[Advaita-l] Fwd: "time" as defined in Vedanta pariBAsha.
agnimile at gmail.com
Mon Dec 26 13:24:49 CST 2016
Sloka 1.8.23 of the SS is relevant here I believe as it deals with whether
time can be said to be born. The context is that in the previous verse
1.8.22 it was said that parama kAla is born from mahAdeva. Here is verse
1.8.23 and its bhAshya.
सोSपि साक्षान्महादेवे कल्पिते मायया सदा ।
सर्वे काले विलीयन्ते न कालो लीयते सदा ॥
That kAla is imagined / supposed (kalpite) always in mahAdeva (Atma) due to
mAya. Everything resolves (vilIyante) in time, time never resolves.
In the bhAshya to 1.8.23, VidyAraNya svAminah says:
अत एव मायावत्तत्सम्बन्धरूप: कालोSपि कल्पित इत्याह - सोSपीति । यथा माया
मायादृष्टयैव कल्पिता तथा तत्सम्बन्धोSपि। यदाहुराचार्या: -
'अस्याविद्येत्यविद्यायामेवाSSसित्वा प्रकल्प्यते ।
ब्रह्मदृष्ट्या त्वविद्येयम् न कथञ्चन युज्यते ॥' इति
ननु मायाशिवसम्बन्धात्मन: कालस्य मायात् उदितत्वे जगदिव सोSपि विनाशीति
परिमितत्वात्कथम् तत्परिमाणम् शिवेनापि ज्ञातुमशक्यमित्युक्तम् इत्यत आह -
सर्वे काल इति। येन कालेन परिच्छेतव्य: स सर्व: कालेनैव परिच्छिद्यत इति
कालस्य परिच्छेदकाभावादपरिमित इत्युक्तमित्यर्थ: । *उदित इति न जनमभिप्रायम्
*। किन्तु मायावत्सदा सद्भावादिति । प्रागसत: सत्तासम्बन्धवाचको ह्युदयशब्द:
प्रागाभावाम्शे परित्यज्य सत्तासम्बन्धाम्शमात्रम् लक्षयति । यथौत्पत्तिकस्तु
शब्दस्यार्थेन सम्बन्ध इति जैमिनिसूत्र उत्पत्तिशब्द: । तथाहि तत्र
व्याख्यातम् शाबरभाष्य औत्पत्तिक इति नित्यम् ब्रूम इति ॥
rough translation: Therefore, the verse starting with सोSपि explains that
time - which is `the relationship between the one endowed with mAya (Atma)
and mAya - itself is said to be imagined. Just like mAya itself is only
imagined, i.e. mAya is said to be existent only from the viewpoint of mAya
(i.e. not from the standpoint of ultimate reality), in the same way, the
relationship between mAya and Brahman also is only imagined. That is why
it is said by AchArya: AvidyA is said to be His, only from the viewpoint of
AvidyA. From the standpoint of Brahman, there is no such thing as AvidyA.
Objection: When it is said that time, described as the relationship between
Brahman and mAya, is born from mAya, like the world - then, like the world,
time also should be subject to destruction. Further, like the world, time's
extent also should be knowable. Then how was it said (in 1.8.2) that its
extent is immeasurable, even by Shiva himself.
Reply: To answer this, the sUta samhitA's second line of this verse
starting with सर्वे काल etc is helpful. What this is saying is that
whatever is measured by time, that is defined and therefore delimited by
time. However, as time itself does not have a delimiter, it is therefore
said to be immeasurable.
*Further, by the use of the word udita (in verse 1.8.22), birth of time is
not meant. On the contrary, like mAya it always is existent. By the word
birth, what is meant is that an actually non existent entity is
figuratively said to be born due to association with Existence.*
This usage of birth to mean a relationship, does have precedence. The word
"utpatti" in the jaimini mImAmsa sUtra is used in the sense of meaning
sambandha, relationship. This is further explained in the ShAbara bhAshya
to the jaimini sUtras - by the word origination, an eternally existent
thing is referred to.
I think what can be seen from the above is that the sUta samhita and the
bhAshya by svAmi vidyAraNya reconciles the two views of time - one as a
relationship between Brahman and mAya, and the other as a product of mAya.
When time is said to be a product of mAya what is meant is that its
association with Brahman is an imagined / non-real one. When time is said
to be born, what it means is that time, a fundamentally non-existent
entity, appears to be existent due to imagined association with Brahman,
Existence. Therefore, time is both born from mAya, and is a relationship of
mAya and Brahman.
On 26 Dec 2016 5:26 p.m., "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> a) Explain as to how is time known during pralaya when मायाकार्य is
> resolved, for creation to begin.
> b) refute the inference presented by pointing a logical flaw and/ or
> showing that the same contradicts the Shruti statement directly, in which
> case, likely, the 3rd category will also stand dismissed.
> c) present an alternate interpretation of the Suta Samhita verse 1.8.24
> putting काल in the 3rd category.
I think that the 'paramaḥ kālaḥ' that the SS admits is the one, which I
mentioned in another post, that persists in pralaya. I had said that this
kāla does not get resolved, like māyā, and hence can be taken as
pravāha-nitya. It is only the aparaḥ kālaḥ that gets dissolved. Sri
Anandagiri in the Māndūkya bhāṣya ṭīkā cites a mantra to show that time is
He reasons for the mūlakāraṇam, that is the ajñāna, is not limited by time
since it is the very cause of time:
अव्याकृतं साभासाज्ञानमनिर्वाच्यं तन्न कालेन परिच्छिद्यते, कालं प्रत्यपि
कारणत्वात् । कार्यस्य कारणात्पश्चाद्भाविनो न प्रागभाविकारणपरिच्छेदकत्वं
संगच्छते । सूत्रम् (सूत्रात्मा) आदिपदेन गृह्यते, तदपि न कालेन परिच्छेत्तुं
शक्यते । ’संवत्सरोऽभवन्न ह पुरा ततः संवत्सर आस’ इति सूत्रात्
(हिरण्यगर्भात्) कालोत्पत्तिश्रुतेः ।
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list