[Advaita-l] Time not Death

[Sujal Upadhyay]

prANAms,

There is no one 'else' to experience it separately. If you say, there is
absolutely no one who can experience, then we are negating Brahman. Is it
not SunyavAda? If we do not agree that such a state exists, which is beyond
mAyA, then is this the final position of advaita?

If one has to explain this non-dual state, how can one explain this
inexplainable state?

Secondly, 'concept' means 'it is construct of mind' because in nirvikalpa
samAdhi and in deep sleep, one is beyond time. 'Change' is the nature of
time' Anything that changes is not constant. Can it be considered as real
or truth? Am I getting it wrong? Does the state of nirvikalpa samAdhi
accept time as eternal truth? Does advaita accept time as eternal and hence
truth? Please clarify.

OM

Sujal


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:48 AM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Reg  << when mind is extremely purified, we will have to rise above mAyA.
> Hence for such a divine soul, time is a concept of mind as when one is in
> suShupti or in samAdhi, one does not experience any time i.e. one is not
> aware of how much time one has spent in deep sleep (suShupti) or how much
> time one was in nirvikalpa samAdhi.>>,
>
>
>
> When one has transcended mAya, or in Sushpti or samAdhi, one does not
> experience Time. So how can it be a “concept”. He just does not experience
> it at all. Period.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Sujal Upadhyay <sujal.u at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> praNAms,
>>
>> Without Space and time i.e. deSa and kAla, there can be no activity and
>> hence no creation, preservation and destruction. Hence when talking about
>> any activity, these two have to be taken into account, but from pArmArthika
>> satya, one is only aware of Self- Atman or Brahman and nothing else.
>> Brahman devoid of space and time is nirvikalpa, achala, etc It cannot do
>> any activity.
>>
>> In order to understand creation and for sake of explanation for various
>> doubts, mAyA and so space and time has to be taken into account. But if one
>> wishes to move ahead i.e. go further deep to finally cross the border of
>> mAyA, then mAyA, space, time and any such phenomenon has to be downgraded
>> i.e. it's importance has to be decreased, so that mind will stop getting
>> attached to them or getting attracted or immersed into them and finally
>> rise above them to enter into nirvikalpa samAdhi.
>>
>> From collective view point, we cannot ignore mAyA, space and time, but
>> from individual standpoint, one day, when mind is extremely purified, we
>> will have to rise above mAyA. Hence for such a divine soul, time is a
>> concept of mind as when one is in suShupti or in samAdhi, one does not
>> experience any time i.e. one is not aware of how much time one has spent in
>> deep sleep (suShupti) or how much time one was in nirvikalpa samAdhi.
>>
>> When there is no time, there cannot be any space or any distance that can
>> be traveled. If there is no distance or space between observer and object
>> (of / under observation), then there cannot be any object. Only pure
>> consciousness remains. There is in-explainable (deep) peace. eko Brahman -
>> SAntam Sivam advaitam.
>>
>> So, we will have to take both statements (and both arguments) in right
>> context.
>>
>> When bhagavAn says, he is both time and *beyond time*, what I understand
>> is, bhagavAn or KRShNa is both sAkAra and nirAkAra or saguNa and nirguNa.
>>
>> OM
>>
>> Sujal
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:18 AM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Maya is anirvachaniya. It is not correct to state that it does not exist
>>> nor is it correct to say that it is only a concept. It is vyAvahArika
>>> satya. Same applies to kAla or Time. Upanishads clearly mention
>>> "creation"
>>> of Time.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Vēdānta Study Group via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > hariH Om.
>>> >
>>> > */// Time is just a concept. It is like Maya. There is nothing called
>>> Maya
>>> > ///*
>>> >
>>> > Is there any pramana to suggest the above? As far as I know,
>>> shankarAchArya
>>> > mentions avidyA (for the sake of our discussion let us akin it to the
>>> > samaSTi mAyA) as having bhAva. It is a vastu enjoying existence,
>>> albeit a
>>> > dependent one. Therefore I am not too sure how we're saying there is
>>> > nothing called mAyA. As far as 'time' being just a concept, even this I
>>> > would approach with some skepticism. Space is just as real (or unreal)
>>> as
>>> > time is, in that they're both mithyA, but have a dependent vyAvahAra
>>> > reality.
>>> >
>>> > If time were just a concept, it would not be influenced by anything,
>>> which
>>> > we know to be untrue. But that aside, I'm we have shAstra to indicate
>>> that
>>> > mAyA is an existing principle, as are dEsha-kAlA
>>> >
>>> > Namaste,
>>> > Prashant
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 19 June 2017 at 02:20, Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l <
>>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, R Krishnamoorthy via Advaita-l wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Time is just a concept. It is like Maya. There is nothing called
>>> Maya. We
>>> > >> give the name Maya to things which we are not able to fully
>>> understand
>>> > or
>>> > >> is beyond our logic. Time also does not exist. It is the name given
>>> to
>>> > the
>>> > >> duration that elapses between any two events which is measurable and
>>> > fully
>>> > >> recognisable. In the the Lord says I am Time to indicate He is
>>> eternal
>>> > >> that
>>> > >> is the duration of His presence is lmmeasurable. And All beings or
>>> non
>>> > >> beings
>>> > >> have limited duration between their birth to their death or end.
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > This is true.  But it isn't it strange that people are afraid of
>>> death
>>> > but
>>> > > not afraid of time?  Shankaracharya brings this out in the
>>> mohamudgara
>>> > > stotra in which he admonishes an old man who is studying to
>>> vyakarana to
>>> > > "bhaje govindam".
>>> > >
>>> > > This is another example of bad interpretations and translations.
>>> Some
>>> > > make it out to be some sort of tirade against grammar which is
>>> ridiculous
>>> > > to anyone who knows the position vyakarana plays in Sanskrit
>>> scholarship.
>>> > > (In fact according to thinkers like Bhartrahari, it is itself a form
>>> of
>>> > > Vedantic sadhana.)  No; what the acharya is saying is that why would
>>> you
>>> > > wait until your time has almost run out to begin sadhana?  The right
>>> time
>>> > > is now.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > 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
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>