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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Praveen ji,
I too thought that the तत् must be तयोः संबंधः, the question was whether
the sambandha should be between the proximate nouns माया /  मायाकार्यं or
the remote ones in 1.8.24 माया / शिवः.

The sentence construction seemed to indicate the former, so wanted to know
if there was any reason why Sri VidyAraNya would want to modify the
definition of kAla given two slokas ago to the sambandha between mAya and
mAyAkAryam. That is, kAla is the kAraNa-kArya sambandha between mAya and
it's products.

It appears that such a reading is incorrect, and that तत् must have a
व्यवहित संबंध with शिवमाययोः संबंध mentioned previously.

I liked your reason given for why kAla may be treated separately from
mAyakarya. Another reason I have heard is that there is no time when time
is not there, so to call it an effect, presupposes a cause to exist at a
time before time itself exists, which is a logical impossibility. Hence the
six things mentioned as anAdi in the sloka quoted previously are really
causeless.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On 26 Dec 2016 10:23 a.m., "Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Chandramouli ji, Venkatraghavanji,

I am replying to both here.

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> However, here is a curiosity - SvAmi vidyAraNya makes a statement in the
> bhAshya for 1.8.24, which is worth considering. He says: मायाकार्यम् च
माया
> च तत्सम्बन्धरूप: कालश्च त्रितयमपि शिवतत्त्वज्ञानेन विलीयत एव |
>
> I could be mistaken, but here Swami VidyAraNya apparently seems to say
that
> kAla is the sambandha between mAyakAryam and mAya, which is in apparent
> contradiction to what he said just two slokas previously
शिवमायासम्बन्धरूप:
> परम इति. What does the तत् in तत्सम्बन्धरूप: काल: refer to? The most
> proximate nouns to which the sambandha can be attributed are mAyAkAryam
and
> mAya, but that results in a contradiction with what he said in 1.8.22. It
> could be that here in 1.8.24 he is referring to apara kAla, whereas in
> 1.8.22 he was referring to para kAla.
>
>
In my understanding, the word तत् as the part of the समास तत्सम्बन्धरूपः
कालः is not singular under 1.8.24. It has to mean तयोः सम्बन्धरूपः where
तयोः represents शिवमाययोः or मायात्मनोः as described under 1.8.22. That
should resolve the issue.

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 1:31 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> You have also referred to Suta Samhita and commentary of Swami Vidyaranya
> on the same. While I have not read the same, I think it should be possible
> to interpret the commentary in line with the Bhashya ( Sri Bhagavatpada ).
> I cannot imagine Swami Vidyaranya taking any such major deviation from the
> Bhashya.


Vidyaranyacharya is following what is in the मूल which refers to all three;
he has no choice to deviate from the मूल। And I don't think it is really
deviating from Bhashya. However, I think there is a technical reason as to
why काल is listed separate from माया and मायाकार्य, although it is truly
मायाकार्य alone and असत्/ मिथ्या। At the "time" of महाप्रलय, माया along
with its कार्य resolves into ब्रह्म। Without going into specifics of how
long is the प्रलय, we do know that there is a duration after which there is
पुनस्सृष्टि। Even if someone were to say that the duration is not
consistent across creations, still it has to be inferred that there is a
duration. That being so, time would be ticking! The ticking काल exists when
माया is resolved along with its कार्य। Even if we say मायाकार्य is
resolved, but माया is not really resolved completely, still काल has a
special status among मायाकार्य since it ticks even when others are
resolved. This ticking may be मिथ्या, but it is necessarily inferred to be
there during प्रलय। Hence a so-called 3rd category, which is a सम्बन्ध,
though आध्यासिकसम्बन्ध, सम्बन्ध nonetheless, between शिव/ आत्मा and माया।

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
_______________________________________________
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