Time and Space

May 26, 2004

praNAm CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

CN prabhuji:

The reference is the waking state because it is the present

unsublated experience. What is experienced is to be accepted as it is

experienced, until it is sublated.

bhaskar:

This present unsublated experience of waking world will get sublated in

dreaming state dont you experience that prabhuji?? while dreaming do you

think the dreaming world will get sublated after your waking?? where is

your *present unsublated experience* in your deep sleep state?? when you

are equally experiencing all the three avasthA-s in day-in, day-out, you

cannot hold one particular avastha as a referential platform. To realise

our svarUpa shAstra is the anthya pramANa & shAstra is saying that YOU are

the witness to these states ( see kATaka shruti reference quoted in my

previous mail). So, when you are analysing our sAkshi svarUpa, first you

should keep I first, in I, the vaishvAnara (the waker), waking world & its

experience, likewise I, the taijasa (the dreamer), dreaming world & its

experience etc. This is called sAkshi view point. From this sAkshi view

point avastha-s are mere vikalpa-s. mAndukya says our svarUpa is turIya

which is beyond these three states. Moreover, ItarEya shruti declaring in

clear terms that these three states are nothing but dream from sAkshi view

point ( tasya traya AvasthAH trayaH svapnAH). prabhuji, though you think

waking state has more validity & reality shruti asking you to treat all

avasthA-s as mere dreams. Under these circumstances it is to be understood

that avasthA-s are in me & I am not in avasthA & our true nature is

avasthAthIta.

Shankara in sUtra bhAshya, at only one place upholds the reality of waking

state & its reality over dreaming. But this is while refuting bhuddhists

SUnyavAda, this is obviously from vyAvahArika waker's point of view. In

mAndUdkya shruti commentary & kArikA bhAshya, shankara analyses these three

states from sAkshi chEtaH view point which he calls as aupaniShad purusha.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 26, 2004

Dear Bhaskarji,

I do not understand the intent of your posts.

I am trying to speak about the nature of space and time as it appears

to us in the realm of name and form. Should I not speak about space

and time? Should I not try to understand why the shrutis say that

space was created first, and then air, and then fire, etc? Should I

not try to understand the nature of space whereby its meaning stands

out such that it makes sense to say that it the material cause of the

air? What is the meaning of all these words in the Vedas? Why are you

trying to dissuade me from even speaking of these things by

furnishing reasons that they are not there in deep sleep, etc.?

Regards,

Chittaranjan

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> praNAm CN prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> CN prabhuji:

>

> The reference is the waking state because it is the present

> unsublated experience. What is experienced is to be accepted as it

is

> experienced, until it is sublated.

>

> bhaskar:

>

> This present unsublated experience of waking world will get

sublated in

> dreaming state dont you experience that prabhuji?? while dreaming

do you

> think the dreaming world will get sublated after your waking??

where is

> your *present unsublated experience* in your deep sleep state??

when you

> are equally experiencing all the three avasthA-s in day-in, day-

out, you

> cannot hold one particular avastha as a referential platform. To

realise

> our svarUpa shAstra is the anthya pramANa & shAstra is saying that

YOU are

> the witness to these states ( see kATaka shruti reference quoted in

my

> previous mail). So, when you are analysing our sAkshi svarUpa,

first you

> should keep I first, in I, the vaishvAnara (the waker), waking

world & its

> experience, likewise I, the taijasa (the dreamer), dreaming world &

its

> experience etc. This is called sAkshi view point. From this

sAkshi view

> point avastha-s are mere vikalpa-s. mAndukya says our svarUpa is

turIya

> which is beyond these three states. Moreover, ItarEya shruti

declaring in

> clear terms that these three states are nothing but dream from

sAkshi view

> point ( tasya traya AvasthAH trayaH svapnAH). prabhuji, though you

think

> waking state has more validity & reality shruti asking you to treat

all

> avasthA-s as mere dreams. Under these circumstances it is to be

understood

> that avasthA-s are in me & I am not in avasthA & our true nature is

> avasthAthIta.

>

> Shankara in sUtra bhAshya, at only one place upholds the reality of

waking

> state & its reality over dreaming. But this is while refuting

bhuddhists

> SUnyavAda, this is obviously from vyAvahArika waker's point of

view. In

> mAndUdkya shruti commentary & kArikA bhAshya, shankara analyses

these three

> states from sAkshi chEtaH view point which he calls as aupaniShad

purusha.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

May 26, 2004

praNAm CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, I too noticed that the topic is catching different track from time &

space to avasthA traya, Benjamin prabhuji kindly pardon me for the

digression. But, I'd like to state that following observations of yours

prompted me to respond.

(a) Even though nothing is seen when in deep sleep, we still cognise on

waking up that time has passed.

(b) The reference is the waking state because it is the present unsublated

experience. What is experienced is to be accepted as it is experienced,

until it is sublated.

waking state.

>From the above, I thought that you are giving more valid reality to waker &

his time & space. Hence I tried to share my understandings with the list

taking sAkshi's view point into consideration. Still if you think it is

only dettering, I'll sign off from this thread.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 26, 2004

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

>

> In short, I'd suggest that we can think of a reflection back in,

> through four levels of expression:

>

> 1. Space (or more accurately space-time) -- which is perceived

through

> an incongruous mixture of outer body and inner mind.

>

> 2. Time -- which is a succession of moments through which the outer

> world of body is conceived by mind, in a mistaken and confused way

> that undermines and contradicts itself.

>

> 3. Causality -- which is the underlying continuity of consciousness

> that does not truly change, though seemingly expressed in different

> and changing things.

>

> 4. Truth -- where all space and time and cause are taken in, and

> utterly dissolved.

>

> Ananda

Namaste, Ananda-ji

Thank you for a most wonderful exposition of 'Space, Time and

Causation" ("desha-kAla-kalanA" of Shankara). The "vaicitrya" -

miracle -- of these three concepts comes forth lucidly from your

explanations.

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

May 26, 2004

Respected Shri Ananda-ji,

Thank you so much for a wonderful post on 'Time and Space'

Very elegantly stated and passionately expressed.

Anandaji writes ...

" When the lie has been admitted and the truth is realized, then mind

and time are realized as nothing else but consciousness, in which all

time and change are utterly dissolved."

YES! Consciousness !

Swami Krishnananda of Sivananda Asram express this in these poetical

verse ...

Restraining pose in body's fixed seat

And thinking deep when breathing calm subsides

The senses loosen knots of object's love

And mind, then, broods on all-expanding *space*,

The Earth does melt and water dries by fire,

Fire expires in wind that engulfs space.

This is the first profound communion's stage

They call Samadhi, gross, subtle and cause.

Commune with earth, with water, fire and air,

And *space* which melts the contents called the world,

So that there is the *space* that draws the thought

Which thinks the *space* as if it is 'other'.

Thus *space* alone is, all is *naught in space*,

The *thinker is the space*, and *space is thought.*

Consciousness is the being which remains,

Being is thought, the Great Fullness abounds.

With people's clash, with inner layer's clash,

With Nature's clash, with God's designs the clash,

Are four-edged strifes which Yoga's system ends.

Aum

May 26, 2004

Namaste Shri Nairji,

Thank you for your post which certainly made me think and realize

that I don't have all the answers. But for whatever they are worth,

let me submit my thoughts:

> > From the Advaitic point of view, space and time are spoken

> > of as time and space should be spoken of -- as the meanings

> > conferred to the words "space" and "time".

>

> [i didn't quite understand you here. Will please elaborate

> the import of this opening remark of yours?]

By "Advaitic point of view", I meant the darshana of Advaita Vedanta

encompassing the panorama of the vyavaharika and the non-dual

visions. Time and space appear in the realm of nama-rupa, and in this

realm, the rupa (form) that is true to the name (nama) is its

meaning. In other words, the forms denoted by names must be eidetic

in consciousness.

> > The English word "space" as used today equivocates on two

> > different meanings, the one being the meaning of the

> > word "aether" and the other being the meaning of the

> > word "space". Aether is the equivalent of the Sanskrit

> > Akasha. Akasha is not merely space, but "space" that

> > is impartite and pervasive through and through this

> > universe.

>

> [i am sure Benji used the word space to mean the impartite

> and pervasive entity.]

I think so too. I am also accustomed to use the word "space" in this

way. My intention here was to try and uncover the meaning of space

and time as used in the shastras.

> > Space, on the other hand, is an adjunct to akasha. Thus,

> > there may be space in the room or there may be no space

> > in the room dependeing on whether there are other objects

> > in the room. When a room is full of objects, we say there

> > is no space, and when the room is empty we say that there

> > is space.

>

> [That is just linguistic convenience. We do know that space

> as AkAsha pervades even matter as inter-molecular space.]

I agree that it is linguistic convenience. However, in Vaidika

darshanas, words point to objects without the mediation of an

intermediate "sense". I suppose this is the reason why linguistic

purity is given importance in the shastras.

> > Space has the connotation of "emptiness from objects",

> > whereas akasha is that aether that pervades all objects

> > and open spaces.

>

> [Let us visualize a situation where there is only me without any

> objects. When I say 'objects', all that are objectified are

> naturally included. Will there be time then? Time, I suppose,

> will then be naturally done.

An object of thought is also an object. Thus, for me to visualize a

situation where there is only me without any object would mean a

situation in which there is no thought as well. In that situation,

time is of course not cognized. But when thoughts arise again, there

is the cognition of time having passed even in those moments when

there were no thoughts and objects, just as the tree in my garden is

cognized to have been existing even when I did not perceive it. I

would say that sublation of time takes place truly on awakening to

the Self. I believe this what you are saying in your next statement:

> Isn't that the relevance of space-time continuum where both

> space and time are conceived as existing inseparably together

> as the two faces of the same coin like I said before? Isn't

> that 'situation', my aloneness, the advaitic oneness and the

> highway to reaching it our vEdAntik neti neti of all that are

> objectified in space-time continuum?]

Yes, I agree essentially, though I would think that within shrishti

time is prior to space.

> > For aether is not a matter that fills space, it is the

> > pervasive space itself as a material thing. It is a

> > substance (a thing seen as existing).

>

> [Well, space is 'seen' as existing only in relation to the

> existence of objects. Space needs the existence of objects

> to make its presence felt. That is why I requested you to

> visualize a 'no-object' situation.]

We may look at it this way. If there is no space (akasha), then

objects cannot logically exist because objects are extended things

i.e., space is a necessary prior requirement for objects to exist.

Again, if there is no space, then two objects would be juxtaposed one

with the other. There would then not be that emptiness between them.

But maybe you are saying that space exists, but its existence is such

that it needs objects for it to be cognized. I think that pure space

bereft of objects can be conceived as a presentation of consciousness

without such conception involving any logical contradiction.

> > Akasha is an object for it is a maha-bhuta, the first of the

> > primordial elements.

>

> [Yes. It is a mahA-bhUta. But, why do you call it the first?

> Is it because the others (earth, air, fire and water) cannot

> have relevance without space? But, aren't these, either singly

> or in combination, as objects, that impart meaning to space?]

In this regard, I would reason as follows: Space (akasha) pervades

air, fire, water and earth. What pervades is the material cause

because it constitutes that which it pervades. That which is pervaded

is the effect and is only a peculiar condition (vishesha) of the

material cause. Therefore, air, fire, water and earth are the effects

of akasha. Therefore, akasha is prior to air, fire, etc. Of course,

notions of prior and posterior appear only in the chimera of time

whereas in reality all effects are really always pre-existent in the

material cause.

> > Matter itself is what matters to the Self - it is not merely

> > the "concrete objects" of the world, but all objects to

> > which thought and senses are directed. There are sensory

> > objects and there are non-sensory objects, and akasha is a

> > sensory object in that it is sensed through its attribute

> > sound.

>

> [What about outer-space where sound cannot have passage?

I don't think this can be conceived through the paradigm of science.

But it cannot also be determined by logic without the empirical basis

which yogis and jnanis may possess. According to the grammarians,

sound, or sabda, exists in four states: para, pashyanti, madhyama and

vaikhari. It is vaikhari (or gross sound) that operates within the

causal nexus of the gross world. I would believe that pashyanti

operates only at the mental level.

Again, what is carried by a medium is different than the medium that

carries. Thus sound is a distinct thing than air. Sound is an

attribute, and an attribute is always the predicative qualification

of an existent (substance). That substance of which sound is an

attribute is said (in the Vedas) to be akasha. (I have often tried in

my meditations to figure this out, but I am not sure I have the grasp

of it).

> Rightly, isn't it light through which AkAsha is sensed? When I

> say light I mean the Sanskrit prakAsha which has a different

> shade of meaning like the difference you pointed out about mere

> space and AkAsha. We touched on this subject during our discussion

> on "Is there light in enlightenment?" last September, when we

> built on some thought-provoking ideas contributed by Anandaji.]

This is certainly an interesting topic. I cast my vote for prakasha

being the light by which everything else is seen!

> > Time, like space, is a substance. Its attributes are the past,

> > present and future. Time is not a sensory object; it is the

> > object of the cognizing witness both when it cognizes with or

> > without the aid of the senses. Even though nothing is seen when

> > in deep sleep, we still cognize on waking up that time has

> > passed.

>

> [is it time that is cognized on waking? I think it is

> my 'timeless' existence untainted by the tyrranny of time

> in sleep that is cognized. They call it pratyabhigna. In the

> waking world tyrrannized by time, I get the misimpression

> that it is time that is cognized.]

What I cognize on waking up is something like: "I did not cognize

time when I was sleeping even though two hours had passed." I don't

think there is any way to slip away from the tyrrany of time unless

one has woken up to Self.

With regards,

Chittaranjan

May 26, 2004

Dear Shri Madathil,

About the questions and objections that your raise in your message #

22988 of 26 May, I must concur that they are quite valid, from a stand

that sees the purna or perfection of the world. The 'direct' method is

only for those like yours truly, who see the world in a partial and

superficial way that hides its true perfection. It's only our tainted

and partial views of world that we can rightly seek to negate, by the

destructive questioning of the 'direct' method.

The hope is that by repeatedly reflecting back from our distorted

views, to that pure principle which knows them from within, a spirit

of dispassion may accumulate so that the taints and partialities may

eventually be cleared.

So yes indeed, the destructive questioning is subject to the

limitations that you rightly point out. It seems to me that your basic

objection is to the destructiveness of reflective questioning. Yes,

I'd agree that this is a problem which must be admitted. When

reflecting back away from world, it is the shunya or the nothingness

of world that gets at first highlighted in the mind. But I'd point out

that this destructiveness is meant to be turned back upon itself, so

that it eventually gives itself up and destroys its own limitations.

It is thus meant to attain the same goal of purna or perfection that

you cherish. But the method is what Shri Shankara calls

'sva-svarup-anusandhanam' (in Viveka-cudamani, 31). It is a

questioning of one's own truth, an asking of what's really there. This

is necessarily destructive of the personal ego and the physical and

mental world that it perceives. That destruction must eventually turn

upon itself so as to leave an indestructible perfection that is its

final goal.

And, as Shri Shankara goes on to say, this very turned-in questioning

(with all its destructiveness turned back upon itself) is 'bhaktir ity

abhidhiyate'. It is the positive devotion of those who question

deeply, beyond all trace of compromise.

There is of course an inherent paradox here -- of looking for the

world's perfection by turning back away from the world. But I would

point out the paradox is inherent in the world, as we perceive it

physically and mentally.

The paradoxical appearance of an untrue world has been created by the

ego-mind. And so, to get from seeming world to truth, the mistakes of

ego-mind have necessarily to be corrected by retreating back through

ego-mind to uncreated consciousness. Without this corrective retreat

through mind, all talk of truth is just hypocrisy.

It's in this sense that mind (with its succession of thoughts) is

necessarily a mediation between seeming world and the truth beyond

appearances. It's through the mind that consciousness becomes

expressed in seeming things, and it is therefore back through mind

that we reflect into the perfection of that consciousness.

As ego-mind creates the world's appearances, they do indeed lead

people to believe what isn't true, and in that sense it's quite

correct to say that mind tells many lies or even that the mind itself

is something of a lie. You object that this detracts from the true

perfection of the world. But then I would ask you why this lying

should not show an underlying perfection, whose true nature is to be

found by discovering the lie and admitting honestly to it?

At the end of your message, you describe an approach that puts "all

that are objectified (mind and

external world) in one compact category against the knowing

principle". I'd agree that this is of course an excellent approach,

but I'd point out that it too requires a reflection back through mind

and its mediating succession of thoughts. It can never be sufficient

to merely posit and describe a space-time continuum or a pervading

background called 'akasha'. All such positing and description is done

through mind. To actually know the continuum or background, there is

no other way but to return to it as one's own self.

As advaitins often say, the one reality of self and world is that

which can only be known in identity, by being what it is. It can't be

found except by returning back to it. And that means going back from

mediated world, through mediating mind, to that one truth which needs

no mediation.

Ananda

May 27, 2004

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> Dear Shri Madathil,

> So yes indeed, the destructive questioning is subject to the

> limitations that you rightly point out. It seems to me that your

basic

> objection is to the destructiveness of reflective questioning. Yes,

> I'd agree that this is a problem which must be admitted. When

> reflecting back away from world, it is the shunya or the nothingness

> of world that gets at first highlighted in the mind. But I'd point

out

> that this destructiveness is meant to be turned back upon itself, so

> that it eventually gives itself up and destroys its own limitations.

>

Namaste woodji, Madathilji and All

On Use of destructive methodology- I think we would not worry about

the common connotation associated with 'Destruction'. After all, all

that is new is a previous condition destroyed. Infact, I have heard

one of my dear friends from this group, Shri. Madhava Turumella say

with Glee that 'Shiva' is his favorite lord as his destruction is a

loving act of creation and sustenance too.

Woodji rightly points out that 'this destructiveness eventually gives

itself up and destroys its own limitations'; I believe we have the

analogy of a twig which is used to stir the smouldering pieces of

coal to enhance the fire and is eventually consumed by the fire

itself.

A light aside - mercifully ramji's clarification came quickly after

the shopping notice which came under Madathilji's name. for a moment

I thought Maya had started veiling and distorting even Madathilji's

sound command over the english language.

Many thousand namaskarams to all

sridhar

May 28, 2004

I would have liked to respond to this topic with a summary of the arguments

of F. H. Bradley. He proves that time and space are equally only unreal in

his book 'Appearance and Reality' - he dispenses with both in a single short

chapter. Unfortunately, I did not progress very far with this book - it

really is fiendishly difficult. I was hoping one of our philosophically

educated members would have downloaded and read the book and would provide

this input.

Meanwhile, however, here is a much more approachable denunciation of time

from Sri Atmananda (the reference is to the 'Notes on Spiritual

Discourses'):

718. THE FALLACY OF 'TIME' (414)

1. Time is believed to be composed of the past, present and future. Of these

three, the

past is past only in reference to the present and the present is present

only in relation

to the past, future is future only in reference to the present. So all three

being

interdependent, even for their very existence, it has to be admitted by

sheer force

of logic that none of them is real. Therefore, time is not.

2. Experience is the only criterion by which the reality of anything can be

decided.

Of the three categories of time, past and future are not experienced by any,

except

when they appear in the present. Then it can be considered only as present.

Even this present - when minutely examined - reduces itself into a moment

which slips into the past before you begin to perceive it, just like a

geometrical

point. It is nobody's experience. It is only a compromise between past and

future

as a meeting point.

Thus present itself being only imaginary, past and future are equally so.

Therefore,

time is not.

Incidentally, by the time that you read this I should have added the first

page of my favourite quotations from this wonderful book to my website -

www.advaita.org.uk/atmananda_quotes.htm .

Best wishes,

Dennis

May 28, 2004

Thank you Dennis-ji!

You state ...

718. THE FALLACY OF 'TIME' (414)

1. Time is believed to be composed of the past, present and future.

Of these three, the past is past only in reference to the present

and the present is present only in relation > to the past, future is

future only in reference to the present. So all three being

interdependent, even for their very existence, it has to be admitted

by sheer force of logic that none of them is real. Therefore, time

is not.

Please allow me to share with you and others what Fritjof Capra says

on the Unity of All Things, One

The most important characteristic of the Eastern world view - one

could almost say the essence of it- is the awareness of the unity and

mutual interrelation of all things and events, the experience of all

phenomena in the world as manifestations of a basic oneness. All

things are seen as interdependent and inseparable parts of this

cosmic whole; as different manifestations of the same ultimate

reality. (Capra, The Tao of Physics, 1975)

In ordinary life, we are not aware of the unity of all things, but

divide the world into separate objects and events. This division is

useful and necessary to cope with our everyday environment, but it is

not a fundamental feature of reality. It is an abstraction devised by

our discriminating and categorising intellect. To believe that our

abstract concepts of separate `things' and `events' are realities of

nature is an illusion. (Capra, The Tao of Physics, 1975)

The central aim of Eastern mysticism is to experience all the

phenomena in the world as manifestations of the same ultimate

reality. This reality is seen as the essence of the universe,

underlying and unifying the multitude of things and events we

observe. The Hindus call it Brahman, The Buddhists Dharmakaya (The

Body of Being) or Tathata (Suchness) and the Taoists Tao; each

affirming that it transcends our intellectual concepts and defies

further explanation. This ultimate essence, however, cannot be

separated from its multiple manifestations. It is central to the very

nature to manifest itself in myriad forms which come into being and

disintegrate, transforming themselves into one another without end.

(Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, p210)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Fritjof-Capra.htm - 175k -

regards

May 28, 2004

At 12:38 PM 5/28/2004 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote:

>I would have liked to respond to this topic with a summary of the arguments

>of F. H. Bradley. He proves that time and space are equally only unreal in

>his book 'Appearance and Reality' - he dispenses with both in a single short

>chapter. Unfortunately, I did not progress very far with this book - it

>really is fiendishly difficult. I was hoping one of our philosophically

>educated members would have downloaded and read the book and would provide

>this input.

Hey Dennis,

I'm not that familiar with Bradley's idealism, but as I piece together his

arguments from a quick online search (couldn't find the book), I take it that

there are two ways that he criticizes the notion that space and time are

objective things. There's another idealist, the American Brand Blanshard, who

made much better use of these arguments. I studied with two of Blanshard's

students at Rochester.

One way is to show that time and space are relations. And Bradley has an

argument like Atmananda's, actually, that relations are not real, not

substantial, but abstractions. You add a relation between two objects via

abstraction, and it creates a third object, the relation. Then you need a

relation to relate the relation to the objects, and so forth. This is called

"Bradley's Regress." If you deny that you need a relation to tie the first

relation to the endpoints, then you run into the problem that Bradley calls

"fission to unreality." This is basically the claim that the relational

structure, without internal parts, is now a fixed chunk. There is a fairly good

explanation of this and a neat illustration here:

http://home.ican.net/~arandall/Bradley/

The other way Bradley gets at time and space is to show that the terms, when

analyzed, have no meaning. Time and space are among primary qualities like

movement, shape, movement, extension. These are qualities that are held by

realists to really be *in* the objects. Secondary qualities like color and

sound are thought to maybe be in the perceiver.

(The difference between primary and secondary qualities, so the debate went, is

that primary qualities are perceived by more than one sense, whereas secondary

qualities are sense-bound - color is 100% dependent upon vision. There are

hardly any Western philosophers these days who place any importance on this

distinction.)

Bradley's argument included the charge that primary qualities are unintelligible

without secondary qualities. If this is so, then it starts to cast doubt on the

claim that primary qualities are really objective and in external things after

all.

See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bradley/

May 28, 2004

At 09:52 AM 5/28/2004 -0400, Gregory Goode wrote:

>(The difference between primary and secondary qualities, so the debate went, is

that primary qualities are perceived by more than one sense, whereas secondary

qualities are sense-bound - color is 100% dependent upon vision. There are

hardly any Western philosophers these days who place any importance on this

distinction.)

>

>Bradley's argument included the charge that primary qualities are

unintelligible without secondary qualities. If this is so, then it starts to

cast doubt on the claim that primary qualities are really objective and in

external things after all.

===I see where an example would really help here. Take "extension" for

instance. It is a primary quality. Supposedly, you can feel it by touch, and

see it as well. It really seems like it's in the objects. In fact, I have a

realist friend on another list. He said he'd give up his realism if he could

stop believing that extension is in objects.

But Bradley and Blanshard's idealist arguments drive home the point that

extension really depends on secondary qualities (which Lockean realists had sort

of acknowledged were not objective properties of objects).

Here's how. Without color, there is no visual perception of extension. All

extended objects are colored, as far as vision reports. Without texture, there

is no tactile perception of extension, as far as reported by touch. So

extension is no more *in* the object than color and texture. And the idealist

arguments conclude that with no primary qualities in the object, there's no

object.

--Greg

It is something that is not red, not blue, not smooth, not grainy, but

nevertheless *in* the object. It is

But t

May 28, 2004

Salutations Dennis, Greg, Ananda, Adiji, ...

I like Atmananda's explanation the best. Past and future are

manifestly unreal, and present is unreal insofar as it is an

infinitesimal and hence vanishing moment. I suggest that the idea of

'eternal now', which arises in various mystical writings, is the

correct understanding of time. As I understand it, there is simply

the eternal now of the unchanging witness, and all change is but an

illusion against this backdrop.

This may seem abstract, but it can arise in concrete experiences.

One interesting example is the nature mysticism of John Muir.

" While sauntering through the mountains, he said he knew complete

freedom. He had experiences that seemed timeles and spaceless.

Occasionally, he felt his body had no weight. 'Life seems neither

long nor short,' he once wrote, 'and we take no more heed to save

time or make haste than do the trees and stars.' He experienced what

he believed was God's time, an immense perspective which made the

quick transformations of the cloud-mountains and the slow

transformations of the granite mountain roughly equivalent. He

entered the eternal now and experienced days that seemed to have

neither end nor beginning. Muir claimed that in the Sierras he found

a practical sort of immortality, and he at times experienced himself

as dissolved into the landscape. The mountains, he said, are

fountains, places where the transcendent spews out of the earth. "

http://portalproductions.com/spiritnature/Muir.htm

Aldous Huxley experienced something similar on LSD!

Maybe Einstein did using only his brain!

By the way, Bradley seems way too formalistic for me. I admit I have

not studied him much, but I can't see what his complicated arguments

can do that Berkeley's simple arguments cannot. A word like

'relation' is vague until analyzed in terms of elementary

consciousness. Why not just take the shortcut and realize directly

that consciousness and reality are synonymous. Adding 'logic' is

unnecessary for those who have the requisite intuition, and it will

never convince those who do not.

Adiji, what you posted from the Tao of Physics is not incorrect, if

interpreted correctly, but it is dangerous to bring physics in

without a lot of math. One risks ridicule from the cognoscendi...

Hari Om!

Benjamin

May 28, 2004

At 10:30 AM 5/28/2004 -0400, Benjamin wrote:

>By the way, Bradley seems way too formalistic for me. I admit I have

>not studied him much, but I can't see what his complicated arguments

>can do that Berkeley's simple arguments cannot. A word like

>'relation' is vague until analyzed in terms of elementary

>consciousness. Why not just take the shortcut and realize directly

>that consciousness and reality are synonymous. Adding 'logic' is

>unnecessary for those who have the requisite intuition, and it will

>never convince those who do not.

Blanshard did do this, but his tradition and writing context were intellectual,

not mystical. The motivations were different. These guys were writing in

philosophy departments in the late 19th and early 20th century, where the

dominant impetus was to be scientific and materialist and realist like they took

physics to be. Russell, Karl Popper, logical positivists were all the rage. So

amongst all the other stuff published, I'm quite glad that a Broad, Blanshard or

Bradley popped their head up every once in a while.

As for why these guys wrote when there was already Berkeley. They wanted to do

it without God, and without leaving a plurality of minds in the picture.....

--Greg

May 28, 2004

Namaste Shri Sadananda-ji,

Thank you for your kind words Sir. I agree that time is not listed as

a tatwa in Advaita Vedanta. As far as my understanding goes, Advaita

goes by the same tatwas that are listed in Samkhya comprising the

twenty-four tatwas starting from the antahkaranas, the jnanendriyas,

karmendriyas, etc. While the conception of time as a substance is

more in tune with the darshana of Nyaya, I believe that Advaita

equates Time to Maya itself insofar as Maya may be said to be the

Kala-shakti that projects the entire universe of names and forms.

Atleast this is the way the Advaita of Bhartrahari conceives of time.

May we not say that time is the womb out of which the world of

differentiation arises and subsides in Brahman?

As regards the kind of things that can be witnessed only by sakshi, I

believe that Advaita regards happiness as one such non-sensory entity

(according to the Vedanta Paribhasa). On the same basis (considering

that it has no attribute that can be sensed by the sense-organs), I

would consider time also as cognized by non-sensory perception.

I am presently not in a position to engage further in this discussion

as I am much pressed for time, but I believe that the following are

important in order to uncover the nature of space and time:

1. The question of what a thing is, is different than the question of

whether the thing is real. The first questions what the nature of a

thing is, and the second questions the ontological status of a thing.

I think the question of what space is, or time is, must be answered

independently of its ontological status.

2. Since Advaita is not idealism, the existence of a thing is not

tied to its perception. A thing exists even when we don't perceive

it. Yet, unlike "hard realism", objects do not possess non-cognisable

qualties. The persistence of things even when we don't perceive them

is embedded as an "automated reflex" in the very texture of the

waking state. All our attempts to look at it from the standpoint of

paramarthika, or the dream state, only results in a "mind warp", but

does not remove this unconscious-reflex.

With regards,

Chittaranjan

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> Chittaranjaji

> Pranaams.

> I enjoyed reading your write-up on space and time . Here is my

> understanding in relation to your last paragraph quoted above. My

> understanding may be somewhat parallel to Nair's.

>

> In the order of creation as stated in the Upanishads, I am not

aware of

> any mention of the 'time' as product of creation for it to be

substance

> like 'space'. ( May be Shree Sunder can tell us exactly - see Sunder

> your services are invaluable!). The reason is obvious - the creation

> itself involves a beginning, where the concept of time is already

> predisposed. In principle then, the 'time' concept should be before

the

> creation started - what was there before creation is

only 'existence' as

> stated in 'sadeva smouya idam agram asiit'- and that existence

cannot

> undergo a change - 'concept of time' is not there. 'anaadi'

> -beginningless and 'anirvachaniiyam' - inexplicable - can only be

> description less descriptors that can be valid to describe 'time'.

I

> have to differ in your description of time as 'substance' like

space and

> attributes of past-present-future. I must say non-sensual

experience of

> `time' by saakshii or witnessing consciousness is a concept of

> non-advaitic theories. I do not think that is an advaitic

understanding

> unless one understands that the concept of `saakshii' is only a

notional

> with the mind present.

>

> Actually to 'define' time (that is why I used the word 'concept of

> time') I need two entities - past and future since present is an

> imaginary line where past meets the future. Neither the past nor the

> future has any bearing on the existence - 'sat' -, that which is

> substantive of all creation, from space on. If one says that it is

> attributive definition (all definitions are of that type only) for

time

> (as past, present and future - as attributes), there is no problem

in

> that except that in all the objective definitions the existence is

the

> very substantive while as I have shown above for 'time' - existence

> cannot be substantive - Hence I feel that 'time' is only a

conceptual

> definition relative to the concept of past & future - which

themselves

> are mere concepts with no substantives. The conceptual or imaginary

> 'time' appears to be real while the 'present' which is an imaginary

line

> is true existence where the truth, 'I' exists. Hence in deep sleep

when

> the mind is folded along with all its imaginations - the concept of

time

> also gets dissolved.

>

> The time definition with respect to spatial coordinates is only

> operational definition for convenience and interdependency is

obvious

> but still space is more real than time - even in theories of

physics.

> Unlike space, 'time' is not considered as real variable. They can

only

> define time on relative basis - and goes with an imaginary symbol

> (square root of i).

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

=====

> What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have

is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

May 28, 2004

At 05:24 PM 5/28/2004 +0000, Chittaranjan Naik wrote:

>2. Since Advaita is not idealism, the existence of a thing is not

>tied to its perception. A thing exists even when we don't perceive

>it. Yet, unlike "hard realism", objects do not possess non-cognisable

>qualties.

This is a very good point.

--Greg

May 28, 2004

Namaste,

Chittaranjanji:

2. Since Advaita is not idealism, the existence of a thing is not

tied to its perception. A thing exists even when we don't perceive

it. Yet unlike "hard realism", objects do not possess non-cognisable

qualties.

Greg:

This is a very good point.

My reply:

So why does Advaita say that the waking world disappears in deep

sleep? I cannot agree with the above. Advaita IS 'idealism', in the

sense that 'objects' are merely manifestations in consciousness,

which disappear when the manifestation does. (Even Berkeley got

'cold feet' to some degree and postulated a God whose purpose is to

look at the tree in the forest when nobody else is. This too is

wrong.)

Sankara (Vivekachudamani):

In deep sleep when the thinking mind has gone into abeyance there is

nothing, by every one's experience, so man's Samsara is a mind

creation, and has no real existence. 171

If everything really existed, it ought to exist in deep sleep too.

Since nothing does, then it follows that it is unreal and an illusion

like a dream. 234

Atmananda (Notes on Spiritual Discourses):

[My comments in brackets]

320. REALITY OF STATES COMPARED (17)

At the lowest level, there are the three states: waking, dream and

deep sleep states. Examining them closely, one finds that there are

only two states - the deep sleep and dream states [i.e. waking state

is like dream state]. Examining them still further, one finds that

there is only the deep sleep state [i.e. dream state is only an

illusion in the pure consciousness of deep sleep state]. Examining

deep sleep more closely, it is found to be no state at all [since a

'state' is ultimately a creation of the mind and hence an illusion].

The dream and waking states are only appearances on deep sleep. [so

nothing endures when not manifesting, since it is no more than that

illusory appearance.]

See also:

633. Examining deep sleep more closely, it is found to be no state at

all. The dream and waking states are only appearances on deep sleep.

Ramana Maharshi (Talks with Ramana):

Talk 53. The world is not external. The impressions cannot have an

outer origin. Because the world can be cognised only by

consciousness. The world does not say that it exists. It is your

impression. Even so this impression is not consistent and not

unbroken [i.e. it is inconsistent and broken and hence unreal]. In

deep sleep the world is not cognised; and so it exists not for a

sleeping man. Therefore the world is the sequence of the ego [or

mind]. Find out the ego. The finding of its source is the final goal.

Talk 487. So you speak of waking knowledge and not of sleep

experience. The existence of the world in your waking and dream

states is admitted because they are the products of the mind. The

mind is withdrawn in sleep and the world is in the condition of a

seed. It becomes manifest over again when you wake up. The ego

springs forth, identifies itself with the body and sees the world. So

the world is a mental creation.

Do you not create a world in your dream? The waking state also is a

long drawn out dream. There must be a seer behind the waking and

dream experiences. Who is that seer? Is it the body?

In conclusion, it is as false to say that so-called 'objects' have

any kind of enduring existence as to say that the characters in a

movie continue to exist when no longer projected on the screen of

consciousness. The very notion of a 'thing' is anathema, so a

statement such as 'A thing exists even when we don't perceive it' is

inadmissible in Advaita, in any sense.

Hari Om!

Benjamin

May 28, 2004

At 02:43 PM 5/28/2004 -0400, Benjamin wrote:

>In conclusion, it is as false to say that so-called 'objects' have

>any kind of enduring existence as to say that the characters in a

>movie continue to exist when no longer projected on the screen of

>consciousness. The very notion of a 'thing' is anathema, so a

>statement such as 'A thing exists even when we don't perceive it' is

>inadmissible in Advaita, in any sense.

===Which is why Advaita isn't Idealism. Ideas are a vijnanamayakosha

phenomenon.

--Greg

May 28, 2004

Benji:

>In conclusion, it is as false to say that so-called 'objects' have

>any kind of enduring existence as to say that the characters in a

>movie continue to exist when no longer projected on the screen of

>consciousness. The very notion of a 'thing' is anathema, so a

>statement such as 'A thing exists even when we don't perceive it' is

>inadmissible in Advaita, in any sense.

Greji:

===Which is why Advaita isn't Idealism. Ideas are a vijnanamayakosha

phenomenon.

Benji:

OK, Greg, we're splitting hairs here.

My definition of 'idealism' was consistent with the conclusion we

both agree on.

However, you, a professional philosopher, are using the vague word

'idealism' without any kind of definition, not even a few words.

Naughty! Naughty! :-)

Ben

P.S. Anyhow, I am becoming increasingly intrigued by Sri Atmananda's

notion of deep sleep as a 'key' to understanding the Self. It's

starting to evoke something in me, even though my rational mind still

has a problem with what it can't remember. Perhaps this is a good

sign ... that some kind of suprarational impression seems to be

seeping in by osmosis, as it were. I recommend going through

Atmananda's discourses (as posted by Dennis on his site) and doing a

string search on 'deep sleep', In fact, such string searches on

relevant key words often turn up interesting nuggets of wisdom.

May 28, 2004

At 04:45 PM 5/28/2004 -0400, Benjamin wrote:

Benji:

>OK, Greg, we're splitting hairs here.

>

>My definition of 'idealism' was consistent with the conclusion we

>both agree on.

>

>However, you, a professional philosopher, are using the vague word

>'idealism' without any kind of definition, not even a few words.

>

>Naughty! Naughty! :-)

"From Garth Kemerling's pages:

(http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/i.htm#idlm)

Idealism:

Belief that only mental entities are real, so that physical things exist only in

the sense that they are perceived. Berkeley defended his "immaterialism" on

purely empiricist grounds, while Kant and Fichte arrived at theirs by

transcendental arguments. German, English, and (to a lesser degree) American

philosophy during the nineteenth century was dominated by the monistic absolute

idealism of Hegel, Bradley, and Royce."

G:

And notice that Idealism is realism about mental entities.

B: