Modeling Time (MTS-4: Towards a Mathematical Theory of Spirituality Based on Advaita)

[Guest guest]

Ref:

http://sunyaprajna.com/Advaita/Advaita_Math.pdf

 

Time is a very elusive concept indeed. Modern Science uses the concept

routinely, but readily admits it has no idea what Time really is. Fortunately,

this is not the case for an Advaitic Master like Sri Ramana Maharshi.

 

“What is time?” asks the Sage of Arunachala echoing a devotee’s question. “It

posits a state, one’s recognition of it, and also the changes that affect it.

The interval between two states is called time.”

 

States- Recognition- Changes-Interval between states! I was very delighted when

I recently came across this pithy, precise definition provided by Bhagawan

nearly seventy years ago. For, it neatly summarizes the approach used in the

paper for modeling time. A basic premise of the paper is that time is not an

independent variable, but rather it is the changes to the state of the world

that give rise to the notion of time. Where there are no changes, Time is not.

 

In Fig 2 (page 6) we illustrated how the state of the world changes under

pressure of vasanas. We can say that state of the world at time t, including

the vasanas at that time, is the cause and the state of the world at the next

moment, t+, is its immediate effect. (It is implicitly understood that Ishwara’s

guiding hand is also necessary in this cause-effect transition, since the cause

here does not totally determine the effect.) Cause and effect are not perceived

to coexist; rather effect is always seen to follow cause. It is this constant

perceived flow from cause to effect that gives rise to time.

 

Fig 1 (page 4) presents graphically the resulting dynamics of the O-E-T

beginning with the “first” moment of creation. Each moment is the cause for the

immediately succeeding moment. The interval between each cause and its

immediate effect is assumed to be a constant and is defined as one unit cosmic

time. Cosmic time, or time, is denoted by the symbol t.

 

Creation, sustenance, and dissolution are in constant evidence in our universe.

Indeed, as Swami Chinmayanandaji often pointed out, every change in the universe

involves destruction of a previous state of order followed by the creation of a

new one. The divine damaru (cosmic drum) of Lord Shiva is often associated with

this Creation. It is as if the state of the world changes to each beat of the

Lord’s damaru. The interval between the rhythmic beats thus measures out the

Cosmic Time. During this interval two events occur as illustrated by Fig. 2: a)

Prakriti transforms the present state of the world into a “superposition” of the

several states possible for the next moment, and b) Ishwara chooses one of these

possibilities as the state of the world. Page 36 carries an illustration of this

two step process which will be subsequently discussed in detail.

 

Jeevas experience the changes happening in the world, but they do not by any

means experience all the changes. The time experienced by a jeeva during a given

interval of (cosmic) time, we postulate, is proportional to the number of

changes it experiences during that interval. This postulate is again based on

the principle that without change there is no time. In deep sleep, for example,

no changes are experienced by a jeeva and there is no perception of elapsed time

either.

 

Every thought modification is a change for the jeeva (and hence also for the

world of which it is a part). Conversely, with every experienced change there is

thought modification. With this as the perspective, Advaitins often consider

(experienced) time as the interval between two thoughts. To go beyond time, one

must be thought-free or hold on to one thought: “ekachintanaat naasamethyatha”,

says Sri Ramana.

 

We have reviewed in these two postings Figs 1 and 2 representing the paradigm

used in the paper for the world of O-E-T. The model, it is to be noted, does not

concern itself with a study of various causes and their effects. That is

strictly the domain of sciences which try to predict the course of the world as

well as they can. The overarching effort in our model must be to capture the

spiritual essence of experiencing changes, whatever those changes are and

whatever their causes might be. Spirituality is not concerned so much with

describing the material world, as it is with prescribing means by which the

world may be experienced joyously.

 

Figs 1 and 2 are adequate representations of reality from a scientist’s

materialistic point of view, but, as we will discuss in our next posting, fall

short of our needs. In other words, the model needs to be expanded to include

the spiritual dimension.

 

Hari Om!

 

- Raju Chidambaram

[Guest guest]

Hi Raju,

 

We had nice weather this weekend, so I didn't catch

your message until today.

 

> "What is time?" asks the Sage of Arunachala echoing a

> devotee's question. "It posits a state, one's recognition

> of it, and also the changes that affect it. The interval

> between two states is called time."

>

> [. . .]

>

> A basic premise of the paper is that time is not an

> independent variable, but rather it is the changes to the

> state of the world that give rise to the notion of time.

> Where there are no changes, Time is not.

 

 

I would go a bit further and say that Ramana's key word

here is 'recognition'. As Sadananda keeps telling us, and

I wholeheartedly agree, one cannot remove the seer from

the experience, including the experience of time. (This is

the big mistake that scientists and other so-called realists

make, which in fact is an unreal prejudice!)

 

In other words, time and the consciousness of time are

inextricably bound, as is any instance of seer and seen,

or perceiver and perceived. So you are right that time

is not an 'independent variable', but I would add that

it is not independent of consciousness, to be precise.

 

Now can there really be no time without changes?

Suppose one imagines consciousness of an utterly

black space, with no thoughts except the sequences

of thoughts: "This is a moment. This is the next

moment." And so on. Then there would be the

perception of time, and thus time, since as we have

said, the perception of time and the reality of time

are not distinct. I doubt you would have any

objection to this clarification, as you include thoughts

(and indeed any BMI) under the notion of 'state'.

 

One might then try to get coy and suppose a consciousness

even devoid of the thought of successive moments.

Would there not still be an 'implicit time', *as if* the

thoughts marking the successive moments had been

present? Many would say yes, but I agree with you

that actually the answer is no, since I cannot distinguish

the unfolding of time from the awareness of that

unfolding, and hence the thought of it.

 

One vivid way to see this is to realize that time seems

to elapse differently when the brain is affected, by

e.g. a drug or even a knock on the head. The notion

of fast or slow is quite relative and arbitrary. Why,

one doesn't even need a drug or knock on the head.

When one is enjoying oneself, time flies, and when

not, time slows to a crawl. Thus we see how closely

linked are time and the awareness of it!

 

These considerations also help clarify deep sleep,

along the lines you were suggesting.

 

You say more, and I could say more, but I think this

is enough from me for now. I hope others join in,

especially those who have even a passing interest

in math or science. Surely, consideration of "t" and

"t+1" does not require a Ph.D. in Mathematics!

 

I hope I didn't scare people away by saying that they

might be blogged. I was careful to add that I wouldn't

if you asked me not to.

 

Hari Om!

Ben

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

I am unable to join in this conversation, but something caught my eye

in Benjamin's post and I can't resist the temptation to leave a

comment. :-)

 

 

advaitin, "Benjamin Orion" <orion777ben>

wrote:

> One might then try to get coy and suppose a consciousness

> even devoid of the thought of successive moments.

> Would there not still be an 'implicit time', *as if* the

> thoughts marking the successive moments had been

> present? Many would say yes, but I agree with you

> that actually the answer is no, since I cannot distinguish

> the unfolding of time from the awareness of that

> unfolding, and hence the thought of it.

 

 

To me this looks like pure esse-percepi, and it seems to generate a

few conundrums.

 

 

Conundrum 1:

 

If there is no time when consciousness is devoid of the thought of

successive moments, then there is no time in deep sleep. If there is

no time in deep sleep, then the time before one fell into deep sleep

is juxtaposed with the time that one emerged out of deep sleep. If

this be the case, then deep sleep doesn't exist because the very

existence of a state of deep sleep is based on the fact that it

persists in time. In other words, without time it is meaningless to

talk of there being any state in the no-time. Therefore, given the

premise that there is no time when consiousness is devoid of thought,

it follows logically that there is no such state as deep sleep state.

Therefore the model should not have a deep sleep state!

 

 

Conundrum 2:

 

I see all these things happening around me. This change around me is

associated with time. This association is part of the reflexive

mechanism of my thinking process. Now I see a boat moving slowly on

the river. I fall into a dreamless sleep. When I wake up, I see that

the boat has moved far away that it is now a small speck on the

horizon. But no time passed when I was in deep sleep because there is

no time in deep sleep. Therefore in no time the boat has moved far

away, and this large displacement of the boat in space is

incommensurate with the speed of the boat that I see when I am awake.

Therefore, there is some experiential discontinuity happening when I

go into deep sleep - on the one hand there is no time, and on the

other hand things in space get displaced as if so much happens in no

time. Would the model need to incorporate space-time warps?

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan-ji

 

Both your objections are easily explained if we accept there is a

cosmic time (in Ishvara) and a local time (in jiva).

>the very existence of a state of deep sleep is based on the fact

that it

>persists in time.

 

Yes. In Deep sleep the "local" time stands still, Cosmic Time marches

on

>Now I see a boat moving slowly on the river. I fall into a dreamless

sleep. When I wake up, I see that

>the boat has moved far away that it is now a small speck on the

horizon.

 

Same explanation as above.

 

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

I think I have some support for this two fold division of Time (into

Cosmic and Local) as Vivekananda has constantly maintained in his

lectures that whatever is there in the macrocosm is also within the

microcosm and that both are built on the same plan. Thus if there is

the concept of Time in Ishvera, there is a concept of time in the

Jiva. Also Sankhya seems to support this contention (except that in

Sankhya there is no intermediate Ishvera). I have provided quotes

from Vivakananda supporting the viewpoint that Time is a mental

abstraction at advaitin/message/28331

and also from Kovoor Behanan to provide justification per Sankhya.

 

In Kakrighat on the Kosi river Swami Vivakananda meditated and had an

intense realization of the oneness between the macrocosm and

microcosm. The following extract is from MACROCOSM AND MICROCOSM (The

Life of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. I. p. 250.) and available at the

following url:

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_9/writings_p

rose_and_poems/macrocosm_and_microcosm.htm. This realization is

deleloped in his lectures on macrocosm within the microcosm and

Cosmology available in his complete works.

 

This realization is also listed in detail in the book " Vivakananda -

East meets West" on page 35

 

<extract>

 

After his experience of the macrocosm within the microcosm while

absorbed in

meditation under the peepul tree at Kakrighat, in 1890, Swami

Vivekananda jotted

down in Bengali fragments of his realization in his notebook.

 

In the beginning was the Word etc.

 

The microcosm and the macrocosm are built on the same plan. Just as

the

individual soul is encased in the living body, so is the universal

Soul in the

Living Prakriti [Nature] — the objective universe. Shivâ [i.e. Kâli]

is

embracing Shiva: this is not a fancy. This covering of the one [soul]

by the

other [Nature] is analogous to the relation between an idea and the

word

expressing it: they are one and the same; and it is only by a mental

abstraction

that one can distinguish them. Thought is impossible without words.

Therefore,

in the beginning was the Word etc.

 

This dual aspect of the Universal Soul is eternal. So what we

perceive or feel

is this combination of the Eternally Formed and the Eternally

Formless.

 

<end extract>

 

Warm Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

rote:>

> > One might then try to get coy and suppose a consciousness

> > even devoid of the thought of successive moments.

> > Would there not still be an 'implicit time', *as if* the

> > thoughts marking the successive moments had been

> > present? Many would say yes, but I agree with you

> > that actually the answer is no, since I cannot distinguish

> > the unfolding of time from the awareness of that

> > unfolding, and hence the thought of it.

>

>

> To me this looks like pure esse-percepi, and it seems to generate

a

> few conundrums.

>

>

> Conundrum 1:

>

> If there is no time when consciousness is devoid of the thought of

> successive moments, then there is no time in deep sleep. If there

is

> no time in deep sleep, then the time before one fell into deep

sleep

> is juxtaposed with the time that one emerged out of deep sleep. If

 

Namaste C,

 

It seems to me a little like the chicken and the egg argument about

what came first. What if there is no chicken and no egg, then what?

What if it never happened at all, no deep sleep or no day to day

consciousness?

 

I feel that Ajatavada is the truth.

 

Deep sleep is not totally devoid of illusion for itself it is a

continous thought of ignorance, it is a veil in itself. Therefore

part of the illusion.

 

If one wakes to the world having moved on whilst one is in deep

sleep it doesn't prove the world to be real or give it any greater

validity. It just proves that time doesn't exist and that deep sleep

and day to day awakeness are just different dimensions of the same

illusion.

 

One had to get to the Turiya or Sahaja State of Nirvikalpa Samadhi

to be above the illusion. Otherwise we are talking about whether it

is a snake or a rope, when neither happened in the first

place....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste All

> One had to get to the Turiya or Sahaja State of Nirvikalpa Samadhi

> to be above the illusion.

 

Who feels/ is aware of Time... "I"

What is "I"

The First mental concept of the mind ... "I am".

So ego is the (first mental concept of the) mind

Now ego has to be discarded to go beyond time.

 

Ramana Maharshi in "Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" Osborne pg 114 says:

 

When the mind or ego has to be discarded in any case, why waste time

analysing it?

 

Just as it is futile to examine the rubbish that has to be swept up

only to be thrown away, so it is futile for one who seeks the self to

set to work enumerating the tattvas that envelop the self and

examining them instead of casting them away. He should consider the

phenomenal world with reference to himself as merely a dream.

 

 

 

rgds

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hersh-ji,

 

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

>

> Namaste Chittaranjan-ji

>

> Both your objections are easily explained if we accept there is

> a cosmic time (in Ishvara) and a local time (in jiva).

> Yes. In Deep sleep the "local" time stands still, Cosmic Time

> marches on

 

Yes, you are right, Cosmic time solves the problem. The conundrums

pointed out by me were merely what follow from the premise that there

is no time when there is no thought.

 

But I do not believe you are right in saying that local time stands

still when Cosmic time marches on. Ishvara is the Inner Controller,

and the local time of a jiva cannot violate the Cosmic time of

Ishvara. That is why there is a sense of time having passed even when

we are in deep sleep. In the creation of Brahma, the truth is what

Brahma has created and this truth cannot be violated by a jiva. The

jiva has entered the world (through his avidya) and he must leave the

world (through jnana) before he can speak in a contrary fashion. This

jnana is not speculation, but the actual revelation of the Truth of

Eternity.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Namaste,

 

I would like to add some poing on this issue. I do not

know the preceeding points of discussion as the topic

is interesting i would like to add few things.

 

There cannot be two times one for jiva another for

ishwara. It is said that the human mind is a part of

cosmic mind. That is why inspite of our independent

existence as a jiva we perceive things in a synonimus

way. All of us see table as table and computer as a

computer as we are in the same plane and attuned to

uniform vibrations. There is only one time called the

cosmic time and one mind as consmic mind and in these

all these dualities are felt.

 

Some people have asked that in the sushupti the local

time is stopped. Here the time is not stopped but the

jiva apparantly trasends the cosmic time as he goes to

the primal cause or prajna state. There no duality is

perceived and concept of time space is out of

question. It is also opined that time and space cannot

exist independently of each other. It is a very fine

point to be understood. And even the sushpti state is

said to alomost identical with the realisation except

the ignorence which will force the jiva back to the

phenominal world. So we can take that the jiva will be

transcend the cosimic time for a while.

 

Post your objections if any i would like to discuss

more if it is within my knowlege.

 

HARI OM TAT SAT

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan

 

Namaste Chittaranjan,

 

you wrote:

 

"Ishvara is the Inner Controller,

> and the local time of a jiva cannot violate the Cosmic time of

> Ishvara. That is why there is a sense of time having passed even when

> we are in deep sleep. In the creation of Brahma, the truth is what

> Brahma has created and this truth cannot be violated by a jiva."

 

Thank you for this nice words.

 

Indead, one can't escape oneSelf...never...and also, there is "no time"

in which there is not this "Inner Controller".

 

Difficult to talk about "time"...in front of endless and

timeless "truth".

 

The light of Brahman project the (awareness) of a jiva on

the "screen" ...the world perception of a jiva.

 

No way to escape this light....and, if awareness is missing......the

projection is filled up with endless time and space related

things......which are attached and related to oneself.

 

If awareness is advanced, maybe, there is less attachment to this play

of lights and forms projections......then, "who" is remaining to "care

about"......?

 

Regards and love

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hershji,

 

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

> If you read my previous posts, I said that time is a "Lower

> Nature" or "Field" of the Lord as per the defination in BG 7.4.

 

The Bhagavad Gita does not say that time belongs to the kshetra. On

the contrary, Lord Krishna says 'I am Time'.

 

> Thus it is an "object of knowledge" like happiness, sadness,

> ignorance etc which the Jiva associates/superimposes on the

> self. This is my point of view.

 

Ignorance is not an object of knowledge. Ignorance (avidya) is

inexplicable because it does not exist and yet we are constrained to

speak of it in samsara as 'something' that exists. Time is the

bewitching power through which objects seem to change when objects in

Reality are eternal. Time as we 'know' it in samsara is inextricably

linked to avidya and it presents the illusion of objects being

temporal.

 

> Please explain your point of view on Time more fully. I think

> you said that "Time is Eternal. Eternal Time is Mahakali" which

> started this discussion. I would like to hear your view on why

> Time is not a mental concept (thus a object of knowledge per BG

> 7.4), which is the key point since If it is a mental concept,

> it is a compound (dependent on the mind)and a compound cannot

> be eternal.

 

I don't think I can explain Time perspicuously. As I said in an

earlier post I believe Time is Maya Herself and Maya cannot be

explained perspicuously in samsara.

 

Time is not a mental concept because it is there in deep sleep when

the mind is absent.

 

Both the simple and the compound are eternal. All objects are

eternal. Time is also eternal. The problem is the mixing up of the

attributes of eternal Time with the attributes of eternal objects

whereby objects seem to take on the garb of having changing natures.

The magic of Time drapes itself on eternal objects, as it were, and

holds us captive to the great Magic Show.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chitta:

 

Any explanation of 'Time' or 'Isvara' or 'Jiva' or 'Brahman' comes

from the buddhi. As you correctly pointed out, attributes to time,

Isvara, Jiva, Brahman, etc. are mental concept.

 

Interestingly, we are currently discussing chapter 10 of Bhagavad

Gita which describes the Glories of Isvara Swarupa of Brahman. Time

as understood by the Jiva is one of His Glories. Brahman is in

reality beyond His Glories. The glories stated in chapter 10 are to

provide an intellectual picture of the ParaBrahman who is Beyond His

Own Glories! As you correctly pointed out, all these glories are

parts of His Maya and one has to go beyond His Glories to reach Him!

It seems that we all enjoy got trapped and still don't know how out

of this trap.

 

A model of time can only serve like the ladder to get out of a deep

well. We can't hang on for ever with the model (ladder) instead of

using it to get out of trap. Though the model is subject to change,

at the same time, the model can help us to get us out from the

transient (change) to the eternal (changeless). We have let go the

model at the appropriate Time!

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

>

> I don't think I can explain Time perspicuously. As I said in an

> earlier post I believe Time is Maya Herself and Maya cannot be

> explained perspicuously in samsara.

>

> Time is not a mental concept because it is there in deep sleep when

> the mind is absent.

>

> Both the simple and the compound are eternal. All objects are

> eternal. Time is also eternal. The problem is the mixing up of the

> attributes of eternal Time with the attributes of eternal objects

> whereby objects seem to take on the garb of having changing

natures.

> The magic of Time drapes itself on eternal objects, as it were, and

> holds us captive to the great Magic Show.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ram Chandran

 

you say to Shri Chitta:

>Any explanation of 'Time' or 'Isvara' or 'Jiva' or 'Brahman' comes

> from the buddhi. As you correctly pointed out, attributes to time,

> Isvara, Jiva, Brahman, etc. are mental concept.

 

I am afraid you misread Shri Chitta's post. He said:

 

"Time is not a mental concept because it is there in deep sleep when

the mind is absent."

 

This is the main point of discussion. I am saying that Time is a mental

concept and Shri Chitta saying it is not.

 

Thanks

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hershji:

 

I really don't want to start a debate on this, but I do want to say

that I have not misunderstood what Sri Chitta stated. Time just like

Brahman is not a mental concept but any explanation of Time or

Brahman is a mental concept. Suppose if I say that time is the

interval between two thoughts, then such a definition of time is a

mental concept. When we say that there is nothing beyond 'Brahman'

exists and if we believe in the existence of 'Time' then it has to be

the Brahman. As advaitins, we agree that 'maya' and 'Brahman' are

inseparable, also, 'time' and 'Brahman' are inseparable! This is

very subtle!!

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

>

> Namaste Shri Ram Chandran

>

> you say to Shri Chitta:

> >Any explanation of 'Time' or 'Isvara' or 'Jiva' or 'Brahman' comes

> > from the buddhi. As you correctly pointed out, attributes to

time,

> > Isvara, Jiva, Brahman, etc. are mental concept.

>

>

> This is the main point of discussion. I am saying that Time is a

mental

> concept and Shri Chitta saying it is not.

>

> Thanks

> Hersh

>

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

Dear Ram chandraji,

So there is Only Brahman! in essence, and there is no seperate time without

Brahman. So the time cocept is only which related to earth, if it is like

that is there a time in space? time in the Universe???

Namaskaram

Krishna Prasad

 

On 11/3/05, Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Hershji:

>

> I really don't want to start a debate on this, but I do want to say

> that I have not misunderstood what Sri Chitta stated. Time just like

> Brahman is not a mental concept but any explanation of Time or

> Brahman is a mental concept. Suppose if I say that time is the

> interval between two thoughts, then such a definition of time is a

> mental concept. When we say that there is nothing beyond 'Brahman'

> exists and if we believe in the existence of 'Time' then it has to be

> the Brahman. As advaitins, we agree that 'maya' and 'Brahman' are

> inseparable, also, 'time' and 'Brahman' are inseparable! This is

> very subtle!!

>

> Harih Om!

>

> Ram Chandran

>

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

> >

> > Namaste Shri Ram Chandran

> >

> > you say to Shri Chitta:

> > >Any explanation of 'Time' or 'Isvara' or 'Jiva' or 'Brahman' comes

> > > from the buddhi. As you correctly pointed out, attributes to

> time,

> > > Isvara, Jiva, Brahman, etc. are mental concept.

> >

> >

> > This is the main point of discussion. I am saying that Time is a

> mental

> > concept and Shri Chitta saying it is not.

> >

> > Thanks

> > Hersh

> >

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

>

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/<http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin\

/>

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Advaita</gads?t=ms&k=Advaita&w1=Advaita&w2=Bhagavad+gita&\

c=2&s=32&.sig=XVU-nq9QktQpxXobok56AA> Bhagavad

>

gita</gads?t=ms&k=Bhagavad+gita&w1=Advaita&w2=Bhagavad+gi\

ta&c=2&s=32&.sig=iIdTFw73JStkTtHX43oz4g>

> ------------------------------

>

>

>

> - Visit your group "advaitin<advaitin>"

> on the web.

> -

>

advaitin<advaitin?subjec\

t=Un>

> - Terms of

> Service <>.

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran>

wrote:

>

When we say that there is nothing beyond 'Brahman'

> exists and if we believe in the existence of 'Time' then it has to

be

> the Brahman. As advaitins, we agree that 'maya' and 'Brahman' are

> inseparable, also, 'time' and 'Brahman' are inseparable! This is

> very subtle!!

>

> Harih Om!

>

> Ram Chandran

>

 

Namaste.

 

Perhaps I am repeating myself. But the remark of Ramchandran-ji is

to be emphasized. But before that, an observation on the side:

 

It is very common in Indian conversations to say and hear: "It is

the work of Time". We see it in the movies also. The Mahabharata

makes a constant reference to it and justifiably the serial-author

of the TV Mahabharata made it the Hero by giving it the role of the

story-teller! This concept of "work of Time" is ingrained in the

culture of Bharat.

 

The work of "Time" is meant to say it is the work of God. God

is 'Time' (cf. 'kalo'smi' in the Gita). Here below is a more

definitive statement on this in Kapila Gita - about which I wrote

in advaitin/message/28309

 

There the shloka 17 clearly says "Time is the Lord Himself" (*kAla

ityupalakshitaH*) And in shloka 18 it says:

 

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.

 

So the external manifestation of Brahman is Time -- whether this

manifestation is our mental concept or it is there irrespective of

our mind is what is being debated now. It is as good (or as futile)

as discussing whether Brahman is a mental concept or not!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Krishna Prasad-ji,

 

advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...>

wrote:

> So there is Only Brahman! in essence, and there is no seperate

> time without Brahman. So the time cocept is only which related

> to earth, if it is like that is there a time in space? time in

> the Universe???

 

 

Your first sentence is 'There is only Brahman'. Then you say that the

time concept is related to earth. Where did the earth come from if

there is only Brahman? Wherever the earth came from is also where

time came from, the only difference between them being that you see

the earth with the senses and you don't see time with the senses.

Some schools of Vedanta say that time is grasped by the sakshi alone,

but I do not remember having read Advaita's position on this.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Krishnaji:

 

At the Paramarthika level, there is only Brahman. Brahman is the only

Truth (Brahmaiva Satyam). At vyavaharika level, Brahman and Time can

separately exist. Also various notions of time and various notions of

Brahman can also exist. This is mAyA!

 

Intellect uses its fullest capacity to define and transact 'time'

with convenient attributes. In the US we have eastern time, pacific

time, central time, daylight saving time, etc. and we do have clocks

showing time at different cities of the earth. In India we define,

Brhama's time, Ragu's time, Kethu's time, Yama's time, Muhurtha time

(auspicious time), etc. We love to use office time, morning time,

evening time, vaction time, play time, sick time, etc, during our

day to day transactions.

 

At vyavaharika level, even though, we have limits, but we don't limit

defining time for our convenience and understanding. It should be

also to be noted that all our 'disagreements' are only at the

vyavaharika level! At paramarthika level there will be no

disagreements!! Really speaking, there will be neither agreements nor

disagreements and everything is expressed (unexpressed) in Total

Silence!

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...>

wrote:

>

> Hari OM!

> Dear Ram chandraji,

> So there is Only Brahman! in essence, and there is no seperate

time without

> Brahman. So the time cocept is only which related to earth, if it

is like

> that is there a time in space? time in the Universe???

> Namaskaram

> Krishna Prasad

[Guest guest]

Nameste Prof VK-Ji

>So the external manifestation of Brahman is Time -- whether this

>manifestation is our mental concept or it is there irrespective of

>our mind is what is being debated now. It is as good (or as futile)

>as discussing whether Brahman is a mental concept or not!

 

ProfVK the question I was struggling to formulate in pages you set

out in 4 lines That the Supreme Being prevades everything externally

as Time is accepted. Does he prevade internally as Time also or not

is debated. In other words is the ego looking at the absolute through

the mind which is a telescope with Time, Space and Causality as

lenses? Or are Time/Space and Causality seperate from the mind of the

Jiva. In that case how can he ever go beyond Time/Space/Casulaity.

Suppose Jiva A and Jiva B are two computers on a network. Ishvera is

the server. Time is a file (say a word document) on the network

server. Both A and B are reading the word file. If A tries to delete

this file, the server will disallow it as B also has it open. So it

is impossible to delete the file i.e. go beyond the conept of time if

there is only "cosmic" time.

 

However if both A and B copy the file locally, each can delete his

own copy of the file. Hence if we have the concept of "local" time,

we can go beyond time.

 

This is what I want to convey.

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

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

>

> Namaste All

> > One had to get to the Turiya or Sahaja State of Nirvikalpa Samadhi

> > to be above the illusion.

>

> Who feels/ is aware of Time... "I"

> What is "I"

> The First mental concept of the mind ... "I am".

> So ego is the (first mental concept of the) mind

> Now ego has to be discarded to go beyond time.

 

Namaste H,

 

Yes time is an illusion even scientifically, it can be bent and turned

back on itself in space, black holes etc. It is relative.

 

The first concept of the Jiva is the Ego or small I, although even in

illusion there is a universal 'I'.

 

However in illusion, which includes the ignorance of deep sleep time

is relative and changeable, depending on the level of illusion. So

although there may be time in the material world there is none in the

subtle.

 

When Krishna says he is time, He is talking as a JivanMukta or the

Saguna Brahman. For without the illusory projection of Saguna there is

no time. It all disappears on dropping the body of a Mukta anyway, so

it never happened in the first place..............ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hersh-ji,

 

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

 

> Suppose Jiva A and Jiva B are two computers on a network.

> Ishvera is the server.

 

The two computers on the network are separate from the server. Jiva A

and Jiva B are not separate from Ishvara. The analogy is

inappropriate. The two computers on the network and the server are

all inert - jada. Jiva A and Jiva B and Ishvara are not jada - their

essence is chaitanya. Again the analogy is inappropriate.

 

The knowledge of Time is obtained through Self-knowledge. Self-

knowledge is obtained through atma-vichara - contemplation on the

Self that is Chaitanya. Analogies are helpful in the beginning, and

they are obstructions later. They have to be discarded in the

focussed directnedness of attention to the Self.

 

> Time is a file (say a word document) on the network

> server. Both A and B are reading the word file. If A

> tries to delete this file, the server will disallow it

> as B also has it open. So it is impossible to delete

> the file i.e. go beyond the conept of time if there is

> only "cosmic" time.

> However if both A and B copy the file locally, each can

> delete his own copy of the file. Hence if we have the

> concept of "local" time, we can go beyond time.

> This is what I want to convey.

 

Deleting is an action. Self-knowledge, in which the nature of Time is

known, is not an action or the result of action. Brahma-jnana is to

know the truth as it is. Why should one delete 'local time' and try

to go beyond it? In atma-vichara, the sadhaka only strives to know

the truth - simply as it is - and not try to do something with time

or with the world. Let all things be as they are, let us know what

they are. Vedanta says that to know what they are, one should know

the Self for the truth of all things is found in the Self.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan