Question

[Guest guest]

Subbuji wrote:

 

Let me close this exposition on the second verse by providing below

an account of a speech delivered by His Holiness Sri Abhinava

Vidyateertha Mahaswamigal of Sringeri on the subject: The Truth

Beyond Space and Time. This benedictory discourse was delivered

by Him in Tamil in Madras (now Chennai) on 20th Nov. 1986.

 

Dik-kaalaadyanavacchinna-ananta-chinmaatra-murtaye |

Svaanubhutyaika-maanaaya namaH shaantaaya tejase ||

 

(Salutation to the tranquil effulgence of the form of eternal

consciousness unlimited by spatial direction, time etc. the sole valid

means of knowing which is self-experience)

 

 

Every object in this Universe has a delimitation of the form, 'It is

found here, but it is not found there'. However, Brahman which is

bhuma (big), is devoid of any spatial delimitation. Whatever place

you conceive of, it is there.

 

Therefore, there is no area where it is not. It is beyond dik or spatial

direction. Strictly speaking, spatial direction cannot be specified in an

absolute sense. For a man in Madurai, Madras lies in the northern

direction. However, for a man dwelling in Vishakhapatnam, Madras

lies to the south. If it be asked, 'Per se, does Madras lie in the

northern direction or in the southern direction?', the answer would be,

' It is neither. It exists. That is all.' If we proceed to

Vishakhapatnam, relative to us, Madras is in the south. On the other

hand, if we were to go to Maduraior Tirunelveli, the direction of

Madras, relative to us, would become north. Therefore, dik or spatial

direction is something that is relative. Even in a relative, rather than an

absolute sense, Brahman cannot be specified as existing in the

northern or southern direction.

 

The case of time is similar to that of spatial direction. With respect

to some specific delimiting factor, we speak of a day. What exactly is

a day? It is something we determine with reference to the movement

of the sun. We now see the sun rising. The time interval between our

current and next sighting of the rising sun constitutes a day. When the

rising sun is next seen, the next day begins. If this be the case, what is

the position if we do not sight the sun? In other words, what is time,

measured in terms of a day, independent of the observed movement

of the sun? Time exists but the question, 'What time is it?' cannot be

answered without reference to something like the movement of the

sun. Hence, a measure of time, such as a day, loses its significance

without reference to some delimiting factor. A day is thus something

relative and not absolute. Thirty days constitute a month and 365

days, a year. As other measures of time, such as a month and a year,

are based on

a day, they are also not on a firmer footing than a day; they too have

meaning only with reference to some delimiting factor.

 

Time, space and objects are all conjectured by the mind. After all,

but for our defining temporal terms, such as day with reference to the

apparent movement of the sun in the sky, time would not be

discernible as it is now. Similarly, but for our defining directions, as

for instance, north with respect to the pole star, spatial direction

would lose its value. As far as the objects of the universe are

concerned the answer to the question, 'Are they limited by time?', is

'Yes'; everything is limited by time. For instance, we make

statements, such as, 'We were born on this day. One day or the

other, we will die. At present, we exist.'

 

If we consider the case of the body or some other object, it is clear

that it did not exist prior to its origination at a certain point in time and

that on some day, it will perish; thereafter it will cease to be. Is is only

between its origination and destruction that it appears, to an observer,

to exist. That is to say, all objects are delimited by time.

 

What is Consciousness or Brahman like? Before the birth of Rama,

there was the krta-yuga. Now the kali-yuga is in progress. Brahman

is not limited by any such periods of time. It exists and that is all. The

question, 'When does It exist?' is inapplicable to Brahman, which is

beyond time. Whatever point of time you conjecture, Brahman does

exist at that time. Did It exist before the krta-yuga? It did. It was

there at the time of Rama, It is there now and It shall be there even

tomorrow.

 

Brahman is beyond the limiting influence of spatial direction, time and

objects. However, though beyond space and time, It is not a void or

an inert entity. It shines in the form of consciousness. If one were to

get the direct realization of this entity, one will attain the summum

bonum of life. This is what the scriptures say.

 

Experience too is like that. The more absorbed we become in

Brahman, the more does it seem, 'So many things take place in the

universe. All this is a mere illusory sport.' If the world be a mere

illusory sport then what object is good and what is bad? For a

person who has desire for the objects of the world, any object will

seem to be good or bad depending on whether he sees it a source of

his joy or sorrow. On the other hand, for one who is devoid of

attachment and aversion and whose mind is focussed on the Self, the

position is, 'I am the witness. That is all.' If such a person were

asked 'Do you get happiness or unhappiness on account of the

world?', he would answer, 'I see no reason to either laugh or weep

over anything. I merely witness what comes before my eyes and do

not even make an effort to experience anything'.

 

We aspire for this state. Shankara Bhagavatpada has said that if we

obtain a Sadguru, receive his teachings and follow the means

prescribed by him, we too can attain it.

Hara namaH Paarvatii-pataye Hara Hara Mahadeva !!

Jaanaki-kaanta-smaranam Jaya Jaya Rama Rama !!

 

(Excerpted from the book: Exalting Elucidations)

(End of verse Two of Sridakshinamurti stotram. End of Part III)

(To be continued)

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste,

No one doubts that His Holiness is trying

to promote viveka & vairega here but it is unfortunate

that the arguments that he uses are so weak.

Spatial direction is essentially relational. A

direction that one gives is always from a location.

To ask where it is 'as such' is to give rise to the

idea that you have not understood the concept of

direction. Position is the same thing. For

someone setting out from Arcturus Earth would

be enough. The conventions by which Position and

Time are expressed are optional.

 

Is good and bad really only how it affects me?

I don't think so. However difficult it may be

fine-tuning the details there is a broad

general agreement on the major points of ethics. Even

a person driven by egoism may recognise that he

is contravening general laws. Being a rascal

can only benefit if most are compliant.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.