I have no desire to discuss mysticism. My view is that if there is anything to it, the revealed truth is indescribable, so any attempts to discuss it among those of us to whom truth has not been revealed can only lead to confusion, error, and then (rightfully so) ridicule and derision.
I have no problem discussing meta-mysticism, however, as you did in your post.
From what you wrote about TOM, I think we see eye-to-eye on the subject about as well as we can within the limitations of language.
On the issue of time, I agree it is a baffling mystery. However, since the time you and I last communicated, I met Dr. Dick Stafford with whom you have talked a few times on this forum. I intensely studied his Chapter 1 (of 5) for over six months, with a huge amount of help from him. From this, I got a glimpse of what he has to say about time.
I am convinced that he has discovered an explanation of time that is as true as any proposition I am aware of (except that "Thought happens").
His notion fits in exactly with your denial of the reality of dimensions, be they spatial or temporal. According to what I understand, his notion of time, and space too for that matter, is simply an arbitrary choice in how you want to display the data you get from reality. We have gotten into the habit of viewing the world as three spatial and one temporal dimensions, but that is not the only way to view it.
That explains the problem you and I discussed over a year ago about how, from some higher dimensional perspective, can a temporal dimension become a spatial dimension? Dick's answer, I think, would be, it is simply a matter of how you want to look at it. Either way is valid if you want.
That, I know, won't clear up anything, or do anything for your headache, but I just wanted to point out that it might be possible for someone who knows a lot more math and physics than I do to arrive at some real correct explanation of time which makes sense.