Cloudscape

To be mindful of every experience can uplift one to such state of bliss that, ironically, there is soon the danger that one becomes attached to it, which, once you are no longer in a state of mindfulness, causes negative emotions which prevent us from becoming mindful again. In order not to become attached to the state of being mindful of your experiences of every moment, try to see the transience of every moment, which, after all, lasts only for a moment before it is replaced with the next.

Do not regret when you have allowed an experience to pass you by without you having thankfully enjoyed it, for every experience lasts only an infinitely short time. It does not matter to have lost it, for in doing so, you have lost nearly nothing. In the awareness that every moment fades after an infinitely short time, you may better be able to detach from it.

Whether you were mindful or not at some time in the past does not change your chance of being mindful now, for if at a given moment you wish to be mindful merely for the experience of mindfulness at this moment, and not for its effect on long term, then you certainly will be at that given moment. You may no longer be so the next moment, but that does not matter, for if you do not, it is because you no longer wish to be mindful for that moment, and that, at most, you wish to be mindful merely for the long-term effect of it.

If you try to be mindful but fail, it is because you have forgotten why you want to be mindful. At this point, you no longer truly want to mindful to experience, but merely to be in a state you can call mindful.

After no time will time ever be aught but this moment; and after no time will this moment ever be again.

""Before' implies time""


No, no.
"Time" implies "before."
Time is basically movement. There's no way you can separate the two concepts whatsoever.
If you remove movement, there's no more time, et vice versa.
So if you'd say there was no time before the Big Bang, how did it come into being?
Obviously such line of reasoning as what there was "before there was time" is bound to lead into sophistication, and therefore I will continue to assume in the nature of an infinite and eternal universe.
I just don't believe in a beginning of existence because of Occam's razor; an existence which had no beginning is simple simper, requiring less tortuous logic.
The only reason why one would favor a universe with beginning is because it's intuitive: everything in our world, after all, has a beginning. But if beginning itself would have a beginning, then that as well would have to be part of the beginning. In other words, there is no reasonable way in which one can "exclude" something from existence and assign it the cause of existence. Anything that would have caused existence would already have been part of it.

There is a fallacy in this argument, however: it treats the past as if it still exists when one goes back to the past. In fact, this turns the past into the present. This means that the past would actually have followed the present; in this way, it is impossible to be in the past because one is always in the present, but one could assume that one could make the present turn into what it used to be. "The present" just means whatever we are experiencing right now.
Thus, if one would go back to the past, meaning that one would change whatever there is in the present into what it was in the past, and then change the past, then whatever one would do in the past would cause the future to be altogether different (due to chaos theory), so that there would be no future to return to - or it would be an altogether different one. However, since you yourself would be part of the future, then you as well would be altogether different, actually meaning that you wouldn't exist. If you would therefore return to the future, you would just pop into existence from nowhere, just as you had when you went back to the past, and the only history you'd have was that you'd have travelled through time.
In short, there is no other time than now, and only by changing now can one make it like the future or past, although that doesn't mean that it is the future or past. It is just the present being as the past or future would have been, had it been future or past.
If one would travel through time by travelling to a parallel universe which is how your own universe used to be in the past, however, nothing in your own universe would be changed by whatever you would do in this parallel universe.
I don't actually believe in time travel at all. But it is an interesting concept in fiction; but when it is used in fiction, it aught not to get tangled in false logic.

One can only lose time by considering whatever one is doing a loss of time.

For Unity, now is always and here is everywhere: past, present and future converge into the present, as the infinity of all time is contained within the infinitesimal of the present; for Unity, even the infinitely small is infinitely large.