[Advaita-l] Fwd: "time" as defined in Vedanta pariBAsha.

[Siva Senani Nori]

Namaste
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 5:38 PM, sreenivasa murthy via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Dear Sri Siva Sena Nori,
>    Time is mithya .
Agree, Sir. I have no issues with that.
>    Finally any discussion on time-space is not needed by a mumukshu as it is of academic interest only.
Thank you for providing the view, since I did want to know whether the list was interested about kaalasamuddeSa.
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l  < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Simplest answer is Time requires Change. If there is no Change it is
> not possible to measure Time. You say some time has passed between two
> separate events like hour hand of clock moving from 1 to 2. But if
> there is no Change there cannot be time. If there no events there is
> no time. In Brahman there is no Change no Events. Therefore no Time.

Once again, I agree. Here one kaarikaa of Bhartrhari is pertinent:
दिष्टिप्रस्थसुवर्णादि मूर्तिभेदाय कल्पते। क्रियाभेदाय कालस्तु संख्या सर्वस्य भेदिका ॥3.9.2॥
(dishTi (a linear measure), prastha (a volumetric measure) and suvarNa (a measure of weight) are fit to differentiate tangible things; for  differentiating action, kaala is apt; Samkhya is the differentiator of all.) 
We have measures like meter with which we measure: one meter long stick, one liter of water and one gram of silver. The measure marks the limits of the dravya (tangible entity); therefore measures are differentiators of the tangible. When we use any verb like "run" or "cook", we are actually saying that there is a change of state (as Sri Venkatesh Murthy said) between two points in time. "He runs" means a change of state from being at point P1 to being at point P2; "cooks" denotes a change of state from being hard to being soft and so on. Number differentiates not only the tangible and the intangible (action), but also the measures themselves. Thus two meters is different from everything else, as is five grams different from everything else; similarly we talk of two actions etc.
After discussing the nature of kaala over sixty kaarikas, Bhartrhari summarises:
शक्त्यात्मदेवतापक्षैर्भिन्नं कालस्य दर्शनम्। प्रथमं तदविद्यायां यद्विद्यायां न विद्यते ॥3.9.62॥
There are various views about kaala: some say it is the kaaraNaSakti; others say that kaala is AtmA itself because the kaala is based on changed in states, and the various things in various states are nothing but the projections of the avidyA of AtmA; others say it is a devatA (Rudra = saguNabrahman). Whatever be the view, kaala is the first concept in the state of avdiyA and is not seen in the state of vidyA.

> Scientists also say there is no Time. It is a Man Made concept.
> http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

Thank you for the article; it is very interesting in its own right. However, I am not sure that it is a vindication of the ancient views of India. If at all we find a relation, it is that avidyA has limits, the lower one being Planck time. This is a problematic construct because if we can somehow go below the Planck scale, that represents another way of getting out of avidyA. We all know that Veda is the only means of overcoming avidyA.

RegardsN. Siva Senani