TIME

The problem of time has been fascinating thinkers since ancient times. Many philosophers (such as Plato, Ar-
istotle, and Kant) and scientists (such as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein) have tried to conceptualize and
analyze time in many ways. There are two main concepts about time recognized as firstly, physical time that is
objective and secondly, psychological time that is subjective and has a mind-dependent existence.
In Theravada Buddhist philosophy, the idea that time does not exist independently is quite significant.
Although many Western thinkers (such as the names mentioned in the previous paragraph) were interested
in investigating the concept of time, only some of them agree with the idea that time existence depends on the
mind. Henri Bergson, a renowned French philosopher, is one among a few who supported the idea that time is
mind-dependent since he suggested that real time, which he called “duration”, exists merely in our conscious-
ness. In this study, the researcher has critically examined Buddhist and Henri Bergson’s concepts of time and
sought to identify their similarities and their distinctiveness.
This research compared a basic concept from Buddhist philosophy, the concept of time, with Henri
Bergson’s concept of time. The objective of this research was not to finalize the philosophical argument about
the concept of time, but to attempt to come to a certain level of conclusion about the characteristics of time in
Buddhism that have similar qualities as well as different qualities to the characteristics of time in Henri Berg-
son’s explanation based on Thai philosophers’ viewpoints.
Time is what we use a clock or calendar to measure. We can say time is composed of all the instants or
all the times, but that word “times” is ambiguous and also means measurements of time. Think of our placing a
coordinate system on our space-time—the measurements we make of time are numbers variously called times,
dates, clock readings, and temporal coordinates; these numbers are relative to time zones and reference frames
and conventional agreements about how to define the second, the conventional unit for measuring time.
It is because of what time is that we can succeed in assigning time numbers in this manner. Another
feature of time is that we can place all events in a single reference frame into a linear sequence one after the
other according to their times of occurrence; for any two instants, they are either simultaneous or one hap-
pens before the other but not vice versa. A third feature is that we can succeed in coherently specifying with
real numbers how long an event lasts; this is the duration between the event’s beginning instant and its ending
instant. These are three key features of time, but they do not quite tell us what time actually is.
The problem of time has been fascinating thinkers long before and long after Henri Bergson. Many
philosophers (such as Plato, Aristotle, and Kant) and scientists (such as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein)
have tried to conceptualize and analyze time in many aspects. There are two main concepts about time that
are distinctively recognized by philosophers and scientists which are firstly, physical time that is objective and
exists outside of the human mind and is a part of the natural world and secondly, psychological time that is
subjective and has a mind-dependent existence (Dowden, 2012, Weinert, 2013, pp. 7–84).
For Plato, time was related to regular physical events such as the motion of celestial bodies which are
ideal instruments to measure time since their orbital periods are regular and eternal and therefore, can be used
to identify human time such as the duration of one day (sunrise to sunset) and the duration of a month (lunar
cycle) (Weinert, 2013, p. 9). Aristotle who was the first Greek philosopher to support the idea of subjective
time since he suggested that there is no time without a soul (Aristotle, chap. 14). Similarly for Kant, time and
the thought that perceived it cannot be separated (Ricard & Thuan, 2001, p. 138) which implies that time is
mind-dependent and subjective.
However, Sir Isaac Newton defined time as an absolute entity which is real, not relative to or depending
on others and therefore, mathematically true and objective. On the other hand, Rene Descartes, John Locke,
and David Hume argued that time depends on the mind to acknowledge it (Weinert, 2013, pp. 17–20). Thus,
for the latter group, it implies that time is subjective. Moreover, Albert Einstein’s discovery of the theory of rel-
ativity reveals the fact that physical time exists only in relation to the speed of the realm of its existence, which
means that time is slower in relation to its containing object’s increasing speed (Weinert, 2013, pp. 62–73).
Concept of Time in Theravada Buddhist Philosophy
According to Buddhist Philosophy, time appears in our consciousness during the process of knowing, which
consists of the existence of matter first, then, the interaction between matters, then, functions of our conscious-
ness (our senses), then, the process of knowing that occur in our consciousness and finally, the feeling that
occurs in our consciousness.

Time therefore, is subjective because its existence depends upon our consciousness to acknowledge it. Time is
relative to our consciousness through our perceptions of the world via our senses (Bunnag, 2016, p. 89).

Moreover, Buddhist philosophy suggests that time does not have real existence. It is only a concept with no
inherent existence because it belongs to the relative truth of the world of experience from our consciousness.
Each of our consciousness (or thought-moment) according to Abhidhamma (Narada Maha Thera, 1987, p. 215)
consists of three phases, with the first phase called the occurring or genesis (uppada), the second phase is change
or development (thiti) and the last phase is cessation or dissolution (bhanga). One consciousness is followed by
another. The past is gone; the future has not yet to come. We live only for the moment of Now which is, thus, the
transitional stage from the future to the past. Buddhist scripture states clearly that “Time is a concept derived
from this or that phenomenon. And it does not exist by nature, it is merely a concept” (Narada Maha Thera,
1987, p. 216).

Furthermore, Buddhist philosophy suggests that time is mind-dependent because time has no existence outside
of phenomena and their observers. Time must be perceived by a mind (consciousness) in relation to successions
of events that occur to a particular system (that is, planes of existence, such as heaven, earth, or hell) (Promtha,
1988, pp. 54–60). It follows that without a mind to observe the changes of the conditioned things, the perception
of time cannot be realized (Bunnag, 2016, p. 90).

Finally, the concept of time in Buddhist philosophy suggests that without the conditioned things, there will be
no concept of time. The conditioned things related to time as witness to their unstable and changing condition
which suggests that time does not exist separately from the conditioned things. This relationship does not mean
that time is a quality of the conditioned things, but it indicates that time is only a concept invented by conscious-
ness from perceiving the becoming process of the conditioned things. It follows that without the becoming pro-
cess of the conditioned things, there is no time, and without time, there is no past, present, and future (Bunnag,
2016, p. 91). The only existence would be only the unconditioned things that exist beyond the concept of time
(Promtha, 1988, p. 59).
Concept of Time in Henri Bergson’s Philosophy
Henri Bergson (1859–1941) was a Famous French philosopher and a Nobel Laureate whose theory of time re-
lates directly to the idea of Freewill. Bergson distinguishes between two forms of time: pure time and mathemat-
ical time. Pure time has a real duration which is different from mathematical time that is perceived as discrete
units. Pure time (real duration or lived consciousness) is continuous and indivisible. Mathematical time is divisi-
ble into small discrete units of second, minutes and so on, which do not reflect the flow of real time. Bergson also
argued that experience viewed as a succession of separate states is no less an abstraction than time as measured
by the hands of a clock. Both (the experience viewed as a succession of separates states and time measured by the
hands of a clock) are fundamentally spatial. On the other hand, real duration or lived consciousness is a spatio-
temporal continuum (a bundle of space-time continuity) which is indivisible and, according to Bergson, the flow
of real time can only be known by intuition (Bergson, 2001, pp. 75–101).
Intuition is a kind of intellectual sympathy. It enables one’s consciousness to become identified with an
object. Bergson explains that intuition “signifies …immediate consciousness, a vision which is scarcely distin-
guishable from the object seen, a knowledge which is contact or even coincidence (Stumpf, 1982, p. 371)”. Most
important of all for Bergson, “to think intuitively is to think in duration (Stumpf, 1982, p. 371).” In intuition we
comprehend the truth of things as a whole, as a complete process of the dynamic life of the spiritual conscious-
ness. Intuition is a form of knowledge that reality is continuous and indivisible, and that reality is always chang-
ing.
This intuition is the means by which we come to know reality, that is duration or real time which is not a
multiplicity of moments, nor is it an abstract eternity, but is a series of acts of direct participation in the imme-
diate experience. That is, one must be more than an outside observer. One must be part of the awareness and of
the actual object. Only in this manner can we know the real experience of duration. Bergson was certain that to
“think in duration” was to have a true grasp of reality since such thought gives us a more accurate notion of time,
real, continuous time, as compared with the mathematical time that is spatial and objective.
According to Bergson, real time cannot be analyzed mathematically. Any activity to measure time means
generating a break or disruption in time. In order to try to understand the flow of time, the intellect forms con-
cepts of time as consisting of defined moments or intervals. But to try to intellectualize the experience of dura-
tion is to falsify it. Real duration can only be experienced by intuition (Bergson, 2007, pp. 162–163).
In the intellectual representation of time, a succession of distinct states or events is presented as a spatial-
ized form of time. Time is conceptualized as an ordered arrangement of defined events, rather than as an endless
flow of experience in an indivisible continuity. The intellect analyzes time as having measurable duration, but
the flow of real time can only be known by intuition. Bergson argues that intellect and intuition are capable of
different kinds of knowledge. Scientific principles are intellectual, while metaphysical principles are intuitive.
However, science and philosophy can be combined to produce knowledge that is both intellectual and intuitive.
Such knowledge can unify divergent perceptions of reality.
Regarding the idea of freewill, Bergson suggests that the existence of time as duration may explain the
indeterminateness of things. Time as duration may explain why indeterminate things may later be able to be de-
termined. Things that can be determined may also become indeterminate. If real time or duration did not exist,
all things could (theoretically) be determined simultaneously. The indeterminateness of things means that the
outcome of some events may change, and that there may be freedom of action. Freedom can be experienced by
direct intuition with real time or duration (Bergson, 2007, pp. 133–169).
A Comparative Study Between the Buddhist and Henri Bergson’s Concepts of Time from Thai Philoso-
phers’ Perspectives
Is it possible to identify any common characteristics and understand the differences between the Buddhist con-
cept of time and famous Western thinkers’ such as Henri Bergson’s philosophy? If Buddhist philosophy is not ob-
solete, there should be some common characteristics of time that are also recognized by thinkers from different
periods of time, cultures, traditions, and beliefs, for example by the famous French philosopher Henri Bergson.
The objectives of this research were: first, to critically examine the concept of time in Buddhist philosophy and
this is presented in the “Concept of time in Theravada Buddhist philosophy” section; second, to critically ex-
amine the concept of time in Henri Bergson’s philosophy and this is presented in the “Concept of time in Henri
Bergson’s philosophy” section; and lastly, in this following section, the researcher tried to identify the common
and different characteristics between the two conceptual schools of thought.
This research aimed to add information to, but not to definitely conclude, the comparison between the
Buddhist concept of time and Henri Bergson’s concept of time. The concept of time in philosophy has always
been debatable, thus, the objective of this research was not to finalize the philosophical argument about the con-
cept of time, but to merely attempt to come to a level of conclusion, based on documentary research and ques-
tionnaire surveys of Buddhist and Bergson’s scholars in Thailand. The results of this study could help by adding
information and suggesting some debatable conclusions about the characteristics of time in Buddhism that have
similar qualities, as well as the characteristics of time in Buddhism that have different qualities from Bergson’s
explanations.
In addition, this research on the concept of time in Buddhist philosophy in comparison to Bergson’s
could be beneficial to scholars who are interested in the philosophy of time because it could add new informa-
tion from Thai philosophers’ viewpoints regarding Buddhist and Bergson’s concepts of time in relation to West-
ern theories of time.