The Goddess of Time

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

Without reference to any particular post on this matter may I offer

a few general observations. What is true or real is referred to a trikala

abheda or unsublated (uncontradicted) in all three moments of time. The three

moments of time are Past, Present and Future. Time is given as inflected in

Vedic thought and the notion that only the Present exists because it only is, is

rejected. This doctrine is called Presentism and is to be distinguished from

Presenteeism which refers to the permanently draped jacket over the chair at the

office, even when in, out, or gone home, of the employee who wishes to simulate

keenness.

 

In B.S.B. II.i.17 Shankara writes that the non-difference of cause and effect

is trikala abheda so from this one gains the impression that the space time

continuum is a permanent schema to judge the evanescent by. In the descriptive

metaphysics of Peter Strawson (Individuals) this is a central idea and it is in

harmony with what Kant called the transcendental categories of Space and Time.

 

The keen metaphysician will ask 'but what established Space and Time?'. If that

is not an answerable question is it a validly putable question? Must the search

for grounds carry on endlessly or do we have to accept that Space and Time are

the walls of the playground? To be gnomic for a moment - grounds are to be

sought on the inside not the outside.

 

I don't think that spacetime, the scientific hypothesis, is foundational of

Space and Time which are perceptual. That theory or set of theories may be

overtaken, will be overtaken, in time.

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

>

> Namaste All,

> Without reference to any particular post on this matter

may I offer

> a few general observations. What is true or real is referred to a

trikala

> abheda or unsublated (uncontradicted) in all three moments of

time.

 

Small correction… it is not `trikAla abheda' but it should

be `trikAla abhAdita'.

 

bhAda is contradiction and its inverse abhAda is uncontradiction.

 

>The three

> moments of time are Past, Present and Future. Time is given as

inflected in

> Vedic thought and the notion that only the Present exists because

it only is, is

> rejected. This doctrine is called Presentism and is to be

distinguished from

> Presenteeism which refers to the permanently draped jacket over the

chair at the

> office, even when in, out, or gone home, of the employee who wishes

to simulate

> keenness.

>

> In B.S.B. II.i.17 Shankara writes that the non-difference of cause

and effect

> is trikala abheda so from this one gains the impression that the

space time

> continuum is a permanent schema to judge the evanescent by. In

the descriptive

> metaphysics of Peter Strawson (Individuals) this is a central idea

and it is in

> harmony with what Kant called the transcendental categories of

Space and Time.

 

I am not sure about classical position of BSB II.i.17; but

nevertheless, in neo-advaita, reality (sat) has been (re)defined as

the one which is uncontradicted in all three frames of time

(`trikAlika-abhAditvam satyam').

 

But, such definition requires time itself to be uncontradictable.

This position undermines the very doctrine of non-duality being

sought in a way that makes time as another real other than Brahman.

 

>

> The keen metaphysician will ask 'but what established Space and

Time?'. If that

> is not an answerable question is it a validly putable question?

Must the search

> for grounds carry on endlessly or do we have to accept that Space

and Time are

> the walls of the playground? To be gnomic for a moment - grounds

are to be

> sought on the inside not the outside.

>

> I don't think that spacetime, the scientific hypothesis, is

foundational of

> Space and Time which are perceptual. That theory or set of

theories may be

> overtaken, will be overtaken, in time.

 

However, in Dvaita vEdAnta, space and time are eternal reals and

coexist along side with Brahmn but dependent on Him . This eternality

of space and time is said to be given by Brahman.

 

With respect to this topic, Acharya Madhva quotes Bhagavata as;

 

dravyakarma ca kalaSca svabhAvo jIva eva ca

yadanugrahatah santi na santi yadupekShaya || (2.10.12)

 

Substance, action, time, innate disposition, the jIva, all exist by

the grace of God; if He neglects them they cease to exist.

 

Also Shvetashvatara 6:2 has something to say about time and its

author;

 

yenAvRtaM nityamidaM hi sarvaM jnaH kAlAkAro........

 

"He by whom this whole world is always enveloped, the knower, the

author of time....."

>

> Michael

>

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Nameste Michael-Ji and Srinivas-Ji

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

In B.S.B. II.i.17 Shankara writes that the non-difference of cause

and effect

is trikAla abhAdita (true or real is referred to a trikala abheda or

unsublated (uncontradicted) in all three moments of time. The three

moments of time are Past, Present and Future. )

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

 

So is this not the state of no-motion. When there is no motion, there

is no cause/effect and no Past/Present/Future.

 

 

Srinivas-Ji you say

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

With respect to this topic, Acharya Madhva quotes Bhagavata as;

dravyakarma ca kalaSca svabhAvo jIva eva ca

yadanugrahatah santi na santi yadupekShaya || (2.10.12)

 

Substance, action, time, innate disposition, the jIva, all exist by

the grace of God; if He neglects them they cease to exist.

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

 

In my post #28297 I asked if Time could be treated as a Field per

definition in BG 13.2. I have not received answer so I am reposting

my problem.

 

In BG 7.4 Sri Krishna describes the Lower Nature (The field)

consisting of the three qualities which is divided eightfold. In BG

7.5 the Lord describes his Higher Nature which has become the

individual soul described as the knower of the body.

 

The Field is described as qualities of the body like

happiness,sorrow , delusion, desire which are all objects of

knowledge. In the commentary to 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 decrepitude also belong to the body. This

will lead to the contingency of the Self become devoid of

consciousness .

 

Now there are only two natures mentioned by the Lord - The Lower and

the Higher. Everything must be categorized in either of the two

natures.The question is where can Time be slotted. If Time is treated

as a "Field" (Lower Nature) then it can be said that by a false

association of Time with the unchanging Self, its effects

(Past/Present/Future) are perceived. This is the same argument used

by Shankra in association with happiness,sorrow , delusion etc. The

basic idea being that qualities of the body like happiness, sorrow ,

delusion, desire are fields /objects of knowledge falsely

superimposed on the self through ignorance.

 

Am I being logical in my train of thoughts here?

 

Warm regards

 

Hersh

[Guest guest]

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

>>

> In my post #28297 I asked if Time could be treated as a Field per

> definition in BG 13.2. I have not received answer so I am

reposting

> my problem.

>

> Now there are only two natures mentioned by the Lord - The Lower

and

> the Higher. Everything must be categorized in either of the two

> natures.The question is where can Time be slotted. If Time is

treated

> as a "Field" (Lower Nature) then it can be said that by a false

> association of Time with the unchanging Self, its effects

> (Past/Present/Future) are perceived. This is the same argument

used

> by Shankra in association with happiness,sorrow , delusion etc.

The

> basic idea being that qualities of the body like happiness,

sorrow ,

> delusion, desire are fields /objects of knowledge falsely

> superimposed on the self through ignorance.

>

> Am I being logical in my train of thoughts here?

> Hersh

>

 

Namaste, Hersh-ji

 

May I copy below an extract (On Time) from Kapila Gita (the portion

of Bhagavatam Chs.25 to 33 of III Canto) where the Lord Himself in

his incarnation as Kapila Vasudeva teaches his mother Devahuti a

good part of Vedanta, based on Sankhya which admits an Ishvara: (The

Translation and Notes are from Swami Tapasyananda).

 

III-Ch.26- Verses 15 to 18:

 

etAvAneva san khyAto brahmaNas-saguNasya ha /

sannivesho mayA prokto yaH kAlaH panch-vimshakaH//15//

 

The evolutes of Prakriti (24 listed in the previous shlokas not

quoted here: they are the five tanmAtras, five elements, ten senses,

mind, intellect, ahamkAra and chittaM) constituted of GuNas have

thus been described. Besides them there is Time as the 25th category.

 

prabhAvaM paurushhaM prAhuH kAlameke yato bhayaM/

ahamkAra-vimUDhasya kartuH prakRRitim-IyushhaH //16//

 

Some, however, are of the opinion that Time is not included in

Prakriti, but rather is a power of Purushha which incites the fear

of death in embodied beings who have wrongly become identified with

the evolutes of Prakriti and absorbed in the ego-sense, which is one

of these evolutes. (For the time-sense of every embodied being is

like a line with its two ends marked by birth and death, and all the

events crowding it form a continuous flow, as it were, from the

former to the latter).

 

prakRRiter-guNa-sAmyasya nirvishheshasya mAnavi /

ceshhTA yataH sa bhagavAn kAla ity-upalakshhitaH //17//

 

Time is also described as the Lord Himself in His role of starting

the initial movement in Prakriti, by virtue of which the equilibrium

of the three GuNas of Prakriti is disturbed, and Prakriti starts

evolving from the indiscrete to the discrete condition.

 

antaH purushha-rUpeNa kAla-rUpeNa yo bahiH /

samanvety-eshha satvAnAM bhagavAn-Atma-mAyayA //18//

 

The Supreme Being, by virtue of His divine power, pervades

everything internally as the indwelling spirit and externally as

Time.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Thank you profvk-Ji

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

Time is also described as the Lord Himself in His role of starting

the initial movement in Prakriti, by virtue of which the equilibrium

of the three GuNas of Prakriti is disturbed, and Prakriti starts

evolving from the indiscrete to the discrete condition.

And

The evolutes of Prakriti ...(are)24 Besides them there is Time as

the 25th category.

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

 

This does lead to a much clearer understanding of Time. Prakriti or

Pursha. Field or Knower of the Field- the slots are only two- and

Time can be thought to be a attribute of either. One further

speculation. What exists in the microcosm also exists in the

macrocosm. Thus Mahat of Prakriti is Buddhi of the jiva. In that case

to say Time is an attribute of both the Field and the Knower of the

Field appears to be correct.

 

warm regards

Hersh