[Advaita-l] Time not Death

[Sujal Upadhyay]

Pranams,
What about mind. Is mind too a vyavahArika satya?
Regards


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:16 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Pranams.
>
> Yes.  That is my understanding.
>
> Regards
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Sujal Upadhyay <sujal.u at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Pranams,
>>
>> I agree :) positively. So instead of 'concept' it is better to use
>> 'vyavahArika satya' to describe time and mAyA.
>>
>> Hari OM
>> Sujal
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:08 PM, H S Chandramouli <
>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Pranams.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Reg  << Am I getting it wrong? >>,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you are asking, I am answering. I think so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When you ask  << Can it be considered as real or truth?>>,  the answer
>>> is Time is vyAvahArika satya. It is anirvachaniya, just as mAya is. I
>>> hope I have stated my understanding clearly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Sujal Upadhyay <sujal.u at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>