘oceans’ of information from the planet itself, in a way that still puzzles our sciences.
If you could imagine for a moment yourself laying on an ocean… just imagine that you are there resting on the ocean, and then the whole ocean is pulled up into your body in order to give you the energy that enables you to make simple things as taking a breath. This is how people draw in a cosmic energy that gives them energy. Just to take a breath requires a worldwide energy; and this energy is provided free of charge to every single human being on this planet – but people are unaware of it.
The human body is a temple that contains the highest form of cosmic wisdom, and so if we learn to be aware of it, then we can find the solutions to all the problems we face. To do so we need to ask this: Where are the atoms of my body coming from? And where are they going to in the next minute?
Apparently, the human body is not so-called ‘stable, solid’ thing, but rather a complex and interchanging mechanism, where atoms are constantly forming the body, and at the next moment they are discharged off the body; they simply leave the body. It is like breathing in and breathing out, discharging air. When atoms are discharged, new atoms are coming to replace them in forming the organs of the body. It is believed that in the span of a year the person has a totally new body consisting of completely new atoms that were not there a year before.
When atoms go away, new atoms are willingly coming to form the same single body with the same organs. This allows the so-called soul to have a manifestation of a physical existence, the physical experience of ‘living’. But, how?
To learn how atoms operate, we must ask ourselves, where do atoms coming from and where are they going to? That question alone will promote social responsibility because people will acknowledge the connection they have with the surroundings, seeing the environment not as separated of them, but as part of them – consisting of atoms that are transformed to become their own body. People will them want to make sure the environment is well kept because that environment sooner or later creates their own body. You have been created by nature and in turn creating it.
Part 2: In the core of atoms are thoughts.
The terms atom, molecules and body-cells are not new. While these terms go way back, still no one knows today what are they. Science is probably not developed enough to understand what is in the core of atoms and what is it that makes atoms. We do know, however, that the mere act of observation alters the result that we measure. For example, the simple act of researching and observing a quantum field in the laboratory alters their behavior. And this human intervention with reality makes it very difficult for us to understand what is out there, because we know that that which is out there is that which we alter and affect ourselves… watch the film What The Bleep Do We Know!? [DVD], 2004).
The atom is believed to be a form of energy. But once again, what is energy? It seems that no scientist can give you a definition of energy. Ask a scientist, “what is the energy that makes electricity? What is energy?”, and they will tell you, “We don’t know.” We cannot measure energy; we cannot see energy. Energy is that which is ‘unknown’. Yet, it is this unknown that formulates not just the physical body but also the energy to maintain that physical body. Is it physical at all? We don’t know… Some scientists suggest that more than 99% of the atom is not solid matter. Deepak Chopra’s arguments are most fascinating, suggesting that energy is a potential, a form of potentiality.
Another interpretation of atom was given to me through a meditation session I have taken. During that meditation I became aware of a ‘presence’ which could simply be my own subconscious, however it felt much ‘wiser’ than myself, and had a sense of being independent of myself. I like to use the terms ‘spiritual guides’ or ‘Angels’ to describe these feelings. One such Angel provided me with a fascinating outlook on atoms. He said that atoms are simply a form of thoughts… Atoms are a manifestation of what people think… The Angel said that we first need to understand the context of thoughts.
When we use the word ‘thought’, we mean an event on the level of human beings. There are other forms of beings, which do not succumb to the law of our nature. We live on planet Earth and we are bound to the laws of nature as well as to the audio/visual/emotional expressions that we use. We are under the words that we use to express reality and to understand it. We make sense of reality through our logic, which uses words (see Susan K. Langer on this topic). This is a dogmatic view; a dogmatic perspective on life, and within this dogmatic perspective my Angel said that ‘thoughts’ live. A thought for you and me, for human beings, can be one thing, whereas to other forms of being it could be something totally different. Thought can behave in few ways. One way is specific to human beings. Other ways are specific to other beings.
And so the Angel said that thoughts formulate what we otherwise know as ‘atom’. Atoms and thought are the same, and this is why we seem to alter reality and change atoms when we observe them. We use our attention – our thoughts – to look at atoms, which are also thoughts… We use atoms to observe atom, and this is where the alterations of atoms in nature start. This may indeed be seen not as alteration but as a creation. When we put attention and observe reality we perhaps do not alter or change it – but rather create it. We create the atoms of which we observe. As thoughts create atoms, we could say that our body consists of our own thoughts – manifested in an illusion of physicality and solidity…
Thoughts are understood as electrical discharges coming mainly from the brain, whereas in reality they exist everywhere, coming and going from all corners of the Universe. And yet, since we believe that thoughts are localized in the brain, we perceive them as such – localized in the brain. This is but a small perspective of the overall picture. As we assume thoughts ‘belong’ to the brain (or the mind) we then fail to see that they also make the human body itself; that indeed they are the atoms that make the substance of the body. If thoughts are indeed atoms, then we could say that we ‘think’ with the whole body, or that the body itself is a thinking being. It is in a thought process which includes the brain, the mind, the body and the whole universe, and yet we are aware of only a small portion of this – the part which operates in the brain.
Part 3: The creation of time and space.
Thoughts, which create atoms, operate within the paradigms of time and space. Time and space are yet another form of comprehension; a form in which we imagine things and follow a specific pattern. Yet, in other worlds which do not consist of our paradigms, time and space do not exist at all. Einstein discussed time as a form created by the human mind, and not by nature. With no time and space, here is also there, and then is also now… Everything exists in the same place and at the same time. Neale Donald Walsch suggests that there is no up and no down, no here and no there – but rather all exist together, side by side. Yet, we do not perceive it as such. Rather, we perceive time and space as a linear continuum. As we perceive atoms as operating within the linear continuums of time and space, we then shift our awareness. We put our attention into the illusory aspect of timespace, and this perception produces the impression that atoms are a solid thing or that atoms constitute solid elements.
And yet, as my Angel told me (read Part 2 to learn who is my ‘Angel’), time is not a given fact but rather a learned perspective. We are born into this world which holds the belief in the existence of time and its linearity. This belief is taught to children to the extent that they do not recognize any more the reality beyond this conditioning. While time, and indeed space, have a useful function in our life on this planet, they are, indeed, a phantom created by our long historical conditioning. So, what is time? Well, my Angel told me that time is no more and no less the length of emotion… Time is created by the length of people’s emotions. If you have a specific emotion, it creates a specific time experience. If you have a different emotion, it creates a different time experience. We all know that when we go to a party and enjoy ourselves, we then say, “Oh, it feels as if time passed so quickly.” In different situations where we do not enjoy, we say, “Time moves so slowly.” Time, indeed, is the length of emotion…
Emotions create time, and thoughts create atoms. Yet, in most experiences in our daily lives, the two elements, thoughts and emotions, do not correspond. They operate as two separate occurrences within people. They flow as two different streams. Thought, which create atoms and which produces the body, does not correspond to emotions, which produce time. This is why many people do not experience happiness, because the body, which is your thought-product, does not correspond to your time, which is your emotion-product. For that same reason, people grow up. People age, and aging they do not appreciate it, because they are unaware of the process. They do not realize the process; they do not make a coherent existence of thought-body and emotion-time. These two are operating separately, unknowingly to the person.
Being unaware, many people believe that there is such a thing called ‘time’, and it is measured by a tick of the clock. People believe that time is something external to them; something which is right there on my shelf when I look at the clock, and it creates time… Some people will agree that the clock does not create time but will argue that the clock measures time. So what creates time then? Many will say that the movement of the sun creates time; when the earth moves around the sun it produces a ‘yesterday’; therefore, now is ‘today’. In truth, my Angel argued, the movement of planet Earth around the sun does not creates time. The only connection between the movement of the planets and time is that ancient man begun to measure his experience of day and night through the use of the shadow that is cast on the earth once you stick a pole in the ground. Ancient man used the rotation of the earth and the amount of light coming from the sun, which produces shadow, to measure day and night, but not to ‘create’ time. Yet, many people today believe that time is a substance, a solid thing, which ‘exists’. That belief prevails since people are unaware of their emotions, which create time. People are unaware of their thoughts, which create their body within time.
Part 4: Information from the creators.
Albert Einstein talked about the illusion of time, saying that time is a psychic activity created by the human mind. Emmanuel Kant talked about time and space. He gave a fascinating explanation of time. For him, time is a tool by which human beings limit the large reality. In the so-called large reality things can happen in a way that is inconceivable to our mind, such as the same person exiting in two places at the same time. When humans limit this reality, they produce time concept, which enables them to understand how something can be in one place and at another place. With the logic of time people assume that a thing simply moved in time from one place to another. While in reality all things exists at one place and at all times, to the human mind a thing seemed to move from one place to the other in time. Human beings devised this amazing mechanism called ‘time’ which limits, or splits reality, and render it accessible to the brain.
In order to create a correlation between our thoughts (which are our bodies), and our emotions (which are our time), we must become aware of ourselves. We must become aware of how we think and how we feel. The external world is the projection of humans’ own mind, as Carl Jung suggested and Seth (channelled by Jane Roberts) discussed. Indeed, the external world is a beautiful creation and the projection of our own selves, and therefore it is a gift as it always reminds us what we are creating. It is a mirror. When we look outside, we look at mirrors reflecting ourselves, reflecting our own thoughts. While we can explore these projections, we also should focus on the creators, ourselves.
In order to stop the calamities and sufferings on this planet, we need to explore how we think and how we enable those creations, unwillingly. Rene Descartes said that to learn and become wiser, you don’t need to leave your room. You can stay inside your own house and just observe yourself. Now we don’t need to go to that extreme; nature is a beautiful place… the world is a beautiful creation given to us in order to enjoy our own creation. However, it was given to us in order to experience our own creation. Many people look at the outside world and they are unaware that it is their own making. So they are walking through life like zombies, inside their own dream. They don’t realize that they are walking within their own creation.
So why is it that most people are unaware of their own powers? Unaware of their thoughts? Unaware of their emotions, and unaware of this source of energy, these oceans of energies that they draw every single moment that allow the body to manifest and to live? Because most people do not follow the simple act of stopping for just one minute a day – stopping and trying to look inside.
When I say ‘inside’, I do not necessarily mean to sit, close your eyes, and look inside you. While that is a good technique it does not have to be the only technique. You can actually look at a flower with your eyes open and just observe the essence that is reflected from you and into the flower and the objects around you. There are many ways to do so. It becomes so simple once people realize that all it takes is simply to stop. When we stop for a moment in our modern hectic lifestyle, we are enabling our mind to do something amazing. Instead of generating constant thinking, we are enabling the brain to listen, to absorb. This is crucial. While the act of generating constant thinking is very important indeed to organize your day, yet it can also limit you. When the mind is busy writing the script of your day, in producing thoughts, it is unable at the same time to listen; to receive information. To receive a script, and words of wisdom, coming to you from so many sources that most people do not even know exist.
Part 5: Evolution.
The brain was not designed to be a processor of information and a receptor of information at the same time (on the conscious level). While the brain receives information at all times, this goes to the so-called subconscious level, which Carl Jung describes. Human beings constantly receive information but if we do not stop, we do not allow this information to be processed and we do not allow ourselves to become aware of it. The act of stopping gives your brain an opportunity to hear; to listen. This concept is one of the greatest contributions of Judaism to the world’s wisdom. In Judaism they say that silence is worth so much that the act of listening is more important than the act of talking. As some people say, God gave us two ears and one mouth only… so listen twice as much as you speak…
And why is it so important to listen? After all there is too much chattering around me in my world, with too much information constantly bombarding me. I want to listen less because there is already too much… Well, when I say ‘listening’, I mean listening to the voice inside you; listening to the messages that are coming from within; the wisdom that is constantly spoken to you from your own inner, higher self. I call it ‘the authorial-Self’ (watch ‘interview with authorial-Self’)
There is a source of knowledge, a source of wisdom, which resides not within you; it resides much further and deeper beyond you… but to reach it you need to go inside. You need to walk the bridge from your external self through your internal self and from there into your authorial-Self. Many people are afraid to talk about this or to admit that they feel things or that they have inner ‘hearings’. People are scared because they would be deemed crazy. But it doesn’t have to be necessarily inner-voices. You might feel a ‘knowing’, a feeling of an understanding or a form of wisdom. Yet, to contact that form of wisdom you must allow your brain one minute a day of comprehension; give it the authority to listen. When it listens, it listens to what’s inside. And when it listens to what’s inside, it gives permission to your authorial-Self to provide you with this wisdom.
Now this wisdom, as I said, does not reside within your body; it does not reside within the atoms of the brain, but rather in a much deeper place. As one poet told me once, “I have become a deeper woman.” I would like to borrow this statement to describe the deeper self, which is the place where all answers reside. It is the vast ocean from which you draw your energy, the force of life that runs through you at all times. This force contains not just energy but also information, knowledge. (Read about Reiki to learn more about this source).
If we to absorb this knowledge we could then learn who we are. People will then know where they are coming from, and where they draw their life force. People will learn where life is going to after it leaves their own body, and after it has been discharged completely from their own emotions and from their own thoughts.
Then we would know what our purpose on this planet is; what we have been before we came to this planet; where are we going next. And, why this life, this form of being a human, is so necessary to our spiritual evolution.
This article was originally published on AwakenedVibrations.com and republished on this website for educational purposes.
Donate to Help Make a DifferenceOmniThought.org is a true independent blog and is free of third-party ads. If you like reading the articles on this site, please take action now by clicking the "Donate" button below to send a donation to the author/editor. Your generous support will help fund his research and expenses, allowing him to continue his quest to educate and teach people to create a better world for everyone.
Category: Love & Emotions, Meditation & Mind-Body Connection, Thought & Manifestation