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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Thank you Chandramouli ji.

Many of the references cited by Prof. Hiriyanna are also quoted by Sri DS
Subbaramaiya in the Dakshinamurthi stotram Vol 1 (the reference I had sent
a couple of days ago) - in fact the presentation of the multiple views of
time is remarkably similar between the two authors.

The nature of time as an effect that Prof. Hiriyanna alludes to (and you
refer to in your subsequent email) are I believe beautifully described in
VidyAraNya svAmi's bhAshya of sUta samhita verse 1.8.23 - which I shared
last evening with this group. He says, "उदित इति न जन्मभिप्रायम् । किन्तु
मायावत्सदा सद्भावादिति । प्रागसत: सत्तासम्बन्धवाचको ह्युदयशब्द:".
vidyAraNya with this explanation, beautifully equates the two views of time
- one as an effect of mAya and the other as a relation between mAya and
Brahman. The two viewpoints are not as far apart as we initially seem to
suspect.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:59 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan Ji and Sri Praveen Ji,
>
>
>
> I quote from one of my earlier posts  << Apart from this there are any
> number of instances where views different from the Bhashya are taken on
> specific issues while accepting the overall concepts of the Bhashya. When
> different views prevalent in advaita sidhanta on specific topics are
> presented in different works, it is not always made clear whether any or
> all of them are in accordance with the one advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada. I
> face that difficulty whenever I refer to Sidhantaleshasamgraha of Sri
> Appayya Dikshitar himself.>>,
>
>
>
>  Prof Hiriyanna observes in his article  “Advaitic conception of time”  that
> there are at least four distinct views in extant advaitic works, only one
> of them having the approval of Sri Bhagavatpada, yet others are not
> rejected as they do not affect the main point of the doctrine.
>
>
>
> 1.   This view is what Sri Bhagavatpada himself states.
>
> Time is an effect (kArya) of avidya or mAya like space
>
> ( BSB 2-3-7) << एतेन दिक्कालमनःपरमाण्वादीनां कार्यत्वं व्याख्यातम् । >>
>
> (etena dikkAlamanaHparamANvAdInAM kAryatvaM vyAkhyAtam |)
>
> Dakshinamurthy stotram stanza 2 << मायाकल्पितदेशकालकलना
> वैचित्र्यचित्रीकृतम् (mAyAkalpitadeshakAlakalanA
> vaichitryachitrIkRRitam)>>
>
>
>
> .  2. Time is not an effect of avidya, but is the relation between it and
> Brahman.
>
> Quote from वन-माला (vana-mAlA)  a commentary on the Bhashya on Taittariya
> Upanishad, << चिदविद्या-सम्बन्धः कालः >>  (chidavidyA-sambandhaH kAlaH)
>
> In this view time falls outside avidya but is dependant upon it which is
> one of the relata it relates. The significance of this view is that that
> Time is beginningless although it has an end and ceases to be, along with
> avidya, when right knowledge is acquired. It is also mithya.
>
>
>
> 3.   Madhusudhana Saraswati  “ Sidhanta-bindu” << कालस्तु अविद्यैव >>
> (kAlastu avidyaiva)
>
> Though this view identifies Time with avidya, Sri Hiriyanna observes that
> this could be taken to mean that Time is an aspect of avidya and not
> identical with it. That is,it is the dynamic aspect of avidya. Since avidya
> and Brahman must be thought of as related so long as we reckon them as two,
> we should assume that the present view admits that relation in addition to
> Time.
>
>
>
> 4.   Time is an aspect (rUpa-bheda) of Brahman itself. This also is from
> वन-माला (vana-mAlA)  but is traced there to the authority of
> Vishnu-purAna. Time is to be explained, in this view, as identical with it,
> like सत् and चित् (sat and chit ). Like them, it is not what
> characterizes Brahman but is the very essence of it. That is, by Time here
> we have to understand eternity. Unlike the earlier three views, kAla is
> changeless eternity here in which there is no before or after. It is this
> “aspect” of Brahman that appears as phenomenal time, when viewed from the
> empirical standpoint.
>
>
>
> The common aim of the first three explanations is to show that time and
> change are transcended in the ultimate Reality. The last view implies that
> the Advaita doctrine has no objection to regard it as real and ultimate,
> provided its conception is transformed into that of eternity.
>
>
>
> In the above rendering I have practically copied from Sri Hiriyanna’s
> article and the wordings are not mine mostly. All the quotes are from his
> article.
>
>
>
> I thought this might be of some help.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>