[Advaita-l] Is the idea of 'anAditva' logical?

[V Subrahmanian]

On 7/1/12, rajaramvenk at gmail.com <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the pramana (pratyaksha, anumana, arthapatti, sabda?) by which time
> is known? Why do we know it as existing, passing, non-existing etc.?

It is admitted that kAla and desha are sAkshi-pratyaksha.
Non-existence of time, along with everything else, is ultimately
known/realized through shruti-friendly yukti and Self-realization
which is again through shabda (Agama) pramANam.

subrahmanian.v


> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:34:16
> To: A discussion group for Advaita
> Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> 	<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Is the idea of 'anAditva' logical?
>
> On 6/30/12, Shyam <shyam_md at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Pranams Subbuji
>> I am on travel and hence unable to participate in this and related
>> discussions.
>> What I would suggest in regards to your well thought-out poser would be
>> to
>> consider a) whether time itself is an entity; b) if so does it have a
>> origin? and c) if so, when does time originate?
>>
>> A careful consideration to these aspects may be helpful in arriving at an
>> conceptual appreciation of anaditva.
>
> Thank you Sri Shyam ji, for the thought-provoking response.  I am
> immediately reminded of a Panchadashi verse:
>
> kAlAbhAve puretyuktiH kAlavAsanayAyutam.h .
> shiShyaM pratyeva tenAtra dvitIya.n na hi sha.nkyate .[2.38]
>
> When there is no 'time' at all, the Upanishad using the expression
> 'purA' = before/prior (to creation) is only to satisfy the student who
> is endowed with the vAsanA that there is something called time.  In
> other words, one takes for granted the existence of an entity called
> time and one even 'experiences' it in each and every moment of his
> life!!  Vidyaranya concludes there that just because the shruti uses
> that expression in 'sadeva somya idam agre AsIt' 'Before
> creation/manifestation of this world, Sat  alone was there.', the
> 'before' implying a period/time prior to the manifestation of the
> universe is only in keeping with the mental make up of the aspirant
> and therefore one should not conclude that the shruti is admitting a
> second entity called time/world apart from Brahman/Sat  before the
> universe manifested.
>
> And Vidyaranya goes on to justify the Shruti's expression:
>
> chodya.n vA parihAro vA kriyatA.n dvaitabhAShayA .
> advaitabhAShayA chodya.n nAsti nApi taduttaram.h .. 39
>
> Any question and a reply to it is possible ONLY in the medium of
> dvaita.  In the medium of Advaita there can be neither question nor a
> reply.
>
> Thus, we see that even though there is really no such entity called
> 'time' in all three periods of time :-) yet since a discourse of
> Vedanta is impossible without 'including' this element, we see the
> shruti/shAstram/Acharya using it in their method of dissemination of
> Knowledge about the Self.  Thus, it is a case of 'abhyupetya vAda'
> (considering/accepting for the time being) with regard to time.  And
> since the ignorant aspirant is wedded to the notion of time, the
> shAstra while explaining the jagat, jiva and Ishwara is compelled to
> adopt the idea of anAditva.  For to tell the aspirant at the very
> first instance to his face that all these simply do not exist will be
> something the aspirant cannot bear.  So, by saying all these have been
> there for long, without a beginning, the shAstra is able to build a
> workable platform for a sensible discourse.  When the aspirant is
> sufficiently mature to appreciate Advaita, the need for continuing the
> anAdi idea ceases.  For, in Advaita there is no second/real entity
> called time or space or objects.
>
> It would be interesting to also note that causality is a
> (mis)concept(ion) that presupposes time.  For a cause 'precedes' the
> effect.  This is what exactly the Shruti quoted above is doing.  It
> wants to show/establish Sat as the adhishThAnam, the substratum of the
> universe.  To talk of vivarta at the outset will only upset the
> aspirant.  So, it starts off with causation/causality.  When the
> universe is shown as an effect, later at a mature stage, it becomes
> easy for the aspirant to appreciate the vivarta:  after all all this
> effect is only an appearance of the cause itself.  Then it becomes
> easy to see that 'time' too is only an effect an therefore an
> appearance of Sat.  There is no longer any need for the
> anAditvakalpanA.  So, to the question 'is the anAditva kalpana
> logical?', the answer is both yes and no.  It is yes within the
> discourse and no when the tattva is appreciated and the discourse has
> ceased.
>
>
> Regards
> subrahmanian.v
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>