The Goddess of Time

[Guest guest]

Srinivasji and Hershji,

thanks for the correction Srinivas. May I further add

to the consideration of time from the references that Shankara makes

in B.S.B. II.i.35/36 and then from the point of view of the Field and

the knower of the Field in his commentary in B.G.13.2.

 

In the former he frankly asserts that according to the doctrine of

karma and scripture creation is beginingless. A blank slate could not

start off the whole mechanism of karma.

>From a purely logical point of view time could not begin as that would

be assuming what had yet to be established. Very mysterious! Does

time have a privilaged status over against the rest of creation?

 

If there is to be made a distinction between the field and the knower

of the field, is time an element in the field? Our means of assessing

that which is real involves time i.e. that which is unsublated through the

three moments of time, so time in this account escapes being an

element in the field by virtue of the fact that its assesment involves

self-reference or circularity.

 

Is time a thing like other things that are known? When there is pure

consciousness, one without a second then I would suppose that time

dissolves as well. An intuition of this might be gained from the

consideration of the loss of the sense of time that occurs to us during

deep sleep. We have no direct idea of the duration of our sleep, only

that we were asleep and did not dream. Deep sleep is like a

duationless point in which our consciousness is suspended.

 

Does Time come into being along with objects because knowledge of

objects comes with the background of time?

 

Best Regards,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- hersh_b <hershbhasin wrote:

> 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

Sankarraman

I do not understand how Purusa can hold the attribute

of time, as I understand Purusa only to be an

impassive witness, as against the goings on of the

Prakriti, rather the illsusory personality created,

which is the junction of the seer and the seen, which

is to be avoided according to Patanjali, this position

being unanimously agrred to by both advaita and

vedanta,except that advaita is against the seperate

existence of Prakriti, admitting of the sole existence

of Purusa, as taught by Adi Sankara, and recently

demonstrated unequivocally by Bhagavan Ramana, an

embodiment of advaita. I think Prakriti, too, does not

comport the idea of time, which is merely a happening

by virtue of the witnessing of the Prakriti by the

Purusa, all the evolutes coming out as a result of

this process. Pancadasi is very clear about this

position, where every created being is denied in

regard to being the author of this creaton, the soul

reality of the self alone being established. In his

book Upanishads, Paul Deussen, while explaining the

shanky position, makes a statement to the effect that

the Prakriti is seperate for each Purusa, being a

private encounter, this leading to the position of

solipsism. I would like your views to be delineated in

this regard.

with warm regards,

sankarraman

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

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

>

> Namaste sankarramanJi

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> I do not understand how Purusa can hold the attribute of time, as

I

> understand Purusa only to be an impassive witness

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

>

> I am afraid my last post appeared to state a contradiction which

> resulted from lumping together three schools of thoughts.

>

> 1) Field and Knower of Field as per Gita

>

> 2) From Kapila Gita (Bhagavatam Chs.25 to 33 of III Canto). Not to

be

> confused with Kapila of Sankhya as this admits an Ishvara.

>

> 3) Pursha and Prakriti of Sankhya.

>

 

Namaste, Hersh-ji

 

I see you have done a deep research into the topic now. I have yet

to carefully study your post and I don't think I will have the time

to do it in the next few days since I will be busy otherwise. But I

may just point out my doubt whether you have taken into account the

shlokas 17 and 18 of ch.26 of Kapila Gita portion (which you seem to

have absorbed) which says that the Lord Himself is Time! (See

advaitin/message/28309 )

 

And Krishna also says (XI - 32) "kAlo'smi" (I am Time)!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Namaste sankarramanJi

> >

> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > I do not understand how Purusa can hold the attribute of time, as

> I

> > understand Purusa only to be an impassive witness

> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> >

> >

> > I am afraid my last post appeared to state a contradiction which

> > resulted from lumping together three schools of thoughts.

> >

> > 1) Field and Knower of Field as per Gita

> >

> > 2) From Kapila Gita (Bhagavatam Chs.25 to 33 of III Canto). Not to

> be

> > confused with Kapila of Sankhya as this admits an Ishvara.

> >

> > 3) Pursha and Prakriti of Sankhya.

> >

>

> Namaste, Hersh-ji

>

> I see you have done a deep research into the topic now. I have yet

> to carefully study your post and I don't think I will have the time

> to do it in the next few days since I will be busy otherwise. But I

> may just point out my doubt whether you have taken into account the

> shlokas 17 and 18 of ch.26 of Kapila Gita portion (which you seem to

> have absorbed) which says that the Lord Himself is Time! (See

> advaitin/message/28309 )

>

> And Krishna also says (XI - 32) "kAlo'smi" (I am Time)!

 

 

Namaste,

 

It is my understanding that every 'vibhuti' (glory) mentioned

in any chapter is only an example of the immanence and omnipresence of

the Supreme Spirit {'puruShottama'), and no analysis of any one of

them can be regarded as superior to that of another - 'sarvaM

khalvidaM brahma'; 'ekaMshena sthito jagat.h', etc.

 

For example, v. 10:22 -

indriyaaNaaM manashchaasmi bhuutaanaamasmi chetanaa .. 10\-22..

 

v. 15:16,17,18 -

dvaavimau puruShau loke kSharashchaakShara eva cha .

kSharaH sarvaaNi bhuutaani kuuTastho.akShara uchyate .. 15\-16..

uttamaH puruShastvanyaH paramaatmetyudhaahR^itaH .

yo lokatrayamaavishya bibhartyavyaya iishvaraH .. 15\-17..

yasmaatkSharamatiito.ahamakSharaadapi chottamaH .

ato.asmi loke vedecha prathitaH puruShottamaH .. 15\-18..

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

And Krishna also says (XI - 32) "kAlo'smi" (I am Time)!

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

IMHO, this is just to emphasize the point that paramAtman's

sarvavyApakatva(all pervasiveness / omni presence) ...for that matter when

krishna says I am mrugarAja (lion) among animals, it does not mean he is

*not* tiger or elephant or someother animal ...from that view point *there

is nothing exists* apart from brahman (ishAvAsyaM idaM *sarvam* says

shruti ) ...But when you consider shruti pratipAdita nirguNa, nirAkAra

siddhAnta of parabrahman there is absolutely no relationship of kAla &

dEsha with parabrahman. shankara clearly declares this at the fag end of

sUtra bhAshya & says *parabrahmaNe na dEsh kAla saMbhandhaM

asti*...krishna elsewhere says the same thing...I am there in them ...but

they are not in me... etc. etc.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar