Thursday, June 11, 2026

Who "Created" the Universe?


Baka Brahma, luminous,
entertained these [wrong] views:
I AM that God, the One who makes,
Father of the whole World.
I flourish from My own purity.”
But He had wrongly conceived of
views that wrapped around Him
as tight as serpents’ coils:
The supreme wandering ascetics
conquered Him by knowledge.
He was cured. Source


I am that I am?
A god (brahmā) known as Baka once reflected privately that he and his heavenly plane of existence were everlasting. He thought that it was not possible that there could be a higher plane of rebirth and was therefore convinced he had overcome all rebirth and suffering.

The Buddha discerned his deep-seated wrong view and decided out of sympathy to pay Baka a visit in his heaven. When the Buddha appeared in that brahmā world, Baka Brahmā welcomed him formally but immediately announced:

“Now, good sir, this [place] is permanent, this is everlasting, this is eternal, this is total, this is not subject to pass away; for this neither is born nor ages nor dies nor passes away nor reappears, and beyond this there is no escape” (MN 49).

The Buddha, however, contradicted him, pointing out that every one of his claims was wrong. Just then Māra the Tempter [a kind of Lucifer figure] joined their conversation. Māra’s task is to prevent beings from being won over to the Dhamma, to keep them trapped in the cycle of rebirth and death, what Mara views as his personal domain [11].

Taking possession of one of the brahmā’s attendants, Māra urged the Buddha, with a display of sympathy, to accept this brahmā as God, the creator of all other beings.

He told the Buddha that wandering ascetics of the past who delighted in things of this life and “who lauded Brahmā” won happy rebirths afterwards, while those who disbelieved and rejected Brahmā had to endure terrible punishment [in hells].

The Awakened One (the Buddha) let Mara have his say and then called his bluff: “I know you, Evil One. Do not think, ’He does not know me.’ You are Māra, Evil One, and the Brahmā and his assembly and the members of the assembly have all fallen into your hands, they have all fallen under your power. You, Evil One, think, ’This one, too, has fallen into my hands. He, too, has fallen under my power.’ But I have not fallen into your hands, Evil One. I have not fallen under your power.”

“All beings subject to craving—humans, subhumans, devas (celestial deities), or brahmās (grand divinities)—are said to be under Māra’s power because they can all be moved by their mental defilements and must drift along in the current of rebirth and death.

But the Buddha and the other arahants (fully enlightened ones) have permanently and completely escaped Māra’s circle of influence, for they have eliminated all defilements. They have exhausted the fuel that leads to rebirth and thus have vanquished the Lord of Death (Mara).

Baka Brahmā begins to speak on his own behalf. He reminds the Buddha of his opening statement on permanence. He warns him that it is futile to seek “an escape beyond” his own brahma realm. Then he cajoles and threatens the Buddha in the same breath:

“If you will hold to earth… beings… gods… you will be close to me, within my domain, for me to work my will upon and punish.”

The Buddha agrees that if he clung to earth (or any other aspect of existence) he would remain under the control of Mahā Brahmā ("Great Supremo") and Māra, too, but he adds:

“I understand that your reach and sway extend thus: Baka the Brahmā has this much power, this much might, this much influence.”

The Buddha points out that beyond the thousandfold world system over which Baka reigns there are planes of existence of which Baka is totally unaware, and beyond all conditioned phenomena there is a reality that transcends even “the allness of the all”—a consciousness without manifestation, boundless, luminous on all sides—to which Baka has no access whatsoever.

The Buddha, demonstrating his superiority in knowledge and power, then uses his superior psychic powers to humble Baka in front of his entire assembly. By the end of the discourse, these once haughty divine beings marvel at the might of the wandering ascetic Gotama:

“Though living in a generation that delights in being…he has extirpated being [becoming, bhava] and its root” [12].

A brahmā with wrong view
Once an unnamed brahmā gave rise to this deluded thought: “No ascetic is powerful enough to reach my [divine] realm.”

The Buddha read his mind and proved him wrong by simply appearing before him and sitting at ease in the air above his head, while radiating flames from his body in a dramatic display of supernormal powers.

Four great arahant (fully enlightened) disciples—Mahā Moggallāna (the monk the Buddha declared "foremost in psychic powers" among his disciples), Kassapa, Kappina, and Anuruddha—independently realized what had happened and decided to join their Teacher on this divine brahmā plane.

Each disciple sat cross-legged in the air respectfully below the Buddha—but above that brahmā—in one of the cardinal directions, emitting fire around himself. A short dialogue in verse took place between Mahā Moggallāna, the Buddha’s second chief male disciple, and that brahmā:

“Today, friend, do you still hold that view,
The same view that you formerly held?
Do you see a radiance
Surpassing that in the brahma-world?”

“I no longer hold that view, dear sir,
[I reject] the view I formerly held.
Indeed, I see a radiance
Surpassing that in the brahma-world?”

Today how could I assert the view
That I am permanent and eternal?”

According to the Commentary (tika) to this story, the brahmā gave up his wrong view, his wrong belief in his own superiority when he observed the magnificence of the Buddha and a few of his arahants.

When the Buddha preached the Dhamma to him, that brahma was established in the fruit of stream-entry and stopped thinking of himself as permanent.

When this brahmā saw his own [radical] impermanence clearly and distinctly for himself, his former tenacious wrong view, wrong opinion that his world and life were immortal was uprooted.

Many aeons of preparation, the brahmā’s quick intellect, the Buddha’s perfect timing, and the support of the four arahants bore fruit in this divinity becoming a stream enterer (one who has reached the first stage of awakening).

After the Buddha and those arahants left and returned to Jetavana, the great brahmā wanted to learn more about the powers of Buddhist monastics. He sent a member of his retinue to ask Mahā Moggallāna whether there are even more monastics of this teacher who can perform such feats as he can. Maha Moggallāna replied:

“Many are the disciples of the Buddha
Who are arahants with taints destroyed,
Triple knowledge bearers with spiritual powers,
Skilled in the course of others’ minds”
(KS I, 182–84; SN 6:5).

Not only do large numbers of monastics have such special powers and the ability to know other people’s minds, but there are numerous fully purified arahant disciples of the Buddha as well. The emissary was glad to hear this answer, as was that brahmā when he received the report. Source

Always 2 wars, never 1 (Peace Class)

Friends, the following talk was delivered live last week and has been edited by Wisdom Quarterly:
 
THE WAR OF OPINIONS
When we are belligerent and violent, there are always two wars happening simultaneously, the War of Bombs and the War of Opinions.
 
The War of Bombs requires the War of Opinions as its fuel. If we end the War of Opinions, we simultaneously end the War of Bombs.
 
We are all responsible for the War of Opinions, so we can end it at any time. The way we end the War of Opinions is by thinking then saying this: "Whatever opinion you hold, I have compassion for you, and whatever opinion I hold, I have compassion for myself."
 
If we choose these mental positions, we will never have to agree with each other to see the end of belligerence, violence, war, disputes, arguments, and doing harm.
 
The true cause of violence is not disagreement; it is how we think about each other and feel about each other when we disagree with each other.
 
Violence can only happen if it is acceptable for us to withhold compassion from those with whom we disagree. This is the cause of war.
 
Our differences of opinion do not cause violence. What causes violence is that we are willing to withhold compassion from others, any others, because of their opinions.
 
As soon as we become unwilling to withhold compassion from anyone, we will see the end of violence, immediately, at that exact moment.
 
When our compassion ends nowhere, there will be peace on earth.
 
Opinions (holding views)
We are taught to use the opinions of others to justify withholding compassion from them.
There is only one reason to withhold compassion from anyone: to actively build more violence on this planet. That's what our withheld compassion does.
 
If we are trying to accomplish something other than that by withholding compassion, then we are using the wrong tool.
 
If we want to build peace, the tool that will build it is compassion-for-all.

 
These times
Peace Class meets Wednesdays on Zoom at 6:00 pm (PT) Zoom ID: 821 5047 2713. 
.
The trouble with these times [is that they aren't a-changin' enough] is that many are trying to build peace by withholding compassion from those who disagree with them. That action builds war. So they are trying to build peace with that which only builds war.
 
That is like saying, "I'd like to build a house to sleep in, a good strong dwelling, so I'm going to build it with water." [What do we think we are, fish, mermaids, aquatic plants?]
 
Water is useful for many things, but we can't cut it into blocks and build shelters with it. [What if we freeze it first? Igloo ice, sure, but this is water we're talking about, not permafrost ice in the arctic.]
 
Our misunderstandings are so basic to our belief system that we do not see that we are trying to build a house with something we cannot build a house with. That's how elemental our misunderstandings are. But that's also how powerful our opportunities are.
 
All we need to do is say, "Now that I can see that I've been trying to build a house with blocks of water, let me try again, but with blocks of wood, and see what happens." Voila: a beautiful, solid house.
 
And so it is with peace. We can say, "Let me try using compassion-for-all to build peace, and see if that works any better than withholding compassion." And it will work every time. That is an eternal and universal law.

One can't build walls with wet fluid water; one can't build true and lasting peace with hatred of the people who disagree with us.
 
Our hatred builds something: It builds more of the Era of Belligerence.
 
It does not build peace in the world. It also does not build peace for us personally — in our day-to-day experience, our family and circle of friends, our workplace and our minds/hearts.
 
What builds peace for us, in our personal experience, is to say this: "I disagree with that point of view yet still have compassion for the person who holds it."
 
That builds the kind of deep peace that makes it easier for us to do everything we have to do throughout the day. It makes it easier to be a parent, easier to be a friend, easier to be a whatever.
 
A war brings these forces to our attention, but they are always at play, in smaller ways, within our lives. Disagreements break out in the home and the workplace. And we always make more peace for ourselves when we feel and think this:
 
"I disagree with the way my boss (spouse, child, friend, whoever) sees this situation. Still, I hold deep compassion for this person."

The War of Bombs

The War of Bombs requires the War of Opinions to exist. Without our War of Opinions, their War of Bombs will very quickly lose steam and peter out.
 
A fire requires fuel -- such as wood and oxygen, plus certain conditions, like heat and the absence of rain.
 
Similarly, the fire of war requires certain conditions to ignite and burn and grow.
 
Remove the War of Opinions and, no matter how many lit matches are thrown onto the fire of war, it will not ignite.
 
Compassion-for-all is like soaking fuel used in the fire of war. No matter how many flames are dropped on wet wood, it won't catch on fire. Our compassion-for-all ends this war and every war.
 
When our compassion ends nowhere, there will be peace on earth. When our compassion goes everywhere, there is no ready fuel for war.
 
What will happen when we start to pair compassion-for-all with whatever opinion (view) we hold?

 
What will happen is that we will spend more time in our Peace Mind, which is the higher portion of our consciousness. And when we do this, we'll see new solutions—solutions that already exist, except that we cannot see them yet because they can only be seen from the more loving portion of consciousness.
 
When we have compassion for others, we free them from our hatred, vitriol, animosity, belligerence, so they visit their Peace Minds more often, too.
 
And when we are all in our Peace Minds, new solutions will be so easy to see that we almost won't be able to comprehend how we ever stayed at war or disagreeing for so long.
 
Solutions to our problems already exist. Whether we can see them yet depends on our perspective. Where are we placing conscious attention in our own consciousness? Is it our Peace Mind?
 
It's not that this conflict, or any conflict, is based on an unsolvable problem. It's that we cannot yet see a solution that will resolve this issue from our current perspective.
 
Move our perspective, and the preexisting solution becomes apparent.
 
What's the one thing we can do to serve the world? We can learn to transition our own perspective upwards so we can see more solutions and bring more innovations to humanity.
 
What's another thing we can do? We can pair compassion with everything we think and feel. Compassion can be added to any thought, like this:
 
"I greatly disagree with what that leader has done, and I have compassion for everyone who lives in that country, even for the leader herself," or "I think that's a terrible thing to do, and I have compassion for the person who has done it." Just add one in.

I love you, Yoko. - STFU, John.
No consensus of opinion needs to be reached
to end the War of Opinions. We can end war without a single opinion ever changing.
 
We end it by adding our compassion-for-everyone to any opinion we have.
 
That ends the war, because now it's not a War of Opinions that we're seated within—it's simply a landscape of opinions that are allowed to exist.
 
It's not a War of Opinions when there is compassion-for-all present. Now it's a community of unique human individuals who compassionately respect each other. We came here to be unique.
 
We did not come here to create a consensus of opinion. We came here to be in a vibrant (lively and diverse) community of original thinkers, coexisting, more than tolerating but appreciating differences.

We came here to learn how to do that in peace.
 
What makes that possible is this phrase: Regardless of how we see things, we have compassion for one another. That choice-of-thought builds the kind of peace we came here to build.

In peace, Mandy

Tuesday, June 9, 2026

Heart Sutra: Buddha's Mother: Perfect Wisdom

Perfection of Insight, Prajnaparamita (LACMA)
All hail the Goddess (DeviPrajna Paramita (of Java), the Mother of the Perfection of Wisdom, the most tremendous, the most excellent of the Ten Perfections (paramitas) which the historical Buddha cultivated for aeons as the Bodhisatta (the "being bent on supreme enlightenment").

The Heart Sutra is the world's most popular Buddhist sutra. Sadly, from a young age, even I recognized something in its magical wording (Edward Conze translation). It had a small tract of it in English and Chinese, and I would approach Chinese friends to translate some of the incomprehensible parts -- one line in particular: "until we come to."

Sveta Sofia (Wisdom) of Bulgaria
What in the world? It turns out that was just Conze's way of saying "...". And other parts were explained to me as having been written in an archaic form of Old (liturgical) Chinese few people spoke, which they were very embarrassed to admit. The Berkeley Zen Center was even more forthcoming, suggesting it was just something to chant, not something one could hope to make sense of, like a Sanskrit seed-mantra. So they just chanted it, on the one hand, rote, mindlessly, thoughtlessly, with no investigation that it might actually mean something sensible. I, on the other hand, was tenacious, spending years making sense of it. And every year it made more and more sense.

The lost meaning has been recovered. 
My Theravada study of it revealed exactly what it was all about after a few years due to some key phrases that do not make sense on their own but make perfect sense as references to ancient Buddhist texts, such as lists of the BASES (ayatanas). The final crowning explanation came from Alan Watts* making sense of the strange wording, which might trip one up for years. I attribute this to a flexible way of translating any Sanskrit or Pali word, all of which have much wider valence, admitting to a range of translations, not one fixed English word to serve all situations.
  • A bodhisattva helping living beings
    The key secret is to realize that Śūnyatā ("Emptiness," void) is synonymous with the Pali suññatā ("impersonal" = anatta). Then everything else falls into place.
  • This is because what the Heart Sutra (Prajñā-pāramitā-hṛdaya Discourse) is talking about are the Five Aggregates clung to as self, pointing out that every "heap" -- each one of the Five Aggregates -- is actually devoid of self. It is impersonal and is in that sense "empty." It has no "independent existence." What kind of existence does it have? It has a dependently-originated one. It is foolish to think there is nothing there at all as if all things were the void: There is no thing there, but there is something, some stuff, something is appearing. In the ultimate sense, "things" (dhammas, dharmas, phenomena) have an existence and so are called "things." The one thing that is not a thing is nirvana (the deathless, amata/amritathe unconditioned element). Nirvana, being free of conditions, does not bear the (three universal) marks of "things." This "self" we cling to is just such a "thing," a conglomeration of other "things" (aggregates, groups, heaps), bearing the universal marks of being impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal.
  • Avalokitesvara (in basalt)
    "Self" arises in this way, not as a real entity but an illusion brought about by the presence of the aggregates. When one grasps that all there has ever been are phenomenal aggregates -- impermanent, disappointing, and impersonal -- then the heart naturally lets go with no prompting and becomes free of all clinging and all further suffering.
  • It is called the "Heart" (hṛdaya) Sutra not because of emotions or sweetness but because it comes as the culmination, the brief summary, the pith, the essence of 100,000 lines or verses of detailed explanation. It is the essence of perfected wisdom. It is the key to stream entry, that which when not grasped keeps us as ordinary worldling but when grasped causes a "change of lineage" (gotrabhu) to the noble ones. The Buddha himself said it. There are not enlightened disciples to be found in other traditions, at least not in the Buddhist sense of the term bodhi ("awakened," "enlightened," "liberated") because nowhere else is this Doctrine of No-Self ever taught, ever revealed, ever explained, although all popular religions seem to have an innate understanding that being egoless is far wiser than being full of ego. For example, in popular Christianity, in the eyes of God, what is the worst sin? Pride.
Beloved Kwan Yin (Guanyin)
Better than [the Goddess of Compassion] Kwan Yin (the feminine form of Avalokiteshvara)? More beloved than [the Cosmic Buddha of Light] Amitabha? No, probably not, but what is higher and more exalted than wisdom?

The Buddha himself noted how popular and beloved Ananda was, whereas the monastics did not seem to realize the kalyana-mitta (noble/enlightening friendship) potential of Ven. Sariputta, the male monastic he declared foremost in wisdom. One can easily imagine the same thing must have happened among the females with the Buddha highlighting the value of the great bhikkhuni Ven. Khema, the nun he declared foremost in wisdom.

Sariputta and MM become disciples
Now, one may ask, Why is Avalokiteśvara -- who is later transformed into the Goddess or Personification of Compassion (Kwan Yin/Guanyin) -- addressing Ven. Sariputra of all people in this most famous of all apocryphal "discourses"?

UCLA Prof. Robert E. Buswell Jr. (who ordained as a monk in Korean Zen then Sri Lankan Theravada before becoming a Western academic) explained the reason to us in class. Brahminical/Chinese Mahayana is holding up the monk disciple (shravaka) the Buddha declared "foremost in wisdom" as a scarecrow, stick figure, or punching bag to mock his supposed "wisdom," as if he were a mere intellect, a clueless egghead, a Brahmin nerd, a clueless dork compared to their god (deva, deity) Avalokita, whom they declare an "enlightenment being" (bodhi-sattva) and "great being" (maha-sattva, a Mahayana maha-sthamaprapta).
How to make the Heart Sutra simpler?
Rewrite it in modern English so readers get it

Holding lotus, symbol of blossoming
Wow, this perfection of wisdom is cool! It's eye-opening!

Avi, awake and wanting to awaken others, was reviewing the wisdom that has gone beyond. He looked down from on high and saw just five heaps, saw that in and of themselves they are impersonal, NOT A SELF, empty.

Herein, Sali, form is impersonal and the impersonal is form; the impersonal is not different than form, and form is not different than the impersonal. Anything that is impersonal, empty, and not-self is form.
  • The Zen ensō (zero, circle)
    [Conze translates it as: "Form is emptiness, and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form; form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is emptiness, that is form; [whatever is form, that is emptiness;] the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses (cetana, volitions), and consciousness." What does this mean? "Form" (Rūpa) and "Emptiness" (Sanskrit ŚūnyatāPali Suññatā), Alan Watts explains below, go together, are inseparable, are relational, one revealing the other, making no sense without the other. The instant one arises, the other necessarily arises at the same time, for one cannot be without the other, just as pairs like being/nonbeing, birth/death, origin/cessation, figure/background. One would be meaningless without the other, for the other provides contrast and its very definition.]
  • What is an Enso? (Lion’s Roar)
And the same is true of [of the other four heaps/aggregates] sensations, perceptions, formations, and consciousnesses.
Herein [here within this Doctrine], Sali, all phenomena are impersonal. They bear the mark of being impersonal, empty: They are not produced and not stopped, not dirty and not clean, not missing something and not full.

So you see, Sali, in the impersonal, there is no form (no body composed of the Four Elements), nor sensations, nor perceptions, nor formations, nor consciousnesses.

Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva as "Avi"
There are no bases for these things [that are all dependently originated]: no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, nor the things that impinge on them: forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or objects of mind, nor the things these sense depend on for their sensitivity: no element (sensitive tissue) of sight, and so forth, until we come to: no element (sensitive tissue) at the heart of consciousness.

[Why? It is because, after all, all things are impersonal, empty, not a self, so a bunch of them together don't make a self either).]

Devi Prajnaparamita of Java
Likewise, really, there is no ignorance, so there is no end of ignorance [since it doesn't really exist except as an illusion), and so forth, until we come to: There is no aging and death, no end of aging and death. There is no disappointment, no coming into being, no extinction, and no path to the extinction of disappointment. There is no knowing, no attainment, and there is no non-attainment of this realization.

And so, Sali, because of one's not-attaining anything that a being-bent-on-enlightenment, perfecting this wisdom that has gone beyond, dwells free of discursive thoughts. In their absence, one is free of trembling. One has overcome all that can upset and so realized nirvana.

Sophia (Library of Celsus)
All those who appear as supremely awakened teachers the three periods of time -- past, present, and future -- fully awake to this utmost realization, right and perfect awakening because they have perfected the wisdom that has gone beyond.

So, Sali, everyone should know this perfection of wisdom as a kind of mantra, the mantra of great knowing, the utmost mantra, the unequalled mantra, the allayer of all disappointment and ill. It's true; I mean, what could really go wrong except that it be an illusion?

By perfecting the wisdom that has gone beyond, this mantra becomes clear, and it runs like this:

Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!
("Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, oh what an awakening, it's true!")

This is indeed the pith of perfect wisdom.

Self, in the ultimate analysis, does not exist
(Khenpo Sodargye's Teachings) If there is no self, who reincarnates? | National Taiwan U Q&A

*Alan Watts: "Form is emptiness, AND emptiness is form." Why?

We were happy just to CHANT it
Is enlightenment possible for everyone?
 
Icon of Holy Wisdom (Vologda)
(Dalai Lama) Can everyone be enlightened? Moksha ("liberation," vimutti, "freedom" from samsara and suffering, "deliverance," salvation) is of two kinds, two levels, a happy life here and now [with possibly a heavenly rebirth for moral behavior hereafter] or attaining liberating-insight and final emancipation here and now in this very life through moral behavior, stillness (samadhi, settled calm, concentration), and vipassana (comprehending and cultivating Dependent Origination sufficient in theory and complete in practice).

NBA Finals, Trump, comedy, slave to Israel


Spencer Pratt (Playboy t-shirt), Fats, Heidi Montag
(Jimmy Kimmel Live) Hated Pres. Trump gets BOOED and falls asleep in front of a sold-out crowd (NBA Finals), after turning MSG into a police state staging area, claims his War on Iran for Israel is almost over (for the 37th+ time) as he restarts bombings, and goodbye to L.A. Republican mayoral candidate and failed reality TV star Pratt
(DemocracyNow.org) Fired for talking climate in Trump's America

Time Travel and Buddhist physics (video)

Should consciousness follow the body (as above) or the body follow consciousness (as below)?
.
Always be mindful here and now.
Dr. Crazynovich(Dr. Crazynovich) April 19, 2026: John Titor and the Second American Civil War. On November 2, 2000, a user calling himself "TimeTravel_0" appeared on the Time Travel Institute forums and made a claim that should have been dismissed as obvious fiction. He was a soldier from the year 2036, sent back on a military mission to retrieve an IBM 5100 computer that his era needed to debug legacy systems inherited from the late twentieth century. He had been routed through the year 2000 for what he called personal reasons. He was there, he said, to observe the world before it changed. Within weeks, he migrated to the Art Bell forums under a new name, John Titor, and began posting with a specificity that no casual hoaxer has ever sustained for long. He described his time machine in engineering detail.

Thich Nhat Hanh: "To live, we must die every instant. We must perish again and again [like flickering individual stills run in a series of connected frames of a filmstrip, one passing away and the next appearing] in the storms that make life possible."
COMMENTARY: Mindfulness of Time Travel
Dhr. Seven, Sheldon S., Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly, Ananda, June 10, 2026

Man, Spinoza was as genius as Tesla!
It is deadly easy to laugh at "time travel." But what we are laughing at is not the real thing so much as all our assumptions about it. Is it real? We have reason to think so. Jewish science, for example, in the form of Alvy Einstein, Bibi Spinoza, and Dr. Brucey Goldberg. Alvy drew up no equations making it impossible, did he? Time might go in either direction, and there's the curious case of retrocausation, not to mention "spooky action at a distance," which Alvy doubted, now known as quantum entanglement.

What about God? Yeah, what about it? Alvy, possibly a JuBu, when asked about that it, stated that his God was Bibi Spinoza's God. But who cares about science? If we cared, we might make more of fellow scientists raising an alarm in Pasadena about our planet/plane.

Pederastic Jewish fantasy as Da Costa 'instructs'
little Bibi Spinoza on his lap (Sam Hirszenberg)
However, Bruce Goldberg is the most interesting of the three named, for he says with absolute certainty that not only is time travel possible, we're already doing it. Who's "we"? We as in you and me. What? Here's easy proof. Close your eyes. Close them! Hold perfectly still. More still, samadhi-like stillness, quietude. Feel it?

Right NOW, right here, we're traveling into the future. It's true! Look at the calendar! Look at a watch! Oh, that doesn't count! No proof is good enough, and it never has been. Stubborn!

Which way does time travel? In a spiral?
So we are "traveling" in time, you admit? Yes, look, the real question is, Can we go back (or sideways) in time? That immediately brings up the problem of space, not outer space, not even inner space. I'm talking about the space right here. To go "sideways" is my way of saying bilocation or colocation. For instance, when "now" arrived the first time, I was right here. Might I, on the second occasion, have been somewhere else?

Can I go back to that now and be somewhere else that time? If so, that would be time travel! Can I, or all of us, go back at all? Goldberg says yes, and if you pay him, he'll take you back, so you can shut yer yapper and stop asking all these doubt-filled questions full of investigative energy and childlike curiosity. After all, what will that mean?
  • Ven. Thay, what time is it?
    NOTE: If time travel becomes possible, WHEN will we have it? WHEN will it be true? WHEN will I get to do it? - These questions were all answered in an instant when we gathered to protest at JPL's back parking lot near the head of Tovaangar's Gabrieleno Trail (JPL). We were all chanting, "What do we want!?" - "Time travel!" - "When do we want it!?" - "Whenever!" ("Whenever"? Shouldn't we have answered, "NOW!"? which is how protest chants usually go? Well, yes, but as many on the scene argued, it won't matter. Why? It won't matter because WHEN we have time travel (due to our ability to go back or forward to any time that's ever been or will be), we will have had time travel all along, and "all along" includes NOW, which is when we have it, if we EVER get it. Get it? See the problem? If not, refer to the increasingly inaccurate trilogy borne out of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which the genius Douglas Adams discusses the problematic grammar (tense constuctions) of having it.
  • [Eckhart Tolle, when is "NOW"? And, by the way, how many "nows" are there?]
Step into the Eternal Now
That is hard to say because it seems to mean various things -- and those things change our view and version of "reality." Sci-fi says going back and changing anything means changing it [and everything else due to the butterfly effect] for everyone.

What if it only changes for us? For example, I said "no." What if I went back in time and were to say "yes"? Just that change, what would it do? Would all the world and universe be different? Would it shatter our dimension? Would I be happy? Would the world regret it? It seems Brucey Baby is talking about not that but jumping timelines to a line (which is to say a time) where I did. And what happened?

I could go see. Would anybody else see? They would in that timeline, but I might like to come back to this timeline. Could I? Yes, Dr. Goldberg says, and he adds that that's what we're doing all the time anyway. (That may be the realization of reality we are not ready for).
Maybe we should just Be Here Now
So we already are time traveling! Jewish science. Is it a coincidence that those identifying as Ashkenazi Jews are the one who have made these speculations, advancements, and claims?

Maybe, but no one can say anything about it or risk being ostracized, listed, and categorized as an "antidentite." So grin and bear it and not just because our beloved Dr. B. Goldberg of LA is a dentist who may have inhaled some pharmaceutical fumes.
Wait then, what is "space"?

What is the absence of zero? (Enso)
In Buddhist phenomenology, akasha is divided into "limited space" (ākāsa-dhātu) and "endless [or boundless] space" (ajatākasā) [9]. The Vaibhāṣika, an early school of Buddhist philosophy, holds the view that the existence of akasha is real [10].

Ākāsa is identified as the first arūpa jhāna ("formless/immaterial absorption," dhyana in Buddhism), but that plane (among the four immaterial planes of the 31 Planes of Existence) and that absorption (by which one arrives at it) is usually translated as "infinite space" [11], with WQ preferring "boundless" space.

Two meanings of "space"
Sir, is 'space' fifth great element?
"Space" (Pali Ākāśa, Sanskrit, akasha) holds two primary meanings in Abhidhamma and Abhidharma analysis [12].

There is spatiality, where Ākāśa is defined as the absence that delimits forms. Like the empty space within a door frame, it is an emptiness (hollow) that is shaped and defined by the material boundary surrounding it.

And there is "vast space," where Ākāśa is described as the absence of obstruction (boundlessness), categorized as one of the nityadharmas ("permanent phenomena") because it remains unchanged over time.

Ether (aether) is real
In this sense, it is likened to the discarded Western concept of aether—a real but scientifically rejected immaterial, bright, lminous "fluid" (possibly like the Bible's "waters above" the firmament) that supports the Four Great (material) Elements (Buddhism's mahābhūta).
  • These "elements" (dhatus) are actually four major qualities of matter or materiality understood as various particles (RUPA-kalapas), exhibiting a predominance of one quality over the others, which amounts to more than a dozen major expressions placed for simplicity into four big categories.
  • Now listen up. This is verified Buddhist science.
    BUDDHIST
    "PARTICLE" PHYSICS: A rupa-kalapa or "form particle" is a "corporeal group," a "material unit" that designates a combination of several physical phenomena constituting a temporary, flowing, functional unity.
  • Therefore, for instance, inanimate or so-called "dead matter" forms the most primitive group, consisting only of eight physical phenomena. These are called the "pure eightfold unit" or "octad" (suddhatthaka-kalāpa), comprised of: The Four Elements (solidity, fluidity, temperature, motion); color, smell, taste, nutriment (pathavī, āpo, tejo, vāyo; vanna, gandha, rasa, ojā). 
  • In The Path of Purification (Vis.M.) and elsewhere, it is also called ojatthamaka-kalāpa, "the octad with nutriment as the eighth factor." The simplest form of living matter is the "ninefold vitality unit" or "life-ennead" (jīvita-navaka-kalāpa), formed by adding "vitality" (jiva) to the octad. Seven decads, or "units of ten" (dasaka-kalāpa), are formed by adding to the ninefold unit one of the following corporeal phenomena: HEART (cittahrdayam, the physical seat of mind) [the physical seat of consciousness, not formally declared by the Buddha but understood to be located near the physical heart at a tiny spot at the upper part of it where it exhibits greenish hue and mirror-like function, reflecting conscious experience, which may sound preposterous but is personally verifiable by meditative-scientists, as are all of the claims made in this physics section], sex, eye, ear, nose, tongue, or body.
  • See Vis.M. XVIII, 4; Compendium of Buddhist Philosophy (PTS), p. 164, 250; Atthasālini Tr., II, 413f. Source
Oh, to know the world as the Buddha knew it!
Ether's radiant quality (aether meaning "brightness") often serves as a metaphor for pure luminous (or original) mind or buddhahood, which is described as shining like the sun or space.

In Buddhist samatha meditation, ākāśa is significant in the context of the sphere of boundless/infinite space (ākāśānantyāyatana), the first of the four immaterial absorptions (arupa-jhanas or dhyānas) [12].

Philosophically, ākāśa is considered one of the uncompounded phenomena (asaṃskṛtadharmas) in six Buddhist schools, including the defunct Sarvāstivāda and Mahāsāṃghika, and later the Yogācāra. However, three other schools, including the extant Theravāda, reject this interpretation [12]. More
Time in Greek mythology
Chronos and New Year Cupid
Chronos
(Ancient Greek Χρόνος, Romanized Khronos, lit. "Time," Modern Greek ['xronos], also spelled Chronus like the Wise Woman The Crone but not the Titan Cronus), is a personification of time in Greek mythology discussed in pre-Socratic philosophy and later literature [1]. His consort is Goddess Ananke.*
 
Chronos is frequently confused with, or perhaps consciously identified with, the Titan Cronus in antiquity, due to the similarity in names [2]. The identification became more widespread during the Renaissance ("Rebirth"), giving rise to the iconography of Father Time wielding the harvesting scythe [3] like Death (Buddhist Mara).

Greco-Roman mosaics depicted Chronos as a man turning the zodiac wheel [4]. He is comparable to the deity Aion (kalpa, aeon) as a symbol of cyclical time [5]. More
  • Ananke and her daughters the Fates
    *Goddess Ananke: In ancient Greek religion and mythology, Ananke (Ἀνάγκη, from the common noun "force, constraint, necessity," ἀνάγκη), is a personification of inevitability or compulsion, and is customarily depicted holding a spindle. The births of Ananke and her incestuous brother and divine consort, Chronos (the personification of time), were thought to mark the division between the aeon of Chaos and the beginning of our cosmos. She is considered the most powerful dictator (director) of fate and circumstance. Mortals and gods (devas) alike respect her power and pay her homage. She is considered the Mother of the Fates, hence she is thought to be the only being to overrule their decisions [1] (according to some sources, excepting Zeus also). According to Daniel Schowalter and Steven Friesen, she and the Fates "are all sufficiently tied to early Greek mythology to make their Greek origins likely"[2]. More
Alan Watts: Atomic Theory (Tao/God)
(Official Alan Watts OrgAtomos ("uncuttable"), smallest material unit