The Goddess of Time

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all Advaitins,

> His basic idea is quite fascinating. It is based on the idea

> that 'perceived time' seems to slow down for the realized person.

 

Yes, there is no change for a realized person.

 

But time does not slow down. Change is a manifest feature of time,

but it is not time itself.

 

If time is perceived to slow down, then what is the reference against

which it is said to have slowed down? The phrases 'perceived time'

or 'slowing down of time' are merely metaphorical ways of saying that

change seems to drift by slowly - like a movie played in slow motion -

rather than that time itself has slowed down. For what is it that is

the reference against which the changes of phenomena are said to have

slowed down if it not be something within us that forms the canvas

against which change may be said to be slow of fast? What is this

unchanging canvas that forms the reference for us to say

that 'perceived time' is slow or fast? Is it not the unchanging

reference of Time itself? Time is not temporal!

 

Time is Eternal. Eternal Time is Mahakali, the great Goddess than

whom higher there is none. She is the Mother even of Brahma, Vishnu

and Shiva: Brahman comes to be the Trimurti through Her Womb. In

Creation, She appears as the consort of Shiva and the sister of

Vishnu. She is the Great Womb of Time that brings forth ephemerality

from Eternity -- so that we may see it, experience it, and return

back from it to Eternity. She is the great cycle of creation and

destruction. She gives birth to Her children with great love and then

devours them mercilessly through Her own mouth. She is the Great

Paradox of Reality.

 

Kali is Dark in complexion. Shiva lies hidden and prostate behind Her

Darkness while She dances Her Wild Dance of Creation. She hides the

Eternal with Her Darkness, and the Eternal becomes all-devouring

Death. She hangs the marks of Death - human skulls and bones - around

Her neck as ornament.

 

Mahakali is the Dazzling Darkness of Creation. The world shines in

Her Light and hides in Her Darkness. She is the Great Eclipse. She is

the darkness of the eclipse in the light of the soul. She is the Fire

of Ma Kundalini that rises from the chakra where darkness lies along

side light like a coiled serpent.

 

Ma Kali is dark and She is naked. Hers is the darkness of the Great

Night. Her nakedness is the nakedness of Truth!

 

 

O sublime Kali

you dance in solitude as naked truth.

Your black hair streams wildly

as pure freedom.

You alone can fulfil with your very being

my soul's most secret yearning.

No one else can offer any real response

to this transcendental desire for union

burning constantly in my heart.

 

 

What wild customs you follow, Ma Kali,

Trampling on the naked chest of your husband.

You are the naked intensity of Divine Creativity,

Your consort naked Transcendence.

Together you roam cremation grounds

As Mystic Union of Space and Energy,

Liberating the soul from its self-imposed destiny.

 

......... (Translations from Ramprasad)

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this post on the 'Goddess of Time' - Mother Kali.

 

 

i Particulary resonated with your post.

 

Kali is shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's Ishta-nista . Even

after 'braHman'REALIZATION, Thakore still worshipped his Personal

Goddess KALI as 'BHAVATARINI ' in Dakshineshwar temple in Calcutta,

india.

 

Yes , Kali is The Slayer of Time & Death; also She is The Destroyer

of Illusion. (AVIDYA Maya ) The sickle in her hand has great symbolic

meaning ! the sickle represents the state where time, space and

causation have disappeared.

 

Her dark black complexion, and her 'naked' form is representative of

the fact that She is 'Nirguna'- devoid of Name and Form .

 

Her garland of fifty human heads, each representing one of the fifty

letters of the Sanskrit alphabet, symbolizes the repository of

knowledge and wisdom.

 

and the great Kali-bhakta Shri Ramakrishna sings raptuorously (as

narrated In Kathamrita)

 

Who is there that can understand what Mother Kali is?

Even the six darsanas are powerless to reveal Her.

It is She, the scriptures say, that is the Inner Self

Of the yogi, who in Self discovers all his joy;

She that, of Her own sweet will, inhabits every living thing.

The macrocosm and microcosm rest in the Mother's womb;

Now do you see how vast it is? In the Muladhara

The yogi meditates on Her, and in the Sahasrara:

Who but Siva has beheld Her as She really is?

Within the lotus wilderness She sports beside Her Mate, the Swan.

 

When man aspires to understand Her, Ramprasad must smile;

To think of knowing Her, he says, is quite as laughable

As to imagine one can swim across the boundless sea.

But while my mind has understood, alas! my heart has not;

Though but a dwarf, it still would strive to make a captive of the

moon."

 

Ramprasad Sen

 

Yes! Thakore was outwardly a Bhakta and inwardly a jnani and beloved

Shankara Bhagvadapada is outwarrdly a Jnani and inwardly a Bhakta?

 

i quote these powerful lines fFrom Adi Shankara's Prabodha-SudhAkara

 

tasminnanubhavati manaH pragR^ihyamANaM parAtmasukham.h |

sthiratAM yAte tasminyAti madonmattadantidashAm.h ||

 

The mind experiences the supreme joy of the Self, being held

in that (state of love for God). When that (state) is steady, the

(mind) achieves the condition of an intoxicated elephant.

 

Jai Gurudeva !

 

Jai Maa!!

 

Bhakti and Jnana - the two 'eyes' of all aspiring Sadhaks/sadhikas .

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan-Ji and All Advaitins

 

You say : "Time is Eternal. Eternal Time is Mahakali"

 

To my mind Time is an attribute of Shakti and not Shakti itself. Also

Time is dependent on motion and both motion and time are dependent on

Space. These conclusions are mine alone and I would like to know if

they appear logical.

 

1) Time is a sequence of events, hence depends upon motion (event A

follows event B etc) .

 

2) If there is no motion there is no time.

 

3) Motion can be proved to be a form of energy: Per Vivekananda (A

Study of Sankhya Philosophy)

 

Solidity, hardness, or any other state of matter can be proved to be

the result of motion. Increase of vortex motion imparted to fluids

gives them the force of solids. A mass of air in vortex motion, as in

a tornado, becomes solid-like and by its impact breaks or cuts

through solids. A thread of a spider's web, if it could be moved at

almost infinite velocity, would be as strong as an iron chain and

would cut through an oak tree. Looking at it in this way, it would be

easier to prove that what we call matter does not exist.

 

This is Prana of the Yogis. Shakti of the Kashmir Shivites

 

4) Time and motion exist in Space

 

5) If there is no space there will be no time or motion. Hence space

is the final frontier of the mind.

 

6) Space is all prevading, immutable, present everywhere. Is it the

Brahman?

 

7) NO. Because it is I who can comprehend the space. Hence I am

separate from space. I am the Pursha of Sankhya.

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namasthey Chittaranjan ji:

> Time is not temporal!

 

If we were to analyze the phenomenon of ‘Time’ then

‘Time’ is experienced by us as future events become

present and when present events recede to past. This

experience serves us as the encapsulated understanding

of ‘Time’. If everything in this universe was

stationary then we would be unable to perceive ‘Time’.

Hence we determine that only continuity or

transformations of causes manifesting into effects

determines perception of ‘Time’. Brahman is changeless

and the highest reality and when a higher reality is

experienced then all other realities become unreal.

Hence the concept of time is unreal when referred from

the Paramarthika reality. ‘Time’ is inconsequential

for a Jnani who has identified himself with Brahman in

the Paramarthika reality. Time is maya that we

perceive through change and continuity only in

Vyavaharika reality. Time does not operate on the

world and only serves as Sakshi witnessing the origins

and transformations of events. That which is

non-operative but indeed a Sakshi to changes is also a

nature of Ishwara. Ishwara or Saguna Brahman is

professed as temporality when referred with Nirguna

Brahman. This temporal deduction is only with

reference to a higher order of reality which is

Brahman. Hence ‘Time’ or ‘Kala’ is also relevant only

in the Vyavaharika reality and can be deduced as being

temporal.

 

Sir, I intend no disrespect to you when stating this

non-temporal qualification of ‘Time’ as I am just

thinking aloud in this forum. I am open to

corrections.

 

Pranam,

RR

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

Dear AdiMa,

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> Even after 'braHman'REALIZATION, Thakore still worshipped

> his Personal Goddess KALI as 'BHAVATARINI ' in Dakshineshwar

> temple in Calcutta, india.

 

Could it not be because KALI is BRAHMAN Herself?

 

> Her garland of fifty human heads, each representing one of

> the fifty letters of the Sanskrit alphabet, symbolizes the

> repository of knowledge and wisdom.

 

AdiMa, today you've educated me greatly. I didn't know that the human

heads in the garland worn by Ma Kali represented the alphabet. The

shastra of the alphabet is matrika shastra, the secret and ancient

shastra of Shiva. The vowels are Shiva tattva and the consonants are

Shakti tattva. Every consonant has a vowel ending and therefore the

vowel and the consonant are always united and that is the union of

Shiva and Shakti. Thank you.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hersh-ji,

 

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@g...> wrote:

> Time is dependent on motion.....

> 2) If there is no motion there is no time.

 

When we wake up from deep sleep we know that we have slept for a

short time, for a long time, etc. Therefore, Time exists even when

there is no motion.

 

> 4) Time and motion exist in Space

 

No, space would not be manifest if there was no time. The awareness

of space is an awareness of the objective. In order that awareness

may be aware of objects, there must be time, for without time there

would be no three moments to constitute an object in the awareness.

 

> 1) Time is a sequence of events, hence depends upon motion

> (event A follows event B etc) .

 

If time were a sequence of events, then the reference for the measure

of time for the sequence of events would be the sequence of events

itself and there would consequently be no change! In other words, if

the measure of the movement of a clock were the clock itself, then

the clock cannot be changing in reference to itself.

 

> 3) Motion can be proved to be a form of energy:

 

But that Energy is different than the energy posited by science. The

Energy referred by Vedanta is the Shakti (or YogaMaya) of the

Sentient Being. That Shakti is the mere presence of Brahman.

 

> Solidity, hardness, or any other state of matter can be proved

> to be the result of motion.

 

Solidity, hardness, or any other attribute is eternal. It only

manifests or not manifests as a result of physical processes.

(Shankara)

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

> Even after 'braHman'REALIZATION, Thakore still worshipped

> his Personal Goddess KALI as 'BHAVATARINI ' in Dakshineshwar

> temple in Calcutta, india.

 

Could it not be because KALI is BRAHMAN Herself?

 

praNAms prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

that might not be the case...paramahaMsa had to *cut* the form of kAli mA

with the knowledge sword before attaining *brahmAnubhava* in nirvikalpa

samAdhi!!...(thOthApuri thought dEvi's maNgala rUpa was a hindrance in

realizing the highest truth!!!)

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Time is maya that we

perceive through change and continuity only in

Vyavaharika reality. Time does not operate on the

world and only serves as Sakshi witnessing the origins

and transformations of events.

 

praNAms Sri Rajesh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You are absoultely right prabhuji. Time & space are apriory notions in

mind restricted to one particular state...the concept of time has the

restricted & different time zones in waking & dream states....and in

suShupti (deep sleep) the notion of kAla & dEsha are completely

absent..these are all in our anubhava one cannot negate it by mere dry

logic. When we dis-associate our special affiliation to waking state &

when we do objectification of all the three states...it reveals the fact

that my waking condition includes the entire universe containing all that I

perceive, all that I can infer or imagine which also include my body, mind,

intellect and ego as well, shortly in one sweep it includes all the

subjective and the objective elements of my waking are not going to affect

a bit and I am unaffect witness of this vast phenomena. More importantly

the socalled waking time, past, present and future are also within this

broad area of waking only so is the case with space as well....my waking

time & space frame cannot enter my dream world and vice versa...and in

sushupti we have the dEsha & kAlAtIta (beyond time & space) Ananda. That

is the reason why brahma jnAna is called dEsha kAlAtIta jnAna by

traditionalists.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Rajeshchander-ji,

 

advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander

<rrajeshchander> wrote:

> If we were to analyze the phenomenon of `Time' then

> `Time' is experienced by us as future events become

> present and when present events recede to past.

 

How would I know that something is a future, present and past event

if in the present there were to be no notion of time? The past event

does not stand to my consciousness at the present moment but I still

know it as a past event in the awareness of this present moment. So,

there is in the present moment a notion of an event as a past event -

the notion that it stands in a determinate order to the present. This

determinate order is the notion of a relationship that is within me

as the witness. This notion is not given to me from outside (there

being no outside to the Witness in me), but is stamped within my self

as a meaning that I confer to this world. That meaning is Time

without which there would be no change and no experience.

 

> experience serves us as the encapsulated understanding

> of `Time'. If everything in this universe was

> stationary then we would be unable to perceive `Time'.

 

How would there be experience in the first place without the notion

of time? Again, how would we know that everything is stationary? If

there were no prior notion of time, we wouldn't know whether

everything is stationary or in motion. Time is a prior condition - as

a meaning within me - for experience to occur.

 

> Hence we determine that only continuity or

> transformations of causes manifesting into effects

> determines perception of `Time'. Brahman is changeless

> and the highest reality and when a higher reality is

> experienced then all other realities become unreal.

 

How many realities are there in Reality? :-)

 

> Hence the concept of time is unreal when referred from

> the Paramarthika reality.

 

In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna says: "I am Time."

 

> Time is maya that we perceive through change and

> continuity only in Vyavaharika reality.

 

Time is the Maya of the Lord that presents eternal objects as

changing objects. This paradoxical presentation of the world is

Vyavaharika 'reality'. Vyavaharika 'reality' is nothing but the same

Paramarthika Reality seen through the filters of one's ignorance when

eternal objects seem to 'become' temporal objects. Shankaracharya

says that the effect is eternally present in the Cause and that what

we call creation and destruction are the eternally effects in the

cause that come into the range of the senses or go out of the range

of the senses.

 

> Time does not operate on the world and only serves as

> Sakshi witnessing the origins and transformations of

> events.

 

What does that mean? If you are saying that time is Sakshi, then that

would make time eternal in so far as the sakshi is eternal.

 

> That which is non-operative but indeed a Sakshi to changes

> is also a nature of Ishwara. Ishwara or Saguna Brahman is

> professed as temporality when referred with Nirguna

> Brahman.

 

Are the gunas of Saguna Brahman created? If so, Ishwara as Ishwara is

a created Being in so far as he is with gunas and all gunas are

created. But Ishwara is the name for Brahman as the Creator. He is

the repository of aishwarya (from which the name 'Ishwara' derives)

which means controllership. How could He create if He Himself is

temporal and created in time? Therefore, Ishwara is not a created

Being. Since Ishwara is Saguna Brahman, the attribution of

creatorship to Ishwara would be a logically coherent propsoition only

if all the gunas are non-temporal i.e., if they are eternal. Sri

Shankaracharya says that all objects (the referents of words) are

eternal.

 

Time is an aspect of the Eternal that shows forth the eternal as the

temporal; it is the matrix of Maya that befuddles the mind.

 

> This temporal deduction is only with reference to a higher

> order of reality which is Brahman. Hence `Time' or `Kala'

> is also relevant only in the Vyavaharika reality and can be

> deduced as being temporal.

 

Your conclusions are derived from premises that are faulty i.e., that

Ishwara is temporal. It is the change attributed to objects seen in

Vyavaharika that is false. It is the core falsity of

vyavaharika 'sathya'. This falsity of what is termed 'sathya' in

vyavahara is what makes it anirvacaniya because you cannot determine

the true nature of something that inherently has a false notion

superimposed on it. Anirvacaniya is the epistemological incongruency

of trying to determine the truth of what is not innately true. Time

is Maya and Maya is Brahman Himself.

 

> Sir, I intend no disrespect to you when stating this

> non-temporal qualification of `Time' as I am just

> thinking aloud in this forum. I am open to corrections.

 

No, you are not being disrespectful, you are pursuing truth which is

the noblest of all pursuits.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

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

 

> > Could it not be because KALI is BRAHMAN Herself?

> that might not be the case...paramahaMsa had to *cut* the

> form of kAli mA with the knowledge sword before attaining

> *brahmAnubhava* in nirvikalpa samAdhi!!...(thOthApuri thought

> dEvi's maNgala rUpa was a hindrance in realizing the highest

> truth!!!)

 

 

You are right Prabhuji. But after cutting the form of Kali Ma and

obtaining brahmAnubhava, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to say that

Brahman and Maya are One. Sri Ramakrishna also used to say that the

world is unreal when you 'approach' Brahman and then when you have

realised It, you would see that it is real. You are aware that in the

way I understand Advaita, the form that was cut by Sri Ramakrishna is

eternally present in Brahman and the 'cutting of forms' is only

attributable to the leela of the Lord brought about by His YogaMaya.

That leela is the leela of Lalithambika who is Brahman Herself. But

let us not argue over it, we both know each other's position well.

 

Warem regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

But after cutting the form of Kali Ma and

obtaining brahmAnubhava, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to say that

Brahman and Maya are One.

 

praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes you are right prabhuji...he used to compare moving & stationary serpent

with prakruti & parabrahman...nevertheless when someone asked him about the

*experience* part of nivikalpa, he used to say "no that is not for now for

you...that is ultimate reality, one cannot describe it as such & such an

experience...and also it is narrated in his biography..whenever someone

wants to know about *highest truth* from paramahamsa he without uttering a

word used to switch over to nirvikalpa samAdhi..but whenever he has been

asked about kAli mA, he used to profusely illustrate his association &

dialogues with mAtAji...we can recall one more incidence where it is proven

that samAdhi anubhava is superior to other experiences/dialogues with

mAtAji etc.etc. , when paramahaMsa was in kAshipur garden house,

vivEkananda forced him to grant the experience of nirvikalpa, though he

already attained all other supernatural experiences including that of

personal dialogues with kAli mA at DakshinEshwar temple!!!

 

Anyway, according to my understanding, advaita is not about attaining some

ecstatic state like nirvikalpa samAdhi etc...Hence, let us not argue about

it.

 

Humble praNAms once again,

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : Bit free at office today..hence lot of mails...hope moderators wont

mind :-))

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

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

> Yes you are right prabhuji...he used to compare moving &

> stationary serpent with prakruti & parabrahman...nevertheless

> when someone asked him about the *experience* part of nivikalpa,

> he used to say "no that is not for now for you...that is

> ultimate reality, one cannot describe it as such & such an

> experience...and also it is narrated in his biography..

> whenever someone wants to know about *highest truth* from

> paramahamsa he without uttering a word used to switch over

> to nirvikalpa samAdhi..but whenever he has been asked about

> kAli mA, he used to profusely illustrate his association &

> dialogues with mAtAji...we can recall one more incidence

> where it is proven that samAdhi anubhava is superior to other

> experiences/dialogues with mAtAji etc.etc. , when paramahaMsa

> was in kAshipur garden house, vivEkananda forced him to grant

> the experience of nirvikalpa, though he already attained all

> other supernatural experiences including that of personal

> dialogues with kAli mA at DakshinEshwar temple!!!

 

I agree with everything that you say (quote) here. The ultimate Truth

can only be expressed through Silence. The ultimate Truth is

approached only through Nirvikalpa Samadhi even though Nirvikalpa

Samadhi as an 'experience' is not realisation.

 

> Anyway, according to my understanding, advaita is not about

> attaining some ecstatic state like nirvikalpa samAdhi etc...

> Hence, let us not argue about it.

 

Yes, Advaita is not about attaining any state. Its path leaves no

trace because it is going from Here to Here.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan-Ji

 

Some further thoughts on Time..

 

I said:

Time is dependent on motion.....If there is no motion there is no

time.

 

you said:

 

When we wake up from deep sleep we know that we have slept for a

short time, for a long time, etc. Therefore, Time exists even when

there is no motion.

 

I reply:

 

1) There is motion involved here. The motion is of the mind moving

from one state (deep sleep) to another state (waking). Swami

Chinmayananda compares mind to a telescope that is extended in the

waking condition. In deep sleep and Samadhi, it is pulled back

(collapsed, folded) into the consiousness.

 

2) If you say that Time is Eternal for Ishvara or Brahmin, I agree as

this is a Unity and there is no motion (hence no Time) for the Unity

as motion is relative and what could the ONE move in relation to?.

 

3) In Turiya state or Samadhi, #2 applies since the subjective Pursha

is one with Brahman.

 

4) Hence until we reach Brahmin Consciousness, Time is not eternal

for us. When Ramana Maharashi or Ramakrishna said that Time was

Eternal, it was a valid statement for them. I cannot say that because

in my subjective experience it is not.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In another post in reply to Shri Rajeshchander-ji you said:

 

How would there be experience in the first place without the notion

of time? Again, how would we know that everything is stationary? If

there were no prior notion of time, we wouldn't know whether

everything is stationary or in motion. Time is a prior condition - as

a meaning within me - for experience to occur.

 

In my thinking a notion is dependent upon mind/ intellect since if

there is no mind there is no notion. Thus Time as a notion becomes a

compound which can not be eternal.

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

As long as we are 'trapped' within 'time' and 'space' they both

provide the entertaintment to the 'intellect' to question, analyze

and comprehend. Their existence only confirms that the existing

reality is confined and bounded by 'notions,' and 'motions.' One has

to beyond 'time' and 'space' and negate all notions and motions to

become ONE!

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@g...> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjan-Ji

>

> Some further thoughts on Time..

>

> I said:

> Time is dependent on motion.....If there is no motion there is no

> time.

>

> you said:

>

> When we wake up from deep sleep we know that we have slept for a

> short time, for a long time, etc. Therefore, Time exists even when

> there is no motion.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@g...> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjan-Ji

>

> Some further thoughts on Time..

>

> I said:

> Time is dependent on motion.....If there is no motion there is no

> time.

>

> you said:

>

> When we wake up from deep sleep we know that we have slept for a

> short time, for a long time, etc. Therefore, Time exists even when

> there is no motion.

>

> I reply:

>

> 1) There is motion involved here. The motion is of the mind moving

> from one state (deep sleep) to another state (waking). Swami

> Chinmayananda compares mind to a telescope that is extended in the

> waking condition. In deep sleep and Samadhi, it is pulled back

> (collapsed, folded) into the consiousness.

>

>

Pranams to all!

 

I wanted to share some thoughts on this. Swami Chinmayananda has

said that time is the interval between two experiences, as opposed

to the interval between two events. If I am totally absorbed in one

experience, then until I move on to a second experience, for me,

there is no passage of time. Hence in deep sleep, we do not know

that time is paasing. It is one continuous experience of total

ignorance. It is only upon waking up from deep sleep, that we notice

the passage of time.

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

I just noticed your post! I had been looking only

for posts with Raju's thread, but then something

about "The Goddess of Time" rang a bell. Sure

enough, it was in response to something I posted.

 

Your post is profound and poetic. I'll try to give

a decent response of my own at some point.

 

I've included your post on the blog at

 

http://advaitamath.blogspot.com/

 

I'll also try to include other responses from this

and similar threads, but may the advaitins here

please forgive me if I don't get them all. I have a

lot else to do, so I may only post those that catch

my eye for some purely subjective reason.

 

Thank you

Ben

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik>

wrote:

>

> Namaste to all Advaitins,

>

> > His basic idea is quite fascinating. It is based on the idea

> > that 'perceived time' seems to slow down for the realized person.

>

> Yes, there is no change for a realized person.

>

> But time does not slow down. Change is a manifest feature of time,

> but it is not time itself.

>

> If time is perceived to slow down, then what is the reference against

> which it is said to have slowed down? The phrases 'perceived time'

> or 'slowing down of time' are merely metaphorical ways of saying that

> change seems to drift by slowly - like a movie played in slow motion -

> rather than that time itself has slowed down. For what is it that is

> the reference against which the changes of phenomena are said to have

> slowed down if it not be something within us that forms the canvas

> against which change may be said to be slow of fast? What is this

> unchanging canvas that forms the reference for us to say

> that 'perceived time' is slow or fast? Is it not the unchanging

> reference of Time itself? Time is not temporal!

>

> Time is Eternal. Eternal Time is Mahakali, the great Goddess than

> whom higher there is none. She is the Mother even of Brahma, Vishnu

> and Shiva: Brahman comes to be the Trimurti through Her Womb. In

> Creation, She appears as the consort of Shiva and the sister of

> Vishnu. She is the Great Womb of Time that brings forth ephemerality

> from Eternity -- so that we may see it, experience it, and return

> back from it to Eternity. She is the great cycle of creation and

> destruction. She gives birth to Her children with great love and then

> devours them mercilessly through Her own mouth. She is the Great

> Paradox of Reality.

>

> Kali is Dark in complexion. Shiva lies hidden and prostate behind Her

> Darkness while She dances Her Wild Dance of Creation. She hides the

> Eternal with Her Darkness, and the Eternal becomes all-devouring

> Death. She hangs the marks of Death - human skulls and bones - around

> Her neck as ornament.

>

> Mahakali is the Dazzling Darkness of Creation. The world shines in

> Her Light and hides in Her Darkness. She is the Great Eclipse. She is

> the darkness of the eclipse in the light of the soul. She is the Fire

> of Ma Kundalini that rises from the chakra where darkness lies along

> side light like a coiled serpent.

>

> Ma Kali is dark and She is naked. Hers is the darkness of the Great

> Night. Her nakedness is the nakedness of Truth!

>

>

> O sublime Kali

> you dance in solitude as naked truth.

> Your black hair streams wildly

> as pure freedom.

> You alone can fulfil with your very being

> my soul's most secret yearning.

> No one else can offer any real response

> to this transcendental desire for union

> burning constantly in my heart.

>

>

> What wild customs you follow, Ma Kali,

> Trampling on the naked chest of your husband.

> You are the naked intensity of Divine Creativity,

> Your consort naked Transcendence.

> Together you roam cremation grounds

> As Mystic Union of Space and Energy,

> Liberating the soul from its self-imposed destiny.

>

> ........ (Translations from Ramprasad)

>

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

[Guest guest]

Let me add that I just transferred a number of further

comments in this thread to the blog at

 

http://advaitamath.blogspot.com/

 

I put them in the COMMENTS section to the post

with this thread name, viz. The Goddess of Time.

These include posts by Adi Ma, Hersh, Rajesh

Ramachander, Chittaranjan, Bhaskar and others

 

As I said, I can't catch them all, but I'll try to

get most of them, from a variety of people.

 

If you don't want to have your post transferred

to the blog for some reason, just contact me.

 

Thanks

Ben

 

 

 

advaitin, "Benjamin Orion" <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> I just noticed your post! I had been looking only

> for posts with Raju's thread, but then something

> about "The Goddess of Time" rang a bell. Sure

> enough, it was in response to something I posted.

>

> Your post is profound and poetic. I'll try to give

> a decent response of my own at some point.

>

> I've included your post on the blog at

>

> http://advaitamath.blogspot.com/

>

> I'll also try to include other responses from this

> and similar threads, but may the advaitins here

> please forgive me if I don't get them all. I have a

> lot else to do, so I may only post those that catch

> my eye for some purely subjective reason.

>

> Thank you

> Ben

>

>

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik>

wrote:

> >

> > Namaste to all Advaitins,

> >

> > > His basic idea is quite fascinating. It is based on the idea

> > > that 'perceived time' seems to slow down for the realized person.

> >

> > Yes, there is no change for a realized person.

> >

> > But time does not slow down. Change is a manifest feature of time,

> > but it is not time itself.

> >

> > If time is perceived to slow down, then what is the reference against

> > which it is said to have slowed down? The phrases 'perceived time'

> > or 'slowing down of time' are merely metaphorical ways of saying that

> > change seems to drift by slowly - like a movie played in slow motion -

> > rather than that time itself has slowed down. For what is it that is

> > the reference against which the changes of phenomena are said to have

> > slowed down if it not be something within us that forms the canvas

> > against which change may be said to be slow of fast? What is this

> > unchanging canvas that forms the reference for us to say

> > that 'perceived time' is slow or fast? Is it not the unchanging

> > reference of Time itself? Time is not temporal!

> >

> > Time is Eternal. Eternal Time is Mahakali, the great Goddess than

> > whom higher there is none. She is the Mother even of Brahma, Vishnu

> > and Shiva: Brahman comes to be the Trimurti through Her Womb. In

> > Creation, She appears as the consort of Shiva and the sister of

> > Vishnu. She is the Great Womb of Time that brings forth ephemerality

> > from Eternity -- so that we may see it, experience it, and return

> > back from it to Eternity. She is the great cycle of creation and

> > destruction. She gives birth to Her children with great love and then

> > devours them mercilessly through Her own mouth. She is the Great

> > Paradox of Reality.

> >

> > Kali is Dark in complexion. Shiva lies hidden and prostate behind Her

> > Darkness while She dances Her Wild Dance of Creation. She hides the

> > Eternal with Her Darkness, and the Eternal becomes all-devouring

> > Death. She hangs the marks of Death - human skulls and bones - around

> > Her neck as ornament.

> >

> > Mahakali is the Dazzling Darkness of Creation. The world shines in

> > Her Light and hides in Her Darkness. She is the Great Eclipse. She is

> > the darkness of the eclipse in the light of the soul. She is the Fire

> > of Ma Kundalini that rises from the chakra where darkness lies along

> > side light like a coiled serpent.

> >

> > Ma Kali is dark and She is naked. Hers is the darkness of the Great

> > Night. Her nakedness is the nakedness of Truth!

> >

> >

> > O sublime Kali

> > you dance in solitude as naked truth.

> > Your black hair streams wildly

> > as pure freedom.

> > You alone can fulfil with your very being

> > my soul's most secret yearning.

> > No one else can offer any real response

> > to this transcendental desire for union

> > burning constantly in my heart.

> >

> >

> > What wild customs you follow, Ma Kali,

> > Trampling on the naked chest of your husband.

> > You are the naked intensity of Divine Creativity,

> > Your consort naked Transcendence.

> > Together you roam cremation grounds

> > As Mystic Union of Space and Energy,

> > Liberating the soul from its self-imposed destiny.

> >

> > ........ (Translations from Ramprasad)

> >

> >

> > Warm regards,

> > Chittaranjan

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin-ji and all Advaitins,

 

advaitin, "Benjamin Orion" <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> I just noticed your post! I had been looking only

> for posts with Raju's thread, but then something

> about "The Goddess of Time" rang a bell. Sure

> enough, it was in response to something I posted.

> Your post is profound and poetic. I'll try to give

> a decent response of my own at some point.

> I've included your post on the blog at

>

> http://advaitamath.blogspot.com/

 

Thank you, Benjamin-ji, I visited the blog and must say that it has a

pleasing look. Thanks also to all those who have responded to the

post on the Goddess of Time. I am likely to be beyond the reach of

Internet for the next few days and may not be able to respond to

posts during the period. But I am inclined to say a few words here.

Time, I would say, is an aspect of Reality that defies description

because Time is Maya Herself. Maya cannot be known except through

Brahma-Jnana, for She has given Her very soul to Him. And in a nature

that is perfectly reciprocal, He has given His very body to Her. She

is Him and He is Her, and they are United in a Oneness so sacred and

perfect and blissful that to bestir this Oneness even in the smallest

degree is an illusion that profanes their eternal Oneness. The

illusion in our minds which divorces Her from Him is the darkness

that casts the pall of unreality on the world and makes it into a

mere shadow. In the dimness of the shadow, Viveka is the

discrimination that drives away our illusion, and Viraha is the pain

of separation that invites us to Oneness.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namasthey Sri Chittaranjan Ji:

 

That was a brilliant analysis. I understand from your

statement that the declarative notion of ‘Time’ is

necessitated within us in order to associate an

instantiated experience with world. While being able

to comprehend that ‘Time’ is also a nature of Ishwara

I struggle to come to terms with these statements

below.

>Your conclusions are derived from premises

>that are faulty i.e., that Ishwara is temporal.

>Time is Maya and Maya is Brahman Himself.

 

This brings into my thought the central question of

the relation between Brahman and the world. The world

is seen as an effect of Brahman and which is again

Brahman itself in different form. If Brahman

transformed itself into an effect that is world then

there is only an apparent truth with the world. Since

Brahman is reality then clearly the world is

inexplicable. Brahman and world are qualitatively

different and incommensurate with each other. One is

formless and timeless while the other has form and is

time bound. How do we qualitatively establish a

relation with these two disparate levels: Brahman and

world, Brahman and Maya, Brahman and Ishwara?

 

Pranam,

RR

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

http://farechase.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Rajesh:

 

Gitacharya (Lord Krishna) provides the answers to your questions in

chapters 9 and 10 (currently under discussion).

 

The unmanifested Brahman is the Truth (Brahmaiva Satyam). As the

Brahman, there is no mAyA or Iswara Swarupam. The common

saying, "Brahman alone only knows the Brahman," confirms this

understanding.

 

Manifestation is the mAyA or the "Royal Secret" as declared in

chapter 9. Manifestation is the 'play' or 'mAyA' of the Brahman. The

visistadvaitans will call it the play of Narayana where we the

advaitins consider it as mAyA.

 

The presence of mAyA brings two other issues - the World, the Iswara

and their relationship to the Brahman and also the relationship

between the World and Ishwara.

 

Chapter 10 describes the glory of the Iswara through everything that

we experience (see, hear, taset, touch, think and analyse).

Everything that we see, hear, taste, touch, think and analyse is the

World of experience. Lord Krishna through chapter 10 states that He

is the cause of everything that we see, hear, taste, touch, think and

analyze. Without consciousness (Lord Krishna or the Brahman) we

can't see, hear, taste, touch, think or analyse and that the whole

thesis of chapter 10.

 

Manifestation (creation) is His mAyA and only He knows. Since we are

in the realm of manifestation, we have to 'unfold' our manifestation

to recognize the unmanifested Brahman. Sankaracharya says that only

with "Brahman's Grace" we can unfold to know the Truth. One has to

come of out of 'one's own dream' to recognize the dream. The royal

secret that is provided in the scriptures is that we have go beyond

the 'realm of manifestation' to know the 'unmanifested truth.' This

is why advaitins call this as "Self-unfoldment!"

 

All that I can see is the questions in the form of the 'puzzle' can't

be resolved through intellectual analysis. This Hint is provided

through various verses of Gita (especially in chapters 9, 10 and

climax projection of the Visvarupa Dharsanam of chapter 11) either

implicitly or explicitly to those who take time to contemplate.

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Thouhgh you have addressed these questions to Sri Chitta, I

tried to answer them from my understanding from Gita. We will

defintely get an insightful essay from Him through Sri Chitta. I want

to thank Sri Chitta on behalf of everyone in the list for his

insightful and thought provoking essays.

 

 

advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander

<rrajeshchander> wrote:

>

> This brings into my thought the central question of

> the relation between Brahman and the world. The world

> is seen as an effect of Brahman and which is again

> Brahman itself in different form. If Brahman

> transformed itself into an effect that is world then

> there is only an apparent truth with the world. Since

> Brahman is reality then clearly the world is

> inexplicable. Brahman and world are qualitatively

> different and incommensurate with each other. One is

> formless and timeless while the other has form and is

> time bound. How do we qualitatively establish a

> relation with these two disparate levels: Brahman and

> world, Brahman and Maya, Brahman and Ishwara?

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all

 

 

 

 

 

A beggar approached Yudhishtira, the eldest of the Pandavas. He asked the beggar

to come the next day, and the beggar left.

 

Bhima picked up a drum and started walking towards the town. Yudhishtira was

puzzled and asked what he was doing. Bhima answered “I am going to town to

announce to everyone that my brother Yudhishtira has conquered time.” “What do

you mean?” A perplexed Yudhishtira asked. Bhima replied, “A beggar came to you

for alms and you made a promise for tomorrow. You asked the beggar to come and

collect alms tomorrow. How do you know that you will be alive tomorrow? Or that

the beggar will be alive tomorrow? Even if both of you are alive, how do you

know that you will be in a position to give alms tomorrow, and how do you know

that the beggar will still be in need tomorrow? How do you know that both of you

will meet tomorrow? Yet you have made a promise and asked him to come tomorrow.

This makes you the first person to have conquered time. So, I am going to

announce that my brother has conquered time.”

 

--Mahabharata

 

-----------------

 

In India, if some you ask someone to do something next day, you he will say

“Pozhachu kidanthal parthukalam” or “Jinda rahane se dekhega”

 

i.e. if we are alive tomorrow, we will see to that.

 

The uncertainty of future or what will happen next moment is known to everyone

and they appreciate this, as is evident from such statements they make.

Hari Om

 

 

 

 

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

 

 

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it was done in this message!)

 

In India, if some you ask someone to do something next

day, you he will say “Pozhachu kidanthal parthukalam”

or “Jinda rahane se dekhega”

 

i.e. if we are alive tomorrow, we will see to that.

 

The uncertainty of future or what will happen next

moment is known to everyone and they appreciate this,

as is evident from such statements they make.

 

Hari Om

 

--- "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote:

 

 

 

Namaste, all

 

,,,

--Mahabharata

 

-----------------

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram Chandran ji:

 

> All that I can see is the questions in the form of

> the 'puzzle' can't

> be resolved through intellectual analysis.

 

That is a correct observation. What would seem as a

loss for intellectual analysis is perhaps more than

compensated by the wisdom in the Advaitic analysis.

 

A change in outward form does not constitute any

fundamental change in Brahman is one of the

propositions of Advaita. In the effect we see the form

which is not a change in reality perceived with

reference to the same singleton: Brahman. So trying to

relate the world with Brahman is perhaps futile

considering that they are not two distinct entities in

the first place. Being indistinct any attempts to

relate them would be like introducing another third

entity which would help relate them. And in that

process we would need further entities to relate the

related entity with the new relating entities. This

exercise would meaninglessly regress to infinitum and

does not serve the objective if we were to grasp the

Advaitic view of oneness of Brahman and world in the

first place. From this perspective the Advaitic stand

is vindicated.

 

Pranam,

RR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nameste all Advaitins

 

In his commentory of Bhagavad Gita ver 13.2 Shankra disusses at

length the matter of the Field (qualities of the body like happiness,

sorrow , delusion, desire which are objects of knowledge) and the

knower of the field (the Soul). He gives the example of a tree stump

being falsely regarded as a man by superimposition through ignorance.

Just as due to this false superimposition the qualities of the man

does not come to exist in the stump not the qualities of the stump

come to the person, similarly the property of consciousness does not

come to the body nor those of the body to the conciousness.The basic

idea is that qualities of the body like happiness, sorrow , delusion,

desire are fields/objects of knowledge falsely superimposed on the

self through ignorance.

 

We have been discussing Time in this thread and seems to be the

consensus that it is Maya. I can agree with that. My question is why

is it Maya?. Is it because it is a Field object like happiness,

sadness etc. Chittaranjan-Ji describes Time as a pre-existant notion.

Well happiness, sadness etc all are notions and have to be also pre-

existant. It appears to me that Time has a lot of similarilty with

objects of the body described as "Field" in BG 13.2.

 

Further in his commentory on 13.2 Shankra explains why these objects

of knowledge can never belong to the self. If one accepts the fact

that these qualities of knowledge (happiness, sadness etc) belong to

the self then you will also have to accept that qualities of the body

like death and decrepitute also belong to the body. This will lead to

the contigency of the Self become devoid of conciousness ( as when

the body dies and death is a property of the self, the self dies and

thus is devoid of conciousness: please note that this, in

paranthesis, is my understanding of this statement of Shankra). This

conclusion can be applied to Time if it is treated as a "Field"

object.

 

It might be pointed out that in BG 10.33 the Lord specifically

mentions that "I myself am the infinate time" and nowhere is it said

that Time is a "Field". I speculate that the Lord is referring to

his "tirodhana" function as Ishvara. I was reading ProfVks excellent

translation of Kanchi Mahaswamigal' discourse on Soundaryalahari and

on page 17 it is mentioned that there are five cosmic functions of

the Lord (Pancha-kRtyam);creation, sustenance, dissolution,tirodhana

or Maya assigned to Ishvera and anugraha or release from Maya

assigned to Sadashiva). Now the Lord as Ishvera has the department of

Maya or veiling and Time, happiness, sadness, delusion are various

forms of his Maya which we falsely superimpose on ourselves.

 

Please advise if I am thinking correctly that Time could be a Field

as I have indicated above.

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Rajeshchander-ji,

 

 

advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander

<rrajeshchander> wrote:

> While being able to comprehend that `Time' is also a nature

> of Ishwara I struggle to come to terms with these statements

> below.

>

> >Your conclusions are derived from premises

> >that are faulty i.e., that Ishwara is temporal.

>

> >Time is Maya and Maya is Brahman Himself.

>

> This brings into my thought the central question of

> the relation between Brahman and the world. The world

> is seen as an effect of Brahman and which is again

> Brahman itself in different form. If Brahman

> transformed itself into an effect that is world then

> there is only an apparent truth with the world. Since

> Brahman is reality then clearly the world is

> inexplicable. Brahman and world are qualitatively

> different and incommensurate with each other. One is

> formless and timeless while the other has form and is

> time bound. How do we qualitatively establish a

> relation with these two disparate levels: Brahman and

> world, Brahman and Maya, Brahman and Ishwara?

 

I would say that your analysis is perfect and that you present the

correct perspective of Advaita in saying that "If Brahman transformed

itself into an effect that is world then there is only an apparent

truth with the world." However, I would say that there is more to

Advaita than this. Your analysis stands on a certain premise, and I

believe that examining this premise would give us a larger

perspective of Advaita. The premise is the assumption that there is a

relation between Brahman and the world. According to Advaita, there

is no relation that may be posited between Brahman and world - it is

a relationless non-duality.

 

When the world is said to be an effect of Brahman, it is expressed as

a dialectic which says two things: (1) that the effect is identical

to Brahman and (2) that the transformation (vikarah) of effect into

the world is due to name only (namadheyam) and is therefore false.

You have rightly expressed the second part of the dialectic. Now, let

us take a look at the first part. To say that the world is identical

with Brahman would be meaningful only if the meaning of the

word 'world' is preseved in the identity. Otherwise, it would amount

to saying that the 'world' has vanished in Brahman, and what has

vanished in something cannot be identical to it. Since the assertion

is definitely that of identity, and at the same time the

transformation of the world (as an effect different from Brahman) is

denied, we must somehow reconcile the world as being identical with

Brahman. The answer lies in the Advaita doctrine of words and

meanings.

 

In Advaita, words are eternal. A word is not a mere pattern of sound,

but is a pattern that has meaning. The meaning is the object of the

word. Now, if words are eternal, then the objects of words are also

necessarily eternal - otherwise, the word would reduce to a mere

sound-pattern rather than be a word i.e., the word would have

vanished. But words are eternal, hence objects are also eternal. If

we keep in mind that in Vaidika schools the object is not different

than the meaning, then the objects (of the world) would be the

meanings that lie in the Infinite Intelligence of Brahman. In other

words, the word in Brahman is anahata - it is the unstruck sound. It

is also called para-vak.

 

We normally tend to think of this world as having come out of

Brahman, but there really is no 'out of' Brahman because Brahman is

all-pervasive. Even in 'creation' - even in the manifestation of

forms - perfect non-duality prevails; it is just that we don't see it

as such in samsara. It may be of interest to note that Advaita Tantra

speaks of two powers - 'ghora' or the power by which we are held

spell-bound by outwardly projected objects, and 'aghora' or the power

by which the inside and outside are seen as One.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan