1. A Comparitive Study of Concepts of Space & Time in Indian Thought Kishor Kumar Mandal Chowkambha

TES

THE CHOWKHAMBA SANSKRIT STUDIES. VOL. LXV

A COMPARATIVE STUDY

OF THE CONCEPTS OF SPACE AND TIME IN INDIAN THOUGHT

DR. KUMAR KISHORE MANDAL

CHOWKHAMBA PUBLICATION MBA

ON

THE CHOWKHAMBA SANSKRIT STUDIES VOL. LXV

A COMPARATIVE STUDY

OF THE CONCEPTS OF SPACE AND TIME IN INDIAN THOUGHT

DR. KUMAR KISHORE MANDAL, M. A., PH. D., Principal, Kamlakhan Singh Yadav College, Bakhtiarpur, Patna.

THE CHOWKHAMBA SANSKRIT SERIES OFFICE VARANASI-1

1968

Publisher : The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi-1

Printer : Vidyavilas Press, Varanasi-1

Edition : First, 1968. Price : Rs. 20-00

THOU

C The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office

Publishers and Oriental & Foreign Book-Sellers K. 37/99, Gopal Mandir Lane P. O. Chowkhamba, Post Box 8, Varanasi-1 ( India ) Phone : 3145

PREFACE

The present work is the outcome of hard labour and intensive study of original texts carried on for several years. The subject of my study constitutes the perennial problem of philo- sophy of ancient, medieval and modern periods. The results of my researches again reveal the perennial truth that entire agree- ment of philosophical problems is out of the question. No two doctors agree is a well known adage. Samkarāchārya in his Śarirakabhāșya observes in one place that the interests of persons are bound to vary and their findings on any topic will be as human beings are found to be in their physical features. The doctrine of Liebnitz, namely the identity of indiscernibles, holds good in the intellectual field as much as it does in the physical world. It is the greatest wonder of Nature that there has been no repetition of two facts exactly analogous in all respects. Even the Siamese twins have exhibited features of difference not only physically but also in their judgements, tastes, emotions, and reactions. This law is found to operate with unabating force in the field of philosophy also. It is said in the Mahū- bhārata ; Nāsau muniryasya matam na bhinnam.

Time and space are the fundamental data of science and philosophy. The realists have their shades of difference but are agreed that these two entities are real facts. They are the background and the medium of creation. The idealists only accord a provisional status to them. The sceptics and parti- cularly the Sunyavadins, the paragons of destructive dialectics, have voted space and time out of existence. There are inter- mediate degrees of difference even in the camps of the realists and also of the idealists. I have endeavoured to be faithful and loyal to the schools and their representative exponents. I have given a survey of their arguments and conclusions. But I have not been contented with the role of a faithful expositor and so

[ iv ] have expressed my difficulties and doubts in my criticisms of the individual theories. The problems of time and space have been treated by almost all philosophers and various works have been written by modern scholars. The speciality of my present attempt in the fact that it gives a survey of the views and the opinions of different philo- sophers beginning from the dawn of the first speculation in the Vedic period down to the recentest theories of scientific philo- sophers in the compass of a monograph. Fidelity has been my motto. I have had to tread a thorny and tortuous path in my explorations through the veritable forest of speculations and I am not sure whether the results achieved are commensurate with the labour undertaken by me It has, however, been a labour of love. It is extremely difficult to resist being puzzled by the journey through the labyrinth of arguments and counter-arguments which have been put forward by each philosopher in support of his positian and in refutation of rival arguments. I have come to the conclusion that notwithstanding the bewildering divergences of opinions among philosophers that time and space cannot be conjured away by waving the magician's wand. We have to reckon with them. Perhaps the instincts and the intuitions of the Vedic seers, unsophisticated by the logical devices evolved after thousands of years of thought, are correct. Space and time are the warp and woof of the physical world and mental reconstructions, whether one accepts them with- out reservation or heroically dismisses them by the sledge-hammer blows of dialectics. I am conscious of my limitations and the drawbacks that are inherent in my work. But. I have not been allowed by my guide to postpone the presentation of my study and reflection in the interests of perfection, which is perhaps not attainable by a man of moderate resources like me. Every writer on philosophy must consider that his lubours have been recompensed if they succeed in stimulating the interests of the Inquisitive students. I have shown that the points of agreement

[v]

are not less important than those of difference. This may serve as an index to the possibility of achieving the greatest common measure of agreement in human speculations. Differences in approach and results need not cause despair. Unreflecting agree- ment is fatal to intellectual growth. The future salvation lies not in the stifling of independent thinking but in the honest ex- pression of views and the will to focus one's attention on the points of agreement. After all, the time seems yet far off when the final truth will be reached by one and all. In the mean time, we must not be impatient of criticism and differences of outlook which rather emphasise the necessity of comparing notes with one another.

I owe deepest debt to Prof. Dr. Satkari Mookerjee, M. A., Ph. D., Director, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda, for his acts of kindness, encouragement and advice. But for him, abs- truse Samskrta texts and knotty philosophical problems would not have been intelligible to me. I am profoundly grateful to the authorities of Nava Nalanda Mahavihara for their kind co- operation. I am thankful to those writers whose books I have utilised in the composition of my thesis.

Kumar Kishore Mandal

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I 3-10 ( a ) The Concepts of Space and Time in the Atharvaveda and other Vedic Samhitās. (b) The Idea of Space as adumbrated in the conceptions of Dyauh, Anatriksam & Vyomam etc. in the Rg-Veda- Samhitā. (c) The Concepts of Space and Time in the Brāhmanas. CHAPTER II 11-18 The Philosophical significance of these two principles in the Upanisads. CHAPTER III 19-53 ( a ) Time as a creative force in the Rāmāyaņa, the Mahā- bhārata and the Purāņas. (b) The division of time into Yugas, Manvantaras and Kalpas as shown in the Purānas and latter literatures. (c) Time, Fate ( Daiva ) and Human exertion (Puruşakāra). CHAPTER IV 54-82 (Parts A & B ) The Concepts of Space and Time in the Buddhist and Jaina thought. CHAPTER V 83-115 The Concepts of Space and Time in the Nyāya-Vaise- şika. CHAPTER VI 116-125 The Concepts of Space and Time in the Sämkhya-Yoga. CHAPTER VII 126-134 The Concepts of Space and Time in the Mīmāmsā. CHAPTER VIII 135-155 The Concepts of Space and Time in the Vedānta. CHAPTER IX 156-175 A brief survey of the views of modern scientific philo- sophers-Newton, Einstein, Sir James Jeans, Sir A.S. Eddington, Alexander. CHAPTER X 176-197 A critical survey of the results attained.

Bibliography 198-212 INDEX 213-223

SCHEME OF TRANSLITERATION

VOWELS : aãiīuūrțle ai o au

Anusvāra m or i

Visarga h CONSONANTS :

Gutturals k kh g gh i

Palatals c ch j jh

Cerebrals th d dh ņ

Dentals t th d dh n

Labials p ph b bh m Semi Vowels y r 1 v

Sibilants Ś palatal sibilant pronounced like the soft s of Russian S cerebral sibilant as in shun S as in Sun

Aspirate h

ABBREVIATIONS

1. A. -Agni Purāņa. 2. A. A. -Aitareya Āraņyaka. 3. A. B. -Aitareya Brāhmaņa. 4. A. V. -Atharva Veda. 5. Ahir. -Ahirbudhnya Samhitā. 6. Abhidharma -Abhidharmakośa. 7. A. N. -Anguttara-Nikāya. 8. Bhv. -Bhavisya Purāņa. 9. Br. -Brahma Purāņa. 10. BV -Brahma-Vaivartta Purāņa. 11. Bd. -Brahmānda Purāna. 12. Br. U. -Brhadāranvaka Upanișad. 13. B. S. -Brahmasūtra. 14. Bhā. P. or Bh. P. -Bhāsānariccheda. 15. B. S. S. -Bombav Sanskrit and Prākrit Series, 16. C.S. S. -Chowkhamha Sanskrit Series. 17. Ch. U. -Chāndogva Upanișad. 18. C. S. -The Catuhśataka. 19. Cit. -Citsukht. 20. D. N. -The Digha-Nikāya. 21. Gītā -Bhagvad-Guā. 22. Gạ. 1 -Garuda Purāna ( Calcutta ). 23. Gḍ. 2 -Garuda Purāņa ( Bombay ). 24. H. -Harivamśa. 25. Tśa -Ïsa Upanişad. 26. J. U. B. -Jaiminiupanişad-Brāhmaņa. 27. J. U. -Jāhāla Upanișad. 28. J. S. -Jaimini Sūtras. 29. K. B. -Kauşītaki Brāhmaņa. 30. Kena -Kena Upanişad. 31. Katha -Kațha Upanișad. 32. K. U. -Kauşītaki Upanișad.

[ x ]

33. Kaivalya -Kaivalya Upanişad.

34. KŪ -Kūrma Purāņa.

35. Kauțilya's -Kauțilya's Arthašāstra. 36. K. V. (B) -Kathā vatthu. 37. K. K. K. -Khaņdanakhaņdakhādya. 38. K. V. -Kiraņāvalī. 39. K. V. Bh. -Kiraņāvalībhāskara.

36. L. -Linga Purāņa. 41. Lanka -Lankāvatāra Sūtras.

37. M. U. -Maitrī Upanișad.

38. Māņ. U. -Māņdūkya Upanișad. 44. Mānd. K. -Māņdūkya Kārikā. 45. Muņdaka -Muņdaka Upanişad.

39. Mt. -Matsya Purāņa.

40. M. -Mahābhārata ( B. O. R. I. ). 48. MB -Mahābhārata ( Bombay Edition ).

41. Mr. -Mārkaņdeya Purāņa.

42. Manu -Manu Smrti.

43. M. K. -Mādhyamika Kārikā.

44. M. Vr. -Mādhyamakavrtti.

45. M. N. -Majjhima Nikāya. 54. Milinda -Milindapañho.

46. Māna -Mānameyodaya.

47. NBh or NBH -Nyāyabhāșya. 57. N. K. -Nyāyakandalī. 58. N. KU -Nyāyakusumān̄jali. 59. NLV -Nyāyalilāvatı.

48. NM -Nyāyaman̄jarī. 61. NS -Nyāyasūtra. 62. NSVr. -Nyāyasutravrtti.

49. NV -Nyāyavārttika. 64. NVTT -Nyāyavārttika Tatparyațīka.

50. P. -Padma Purāņa. 66. P. A. -Paippalādī Atharvaveda. 67. P. B. -Pancavimsa Brāhmaņa.

[ xi ]

68. P. U. -Paingala Upanișad. 69. Praśna -Praśna Upanişad. 70. PPBh or PPBH -The Bhāsya of Praśastapāda. 71. P. M. -Padārthamandana of Veņidatta. 72. PTN -Padārthatattvanirūpaņa. 73. Prakaraņa -Prakaraņapańcikā. 74. PRK -Prasthānaratnākara. 75. R. -Rāmāyana. 76. R. V. -Rg-Veda-Samhitā. 77. R. B. -Rāmāyaņa ( Poona ). 78. RBS -Śrībhāsva of Rāmānuja. 79. S. B. -Śatapatha Brāhmaņa. 80. ŚBS -Brahmasūtrabhāsya of Šamkara. 81. Sub. U. -Subāla Upanișad. 82. S. D. S. -Sarvadarśana-Samgraha. 83. S. U. -Śvetāśvatara Upanişad. 84. SK -Skanda Purāna. 85. S. N. -Samyutta-Nikāya. 86. Sphuțā. -Sphuțārthā. 87. S. C. -Siddhānta Candrodaya. 88. S. M. -Siddhānta Muktāvalı. 89. S. P. -Saptapadārthī. 90. S. K. -Sāmkhya Kārikā. 91. SBha -Sāmkhyapravacanabhāșya. 92. STK -Sāmkhyatattvakaumuđ. 93. SV -Ślokavārttika. 94. T.A. -TaittirIya-Āraņyaka. 95. T. U. -TaittirIya Upanişad. 96. T.S. (B) -Tattvasamgraha. 97. T. S. P. -Tattvasamgraha-Pañjikā. 98. T. S. -Tarkasamgraha. 99. T. V. -Tantravārttika. 100. Upanişads with Bhāşya of Śamkara ( a ) ŚB, Kena ( b ) ŚB, Katha

[ xii ]

( c ) ŚB, Muņdaka (d ) ŚB, Brh. ( e ) ŚB, Chãnd ( f ) ŚB, Śveiā. 101. Var. -Varāha Purāņa.

102. Vã (c) -Vāyu Purāņa ( Calcutta ).

103. Vã -Vāyu Parāņa ( Poona ).

104. Vi -Vișņu Purāņa.

105. Vsm -Vişnu Smrti.

106. V. S. -Vaiśesika Sūtras.

107. V. S. S. -Vizianagram Sanskrit Series. 108. VSLM -Vaiyākaraņasiddhāntalaghumañjușā.

108. V. up. -Vaiśeşika Upaskāra.

109. Yajur -Yajurveda Samhitā.

110. Yoga -Yogavāsiștha. 112. YBhã -Yogabhāsya.

111. YSū -Yogasūtra.

112. Yukti -Yuktidīpikā.

113. YVã -Yogavārttika. 116. Yatindra -Yatlndramatadıpikā.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE CONCEPTS OF SPACE AND TIME ( IN INDIAN THOUGHT )

YOUT2 EVITARARMOD A

(THOUOHT MAICMI ML)

CHAPTER I

(a) The Concepts of Space and Time in the Vedas and allied literatures.

The Vedas cannot be said to be a record of philosophical discourse but they clearly reflect the mature Vedic Thinking. In Vedic hymns different Gods have been invoked as the ultimate principles of the universe and each of them has been exalted as the highest. This tendency of the Vedic poets has given rise to Prof. Maxmuller's theory of 'Henotheism'. The Vedic seers hold "the belief in individual Gods alternately regarded as the highest". Prof. N. V. Thadanil has tried to interpret alphabets of Samskrta language which throw light on the concepts of space and time and the relation between the two. The very word 'Kāla' suggests a deeper meaning. 'K' being the first consonant of the alphabet indicates that it is the first in the manifest universe. 'Kh' being the second consonant of the alphabet suggests those energies that are second in manifest universe. 'Kh' stands for Ether which is identified with space. Thus time is made manifest in Ether or space, but it is an energy of the Sun. Time is superior to space which is produced out of it. It is created and destroyed not with the space but with the sun. Sun energy is always made manifest in Ether, so with the dissolution of Ether, time becomes unmanifest and is not destroyed. In the famous Purusa-sükta of the Rg Veda, Kāla (time ) is connected with the means of sacrifice : the rains were the butter, the summer, the kindling wood, the autumn, the gifts to the priests.2

1. The Mysteries of the Mahabharat, 2. Rg. Veda-V. 10. 90

4 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

In many verses of the Rka, we find, the concept of Kāla is implicitly contained.1 This rotating Käla wheel in the region of Dyauh Loka has twelve non-destructible 'Ārā'. This twelve number stands either for twelve 'Rasis' or for twelve months. Three hundred and sixty days of a year have seven hundred and twenty days and nights, day and night taken separately.

Samvatsaroãsi ParivatsaroasIdavatsaroasi-vatsaroãsi. Uşasaste Kalpantāmahorātrāste Kalpantāmardhamāsāste Kalpantān māsāste Kalpantāmrtavaste Kalpantā Samvatsarsate Kalpatām, ( Yaju-27.45) The verse mentioned above points out the various divisions of time in vedic age. They are : Samvatsar, Parivatsar, Idā- vatsar, Idvavatsar, Vatsar, Ușā, Ahorātra, Ardhamāsa, Māsa and Rtu. Solar and Lunar years coincide in one rotation of five years. As far as possible, Indian astrology has tried its best to bring parity between solar and lunar rotations. Lunar rotations have given rise to Ahorātra, Ardhamāsa (Pakșa ) and Masa and Solar rotations have brought forth Rtu and samvatsarás. Weekly divisions are not found in the older traditions of this country. Astrology never mentions this division. Generally one Mäsa consists of thirty days and the multiples of thirty are 15, 6. 5, 10, 3, 2. In the Aitareya Brähmana,2 Trayah is said to be consisting of three days and Dvādasāh of twelve days. But the reference of a week is found nowhere in the Vedic texts.

A developed concept of Kāla is present in the famous hymns of the Atharvaveda. The Iprinciple of becoming is embodied in the concept of Käla. No activity, no change, no

1. Rg. Veda, I, 164. II-Dvādašāram Nahi Tajjarāya Varvarti Cakram Paridyamrtasya Ā Putrā Agne mithunāso Atra Sapta- satām Vimśatiśca Tasthuņ. 2. A.B. 4.31.1. and 4. 4.2.

CHAPTER I 5

transformation is possible without Käla. Becoming or change is a series of movements in a given phenomenon in infinite time.1

Regarding the concept of Käla, as found in the Atharva- veda, the following points may be noted :- (i) Kāla is described as a horse with seven bridles. It is taken as the creator and sustainer of universe, of RK, Yajus, and Yajna. It resembles Samvatsara, which is limited and destructible. The seasons have been numbered as seven.2

( ii ) Kāla is also conceived as uncreated. Such Kāla is lord of all, having under its sway yestha, the Brahman and the Sat.3 It is also the creator of self-born Kāsyapa and Tapas.4 It controls and guides all the gods and even the highest Loka along with Puņya loka.5

( iii ) Kāla is said to be the creator and sustainer even of Dyauh. Mana, Prāņa etc. are mingled in kāla. Besides it is the god of all these principles. It is also taken as the father of Prajapati.6 Such kala is defihitely superior to Samvatsara, as Brahmana is above the process of Samvatsara.7 ( iv ) Kāla is said to be the highest Tejas which produces and sustains the Bhuvanas. Both elements have evolved out of it and ultimately dessolve into it. Thus kāla is the ultimate cause of the world.8 (v) Kāla possessing seven wheels and thousand eyes is distinct from Pitr.9 Thus there are two temporal entities.

1. A. V .- XIX-53-54. 2. A. V .- XIX-53. 12 and XIX 53-5 to 7 3. Ibid-XIX-55. 1 4. Ibid-XIX-53-8-10. 5. A. V .- XIX-54. 5 6. A. V. XIX. 53. 8-Kle tapah, Kāle jyestham, Kāle ha sarvasye- śvaro yah pitāsīt prajapateh. 7. A. V .- VIII. 9. 3 and 7 8. A. V .- XIX. 53. 4 9. A. V .- XIX. 53. 1-2

6 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME The former having seven wheels is said to possess a Rta wheel of twelve spokes moving round the Dyaus, while the latter has only fivespoked wheel revolving round the Bhuvanas. The latter concept is similar to the concept of Samvatsara as depicted by the Rgaveda Samhitā.1 Käla as depicted in the Atharva Veda is Super-Samvatsar. Samvatsar is only one day of Gods.2 Thus Rta or becoming as embodied in the concept of Kāla has two aspects, viz. Samvatsara and Super-Samvatsara. The analysis of Kāla made above gives us reasonable ground to accept the contention of Dr. F. Otto Schrader, who holds that the distinction between empirical time and transce- dental time can be traced back to famous hymns of the Atharva Veda. From the first two books of Paippalādi Atharvaveda, we gather that there are twelve seasons, rtavah,3 which intervene between the six rajasovimānāh. Rtavah perhaps stands for months and rajasovimānāh indicates the seasons. In this text, the four Yugas namely Krta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali have also been mentioned.4 But these words have been used in a different sense, namely in that of the diffe- rent stakes. Further this Samhitā clearly mentions that Antariksa is the space between the heaven and the earth.5 In the Śatpatha Brāhmaņa, Prajāpati has been identified with the year. As he is the creator, he is as well the symbol of time, the period in which nature completes a round and begins again. Sacrifice is identical with Prajāpati as time.

1. R. V .- I. 164-5. 12. 2. TB .- III. 99. 22 3. P. A. ( Paippaladi Atharvaveda )-I. 102 4. Ibid. I. 49 5. Ibid .- I. 93

CHAPTER I 7 Even if a man attains a life of full hundred years, as a result of piling up altar, still he must die as Prajapati himself puts him to death to relieve him from the sufferings of mundane world. Here time has been shown to be both creative and destructive principles.

A developed concept of Käla is found in the Ahirbudhnya- Samhita, which is an important text of Pancarātra literature. This literature is said to be of both Vedic and Tantric origin. But Śrivaișnavas regard it as much authoritative as the Vedas themselves. Among Pancarätra literatures, the Ahirbudhnya Samhita occupies an important place. This text contains significant philosophical elements. It is said, while describing the process of creation, that the elements of guna and Kāla are present in the foetus like condition of the 'Manus' in the energy ( Sakti) of God. From time energy ( Kāla Śakti ) there arises the subtle destiny ( niyati ). Kāla (time ) and guna exist in the womb of Šakti. This Śakti differs from the Prakrti of Sāmkhya-yoga as the gunas are the basic elements of Prakrti. Time is con- sidered to be associated somehow with the operation of the gunas. At one stage of dissolution, the universe is shown to exist only as time ( Kāla ). Kāla is considered as the chief transformer of all things ( asesa-Prakālini ).1 Time is descri- bed also as the destructive element which destroys all things, just as the violence of river destroys its banks :2 Kalayati akhilam kālyam nadī-kūlam yathā rayah. The triad of Prakrti, Purusa and Kāla is the chief source from which the evolution of succeeding elements follows. Prakrti is the material cause. Purușa, though inactive, is that entity whose very presence leads to the process of trans- formation. Time is the structural cause or the dynamic and synthesising principle. But this triad cannot produce unless 1. Ahir-IV. 48 2. ibid. IV. 51 ( quoted above )

8 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

it is moved by the spiritual activity of God. Thus God is the chief energising principle for this causal triad. The first evo- lute of Mahat is named Kāla, buddhi and prāņa according to the predominance of tamas, sattva and rajas.1 Gross time as Truți, Lava etc., the illumining activity of buddhi and the volitional activity ( Prāņa ) may be considered to be the triple distinction of Mahat.2 Dr. S. N. Dasgupta says-"There seems to be a tacit implication here that the activity implied in both thought and volition is schematized, as it were, through time. The unity of thought and volition is affected through the element of time ; for time has been regarded as the Kalana-Karana or structural cause."3 Thus Kāla is that dynamic principle which moves the process of evolution by activising both the material and non-material elements. The concept of space is implicity contained in the conceptions of Vedic gods and goddesses such as Dyaus, Varuņa and Aditi. The oldest among the gods of heaven is Dyaus. Dyaus is the personification of Sky and it leads to the idea of paren- tage as conceived in Rg Vedic hymns. Sky and earth are universal parents. The sky fertilizes the earth and the whole world is produced. In one verse of Rg Veda, Dyaus is com- pared to a steed bedecked with pearls, perhaps in an allusion to the starstudded sky. Dyaus has been spoken as smiling through the clouds, obviously meaning the lightening sky. An important deity, Varuna, is identified with sky only on the basis of inferred traits and characters. Varuna is derived from the root Vr., to cover, thus Varuna means coverer or encompasser roughly corresponding to encompassing sky.

1. Athir. VII. 9 Kālo buddhis tathā prāņa iti tredhā sa gīyate tamaḥ-sattva-rajo-bhedāt tat-tad-unmeșa-sanjñayā. 2. ibid .- VII. 11-Kālas truți-lavādi ātmā buddhir adhyavasāyinī. prānaḥ prayatnākāra ity'etā mahato bhidah. 3. A History of Indian Philosophy-Vol, III-Page 47.

auT ACHAPTER I 9

Varuņa is also taken as the water god but from the Vedic hymns it is clear that he is prominently connected with aerial water rather than with ocean.

In the Rg Veda, Aditi has been pantheistically identified with Dyaus and antariksam. The whole world has evolved out of Aditi and ultimately merges into it.1 Ākāśa is described as space through which one can pass one's finger.2

In the Satapatha Brāhmana, it is said, that the space between the sky and earth, when they are separated, became Antarikşa. It was empty so it got filled with air.3 In the Jaimniya Upanişad Brāhmaņa, Ākāśa is said to contain everything within itself including Agni, Vāyu, the Sun, the moon, the stars and everything that is there and that is not there. Thus Ākāśa is treated as all-inclusive entity.4 Ākāśa is treated as one of the evolutes in Ahirbudhnya Samhitā. From Tamas ahamkāra, sabda tanmātra is produced and from it, ākāśa comes into being. Ākāśa possesses the quality of Sabda and it makes room for all things. Thus Ākāśa should be considered as empty space which has the quality of śabda.5

From this analysis of vedic concepts of space and time, it is safe to arrive at the conclusion that vedic seers have exalted these elements as the ultimate principles of the universe, out of which both gross and subtle elements have evolved.

1. Rg. Veda-I. 89. 10 Aditir dyaur aditir antarikşam aditir mātā, sa pitā, sa putraḥ- 2. Aitareya Brāhmana-III. 4. 2. 1. 3. S.B .- III. 3. 2. 19. 4. J. U. B .- I. 7. 3. 1. Savru yadyāvanvā Ayamākāsah ... ... Tadsamāhitam. 5. Ahir-VII. 22 Sabdai-ka-guņam ākāśam avakāśa pradāyica

10 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Even in Greek thought, space as the 'arche' of things has been developed as late as by Philolaus. Thales, Anaxamenes. Heraclitus and Empedocles consider water, air, fire, earth either singly or collectively as the primordial of the universe. Fire, water, air and earth are more or less gross but to con- sider 'space' as the matrix of the universe definitely points to the keen philosophical insight of vedic seers.

Time is a more subtle element than space. In vedic texts, time is conceived as the creative and destructive principle. It is reckoned as the ultimate principle. To posit Kāla as the highest principle clearly reflects the mature genius of Vedic thinkers.

The concept of Käla as found in the Atharvaveda may fairly be compared with the modern concept of time where a distinction is made between empirical time and transcen- dental time.

CHAPTER II

The Philosophical significance of space and time in the Upanisads. The rudimentary philosophical tendencies implicit in the Vedic hymns are developed in the Äranyakas and the Upani- sads. The concept of space as apprehended by the Upanisads is detailed below :-

Ākāśa has been recognised as empty space by the Upani- sads. It is also regarded as incorporeal. But this concept of Ākāśa has not always been maintained as adequate.

In the famous dialogue between Gārgi and Yājñavalkya in Brhad-Āraņyaka Upanișad, it is mentioned that what people call the past, the present, and the future; are woven like warp and woof across space. It is clearly stated in the following verse.1 Yad bhūtāni ca bhavac ca bhavisyac ca cety ācakșate, ākāśe tad otam ca Protam ceti.

In the verse quoted above, we find the rudiments of spatio- temporal series. It clearly refers to a series where time and space are mingled together. It may fairly be compared with the modern concepts of space and time. But space is not considered here as the ultimate principle. In Chändogya Upanișad, it is stated :2

1. Br. U .- III. 8. 4-Sa hovāca, yad urdhvam, gārgī, divah, yad avāk prthviyah yad antarā dyāvāprthvi ime, yad bhutāni ca bhavac ca ceti bhavisyac ca cety ācakşate, ākașe tadotam ca protam ceti. 2. Ch. U .- 1. 9. 1 .- Asya lokasya kā gatir iti Ākāśa iti hovāca, Sarvāni ha vā imāni bhūtāni, ākāsad eva samutpadyante, ākāśam pratyastam yanti ākāśo hi evaibhyo jyāyām, akaśah parāyaņam.

12 COPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Sarvāņi ha vā imāni bhūtāny ākāśād eva samutpadyante, ākāśam pratyastam yanty ākāso hy evaibhyo, jyāyām, ākāśaḥ parāyaņam.

All creatures are produced from space. They return back to Space. Space is the final goal.

It is emphasised more clearly in another verse1 : "Ākāśe jāyate, ākāśe abhijāyate, ākāśam upāssveti." Yet in another verse of this upanisad,2 Aum or udgitha is identified with space ( Ākāśa ). This Aum is regarded as the highest and the best. In another verse, Brahman has been identified with space : Kham Brahmeti.3

Thus space has been described as the origin, support and end of all. Space as the universe is a more satisfactory doc- trine than one which relates it to sound, breath, food, water, etc.

In Taittiriya upanişad, Ākāśa is said to be the product of self4 : Ātman ākāśas sambhūtaḥ. Ākāśa is also mentioned as the product of human intellect or of some forces connected therewith.

Aitareya Upanişad says that Ākāśa has arisen from Prajñā. Chāndogya refers to Samkalpa as the origin of Ākāśa.

Thus a reference to space as the product of human intellect leads us to Kantian doctrine of space, according to which the idea of space is created by the thinking mind from within and applied to the sense materials presented to it from without.

According to Kausītiki Upanişad,5 Ākāśa is more than

1. ibid-VII. 12. 1. 2. ibid-1. 9. 2 .- Sa esa paro varīyān Udgīthah. 3. ibid-IV. 10. 4. 4. T. U. II. 1. 1. 5. K. U .- I. 6. :- Rtur asmi ārtvo'smi akaśad yoneh Sambhūto Bharyāyai retah, Samvatsarasya, Samvatsarasya tejo, bhūtasya bhūtasyatmā .. ....

CHAPTER II 13

mere space. Man is born out of Ākāśa as from a womb. Ākāśa as a womb refers to the parentage of vedic texts. The combination of Dik and Ākāśa is found in Maitrī Upanișad,1 which describes Ākāśa as a lotus flower whose petals are the four quarters and the four intermediate quarters or the cardinal points.

In Subāla Upanișad, space is identified with Nārāyaņa who is conceived to be the highest principle.2

About Lokas, it is said that they are established in Brah- man like warp and woof.3

In an obscure passage of Pāingala Upanișad, it is sugges- ted that Ākāśa ( space ) is all-pervasive.4

Though divergent opinions have been expressed by the different Upanişads, more or less Ākāśa has been exalted as the highest principle. Some of the views are at par with the most developed concept of the western thought, though in the rudimentary form. It may be borne in mind that in the Upanisads, a constant endeavour is made to comprehend the nature of ultimate rea- lity. Only in course of a search after the supreme reality, they have equated natural elements with the mysterious princi- ple of reality. Ākāśa is one of such elements. Through a critical analysis of Ākāśa, they want to know the nature of all comprehending Brahman who alone can be thought as the absolute reality. From the transcendental standpoint, all other elements ( including Ākāśa ) do not possess reality. Brahman is a higher principle than the Ākāsa itself, It is clearly stated

1. M. U .- VI. 4-Praņinām Kālanāt Kalakhyah. Sarva-bhūtani

samharati. 2. Su. U. VI. 1-Ca diśaś ca sarvam Nārāyaņaļ. 3. Su. U .- X. 1. Sarva lokā ātmāni brahmaņi manaya ivautāśo ca

protas ceti. 4. P. U .- 13. Yathā sarva-gatam Vyoma.

14 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

in Brhadāraņyaka upanişad.1 Thus the Upanișads in a way deal with the transcendence of space. It is also mentioned in the various upanisads that space is created due to faulty obser- vation or ignorance ( Ajñäna ). Thus this aspect of the con- cept of space very well corresponds with the concept of space based on the theory of relativity of Prof. Einstein.2 This theory holds that the space is not determined unless the func- tions of the co-ordinates are known. Prof. Milne also supports this contention. Upanișads conceive time ( Kāla ) as secondary principle. Time possesses apparent reality. From the transcendental standpoint, time is unreal. But in some of the Upanisads, it is also described as the ultimate principle of the universe.

In Taittiriya Āranyaka, it is contended : Nadīva prabhavāt kācit akșayyāt syandate yathā; Tām nadyo'bhi samāyānti soruḥ satī na nivartate, In the verse quoted above, kāla has been compared to an everflowing and unceasing stream. It is regarded as indivisi- ble. For practical purposes, it is divided into days, nights, months, years etc .- in spite, its indivisibility remains intact. It is a big stream which has unfathomable store of water and whose store is ever supplemented by smaller streams, hence it never dries up. This passage clearly makes a distinction between empirical time and transcendental time as conceived by reputed philo- sopher like Bergson.3 Bergson holds that time is quite good for practical purposes but a logical analysis of this concept presents various difficulties. In his opinion, real time is named Duree or Duration. The concept of time as described in the passage is also very akin to the concept of time as advocated

1. Br. U. III. 8. 8 -... Avāyu anākāśam ... 2. Essays in Science-Einstein-P. 76 3. Time and Free will-P. 115

CHAPTER II 15

by Whitehead. Whitehead conceives space and time as "fluent stream analysable into both space order and time order.1 At this stage I am prone to remark that a more developed concept of time as shown above cannot be thought of in the earliest upanisadic literature. Such concept of time cannot be traced even in Greek thought which is considered to be the pivot of western philosophical speculation. In Aitareya Āranyaka, 'Prāna' is peculiarly identified with day and night which is at once symbolic of time. Day is des- cribed as the form of 'Prana' and night has the form of Apāna. In the beginning of the day, Prana expands hence morning is named 'Pratah.' Similarly at the end of the day, sense organs contract, so it is named 'Sayam' which is derived from 'Samāgat.' This concept of time only suggests that time like Prāņa is the ultimate principle. But it is not of much philo- sophical significance. In Brhad āraņyaka Upanisad, day and night are described as the source of all changes, which is at the same time sym- bolic of time. Samkara says : Viparināma hetuh kālah. But it is only empirical time. Further the Brhad-āranyaka Upanișad derives time from Brahman and exalts it as the lord of past and future.2 In an obscure passage of the MaitrI Upanisad, time is exalted as the Brahman, the highest principle, the source of all. "Time cooks all things in the great self. He who knows in what the time is cooked ( dissolved ), he is the knower of Veda."3 1. The Concept of Nature-P. 73 2. Br. U .- VI-4. 15. 16 : Yadaitam anupaśyati atmānam devam añjasa isānām bhūta bhavyasya, na tato vijupgupsate. Yasmād arvak samvatsarah ahovih parivartate tad deva jyotisam jyotiḥ āyur hopāste mrtam. 3. Mu. VI. 15-Kālah pacati bhūtāni, Sarvāņi eva mahātman Yasmin tu pacyate Kalo, yas tam veda sa vedavit.

16 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME Śvetāśvatara Upanişad contends :1 Kālaḥ, svabhāvo, niyatir, yadrchhā bhūtāni yoniḥ Purușa iti cintyā. This passage suggests time, inherent nature, necessity, chance, the material elements and spirit as the contending theories to be declared as the ultimate cause. It further holds that time as past, present and future is inferior to Brahman. It vaguely suggests that empirical time is inferior to Brahman. Transcendental time is definitely a higher principle. A verse of Maitri Upanisad suggests that there is a distinc- tion between time which has parts and which is later than the sun and the stars and the non-time which is without parts and is earlier : between time which cooks ( matures ) and that in which time is cooked or matured. It clearly refers to the distinction between empirical time and transcendental time.2 In one passage of Subāla Upanișad, it is said that Nārāyaņa himself is time ( kāla ). Thus time is identified with supreme spirit. Nārāyana is the divisions of time, and he is also the devourer of time. It is suggested here that Nārāyaņa is a higher principle than time. Nārāyana is the days, half-days, æons, great æons etc.3 In one passage of Kaivalya Upanişad, kāla is pantheisti- cally identified with Brahmā ( the creator ).4 In an authoritative commentary of Māņdukya Upanișad,5 it is suggested that time is relative. It is stated explicitly in the following verse : Citta kālā hi ye-'ntastu Dvayakālaśca ye bahiḥ Kalpitā eva te sarve, viśeşo nānyahetukaḥ.

1. Sveta-U .- I. 2 2. M. U .- VI. 15 3. Sub. U .- VI. 1. Kāla kalir dhātā brahmā prajāpatir maghavādi- vaśaś cārdha-divaśaś ca kalaḥ kalpāś. 4. Kaivalya Upanisad -.. Sa kalo'gniņ. 5. Man. U. II. 14.

T CHAPTER II VIEASATLGO 17

Mental events remain while the mental time remains and out- ward events remain during two times i.e. one event is measured by another event but in reality all these events are relative. There is no distinction between two events. The meaning of two times is explained by the following illustration :-

Suppose a person goes to a milkman to bring milk. The milkman has not milked his cow and he requests the buyer to wait till he can complete his milking work. The buyer agrees to wait till he finishes his work. Here the time of the buyer is dependent on the time of milking the cow and milkman's time is dependent on the former's time of waiting. Both the times are created by time events. In a subsequent verse, Gaudapāda explains that in a dream, a man thinks that something exists in his mind and something exists outside it. All the external and internal events depend on the nature of the dreamer's knowledge. This illustration may be applied to waking state also; as dream is never a dream in the state of dreaming. In the waking state, whatever events happen inside while thinking and whatever happens outside depends on the consciousness of the passage of time of the waking person. Thus it is established that time is relative.

Doubtless it is that the concept of time explained above clearly proves that time is relative but this aspect of time can be traced even in other Upanisads. It is admitted that the divisions of time are due to erroneous vision ( Ajñāna ). In fact, Brahman is the only reality and the principles like space and time are only apparently real. From the practical stand- point, space and time are considered as real elements. But in most of the Upanisads, these two are treated as the derivatives of Brahman.

A Critical Re'sume'. An account of Time given above brings in the metaphysical problem of Time and Eternity. Metaphysically, time as conti- nuum contrasts with the eternity which is not in time. But the 2 A. T.

18 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Vedas and the Upanisads hold that the underlying reality ( Brahman or God ) is time as well as eternity. Maitri Upani- sad clearly speaks about the two forms of Brahman-Time and the Timeless ( Eternal).4 It has been shown that every- thing of the world is subject to the law of time but time itself is the moving image of eternity ( Brahman ). Time, in other words, is an imitation of eternity, as becoming is of being. Temporal process can never be thought of apart from this eternal background. But at the same time, the temporal can never be identified with the eternal. The scriptural account transpires that time is everlasting whereas reality is eternal. Śamkara emphasises qualitative difference between time and eternity.2 He asserts that even if we do good deeds for a whole life time, we cannot cross from time to eternity. Eternity is also understood in the sense of an unextended point of time which is Now. Eternal Now is identified with God or Brahman. Such 'Now' is never in time but it is sur- rounded by time as a sea surrounds an island. Both past and future are simultaneously present in this Eternal Now. In the last analysis, "all states of being, seen in principle, are simultaneous in the eternal now ......... ( and ) he who cannot escape from the standpoint of temporal succession so as to see all things in their simultaneity is incapable of the least conception of methaphysical order."3

1. M. U .- 6. 2. 2. Ś. B on B. U .- 1. 4. 10. 3. Rene Guenon-La metaphysique Oriental-PP. 15, 17 ( Quoted in Time & Eternity-A. K. Coomarswamy-P. 140 ).

CHAPTER III

The concepts of space and time in the Puranas, the epics and allied literatures :

Purāņa means "What has occurred before" hence it simply represents ancient traditions. Such ancient traditions, customs, and rituals have governed the social and individual lives of the Hindus. According to the Amarakośa, Purāņa means

PANCA-LAKSAŅAS alone.

The Puranas are the store-houses of philosophical specula- tions in the forms of stories, legends and fables. A com- mendable attempt has been made by the Pauranic writers to make available higher philosophical musings to that class of the Hindus who were deprived of the studies of the Vedas. It has amply served the needs of the masses. The technique and language adopted by these texts are so simple that even lay-men can follow them. The Paurānic litratures have more often been condemned than appreciated by the educated class. In Paurānic literatures philosophical data are shrouded in similes, metaphors and exaggerations. Hence a keen insight, a careful deciphering and a sympathetic approach should be adopted to bring to light the data of the hoary past. Purāņas are divided according to their preferential treat- ment of Śiva, Visņu, Agni, Sūrya and Brahmā. A sound classification of these Puranas is made on the basis of the nature and contents of the Puranas. Such classification stands as : 1. The Puranas which embrace all the great works in Arts and Sciences in Samskrta, including set Paurāņic materials such as Garuda, Agni, Nārada. 2. The Puranas which deal with Tirthas, Varatas, etc. such as Padma, Skanda, Bhavişya. 3. The Puränas which underwent two revisions, such as Brahma, Bhāgavat, Brahmānda.

20 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME 4. Sectarian Purāņas such as Linga, Vāman and Mārkaņdeya. 5. The old Puranas revised almost out of existence such as Varāha, Kūrma and Matsya. The Purānas have five characteristics ( panca-lakșaņas ) : Sargasca Pratisargasca Vamso Manvantarāņi ca. Vamsānucaritam Caiva Purāņam Pancalakșaņam. Among these characteristics, Manvantara occupies an important place. It clearly shows that the concept of time has unique position in the Pauranic schemes. Its twin principle Space has also been discussed to a great length. In these two principles, time is considered to be more subtle and abstract than space. It is very difficult to comprehend the exact nature of time. Attempt has been made to grasp the real nature but it has all along eluded human endeavours. Time and Space serve as back-ground to the understanding of any pro- blem but they themselves are not easily comprehensible. The concept of time In the Amarakośa, Time is defined as : Kālo Dișțoāpyane- hāpi Samayoãpi1. It simply states various names given to Kāla ( time ). Yet the question remains : What is time (Kāla) ? Ordinarily time is taken as days and nights and other divisions and sub-divisions. But this computation itself places before us certain knotty problems. The variations in the duration of day and night at different places speak of its elusive chara- cter. Thus the exact nature of day and night has not yet been ascertained. It is suggested that the real character of time cannot be comprehended on the basis of light and dark- ness, rather it should be conceived on the basis of succession of events. Time as succession of events cannot solve the problem, rather the confusion is more confounded. Here a pertinent question arises, whether or not time will cease to be if there is no succession of events. It cannot be replied adequately. According to Bergson, real time is eternal duration. 1. Amar.I. 4. 1.

T CHAPTER III T2A91400 21

The Pauranic writers have dealt with the two aspects of Kāla ( time ) viz. indivisible (Akhaņda) and divisible (Khaņda). Time in itself is indivisible, infinite, unconditioned and eternal. For practical purposes, divisions and sub-divisions are made. Thus Pauranic writers have distinguished between empirical time and transcendental time.

The Purānas have conceived Kāla as the ultimate principle. It is the very embodiment of God. It is also treated as a phase of Universal spirit1. The process of creation and disso- lution emerge from Kala itself. It is the very prius of the universe. It is also treated as the power of God which creates disturbance in the guņas of Avyakta to make it manifest itself as universe2. Thus it is the efficient cause of the universe. Kāla is beginningless but everything originates from it. It is also infinite and eternal but it puts an end to everything of the universe3. This clearly shows the elusive character of time. It is the supreme power which controls and guides the destiny of the universe sportively.4 The Visnu Puraņa has elaborately discussed the various aspects of Kāla (time), hence a separate treatment is necessary. Kala neither becomes nor passes away5. It is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe6. The concept of Trinity is personified in Kāla ( time ) itself. Its chief function is to establish intimate contact between Prakrti and Purușa at the time of dissolution7. In the words of Dasgupta-"Thus

1. Bhg. I. 6. 4; 11. 6; 13. 45, Va .- 32. 11 and 22, P .- I. 2. 87. Gd-4. 5; Bd .- 1. 4. 17 and 18, L .- 70. 85, 85. 2. Bhg. III. 5. 26-28. 3. Ibid-III. 29.45. 4. Bhg .- X. 51. 19. 5. Vi .- I. 2. 15 -...... Kālastathā Param, 6. Ibid-I. 2. 26- Anādirbhagwānkālo nānto'sya dviju Vidyate. Avyuchchinnästatasvete sargasthityantasamyamāh. 7. Ibid-I. 2. 24- Rūpāntaram Taddvija Kalasamjñam.

22 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME there is a reference to ontological synthetic activity and ontological analytical activity of Kāla."1 Vişņu as Kāla is both the disturber ( Ksobha ) or disturbed ( Kşobhya ) and creation follows. This incessant cycle of creation and dissolution is going on like an ever flowing stream. The dynamic aspect of Kāla ( time ) is clearly visible here. The eternity and infinity of Kāla ( time ) are also emphasised. First eleven chapters of Uttarbhāga of Kūrma-Purāņa are known as Iśvara-gitā. Vijñāna Bhikșu has written a commentary on it. In this text it is expressively stated that Pradhāna, Purușa and Kāla (time ) emerge from Avyakta, and from them the whole universe has come into existence,2 Bhiksu states that the Universe has not directly come out of Brahman but of Pradhāna, Purușa and Kāla ( Time ). A direct emanation cannot be thought of as Brahman transcends all transforma- tions. Further direct emanation will mean that Brahman is responsible for the evils of the world. The emergence of Pradhāna, Purușa and Kāla (time ) can be conceived on the basis of Brahman being ground cause ( Ādhāra Kāraņa ). This emergence produces no change in Brahman. He remains unchanged, the change is only apparent. At the time of dissolution Avyakta remains in the state of equilibrium hence it is ineffectual. Thereby it proves the non-existence of purușa and prakrti. By the will of God, Purusa is united with prakrti and the point of motivation is started from the process of modification of prakrti. This point of motivation is called Kāla ( time ).

1. A History of Indian Philosophy-Dr. S. N. Dasgupta-P. 497. Vol. III. 2. Ku (c)-II. 3-First two lines- Avyaktadabhavankalah Pradhanam Purusah Parah. Tebhyah Sarvamidam Jatam tasmādbrahmamayam jagat.

CHAPTER III 23

Paramätman is said to be both different from and identical with Kāla (time ). Kāla ( time ) is considered to be efficient cause in establishing relation between Prakrti and Purușa. Kāla is a superior agent to Karma as Karma is also produced by Kāla ( time ) : Karmādīnam api Kāla-janyatvāt. Kāla is beginningless but its chief function is to produce effect.

The following extract from Isvara-gītā bhāsya will illustrate: "Na tu Sākşād eva Brahmanaḥ ........ Atra Kālādi-trayasya Brahma-Kāryatvam Abhivyaktirūpam eva Vivakşitam Prakrti puruşayos ca Mahad-ādi-Kāryonmukhtan ca Parmeśvara-krtād anyonya-Samyogād eva bhavati, evam kālasya prakrti-purușa Samyogakhyakāryon mukhatvam parame-śvare-ecch aya'iva bhavati."-quoted by Dr. S. N. Das Gupta.

Kāla as Dişța and Daiva have been described in Mārkaņdeya Purāna. The Bombay edition of the Purāna includes in verses ( 20-21 ), "And she ( DevI Mähätmya ) who is the night of fate, laid Kala low with the rod of fate".1 In the Matsya Purāņa, an examination has been made about the superiority of Kāla ( time ), Daiva and Purușa-kāra (human exertion). These three are treated as complementary princi- ples. But among the three, purușakāra is exalted as superior force : Svameva Karma Daivakhyam viddhi Dehantarāyitam Tasmāt-pauruşa-meveh Śreșthamahurmanīșiņah.2 Most of the purāņas describe kāla ( time ) as the son of Dhruva. With slight modification, the same verse embodying the above idea occurs there. The verse is : Dhruvasya putro Bhagvān kālo lokaprakālanah. The last syllable 'Lokaprakā- lanaḥ' is presented as 'lokasya kālanca' in Garuda Purāņa. In Agni Purāņa, the verse stands as : 'Dhruvasya kālo lokānte'. In Śiva Purāņa-Dharma Samhitā, the syllable 'loka prakālanaḥ'

1. Mr .- ( Bombay Edition )-pp. 593-604 and pp. 474, 662, 680. 2 Mt .- P. 635.

24 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

is modified as 'Lokaprabhavänah'. In the above verse, the destructive aspect of kāla has been shown.1 The two magnificent epics of Samskrta language viz. the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaņa, are repository of India's wisdom. They portray ancient ideal civilization of India. They also embody contemporary knowledge of Arts and Scie- nce. In these two epics, the various aspects of kāla ( time ) have been depicted under different names. They are detailed below :- (a ) Kāla (time ) as Dişța is such kāla (time) as is determined by the individual. Such kāla ( time ) comes into action due to the will or deeds of particular human beings.2 Sometimes this Distam is identified with the Daivam.3 (b) Kāla ( time ) as ordained by supernatural forces is Daiva or fate. The activity of such kāla ( time ) depends on the direction of god, demons and certain agencies of nature. Human beings cannot battle Kala or Daiva. One must learn to yield to the unalterable decree of Daiva. The following story will illustrate : Krsna became incarnate on earth to help his friend Arjuna and bestowed on him superhuman power. Thus he became an unassailable hero. But the moment, Krsna returned back to his supermundane abode, the tide of time changed altogether. No valour availed. He was defeated by unskilled tribesmen who took away and defiled the ladies, the widowed queens of Krsna. The invincible warrior brooked the insolence. In words of Dr. H. Zimmer-"Time ( Kāla) had turned that mysterious stream from the water of which all things appear and on whose surface they ride engulfed, to be swept in an unfeeling, reeling, indiscriminate flood".4

1. A-18. 36; Br .- 3. 37; Gd .- 6. 3; H .- 153, 154, Kū .- 16. 13 and 14; Sidh-54. 21 and 22; VI .- I. 15, 112. 2. R .- 2. 103. 8; MB .- 5. 77. 10-Diştagatih. 3. MB .- 5. 77. 8 and 10. 4. Dr. H. Zimmer-Philosophies of India. 2. R .- 1. 58. 23.

CHAPTER III 25

In the Rāmāyaņa, it is said : Daivam eva param manye.1 It is treated as the highest power known which has its sway over every thing. There is nothing beyond the accomplishment of Daiva : Nahi adaivakrtam Kincit.2 One passage suggests that Daiva is the highest and hard to over- come3. In the first chapter of Anusasana Parva of the Mahā- bhārata, there is a famous dialogue between GautamI and the hunter who was insisting upon killing the serpent, the death or kāla. Mrtyu ( Death ) himself appears on the scene and declares that neither snake nor he himseif but fate ( kāla ) was to blame for the boy's death : for every thing that happens, happens through käla, everything that exists, exists through kāla. The dialogue reveals that kāla is not only the mover of all events but it is the chief cause of the universe. Time is operated according to the laws of Karma, there is intimate relation between Käla and Karma which determines the course of all events. Karma is also a product of Kala and thus it guides the modes of operation of time. Kāla is both transcendent and immanent cause of all objects. Daiva is considered to be supreme force by Bhartrhari also. He says : Mugdhā Pasyaḥ Daivameva hi param vrdhau kşaye kāraņam.

(c) Time is also conceived as Hatha or the accidental. Hatha is power, force, fate as necessity, impersonal necessity or accident.3 According to this doctrine, man's course in part is determined by Hatha. Thus it ignores the power of God and Karma. Hatha is opposed to the concept of Iśvara.4 (d) Time is also named as Bhavitavya or inevitable. Bhavitavya is that which must heppen contravening ordinary tenure and course of events. In the Rāmāyaņa, Daivam is

1. MB .- 3.65.41. 2. Ibid-2. 56. 17; 2. 57. 4. 3. MB .- 3. 32. 12. 21. 4. Ibid-12. 32. 12 and 19.

26 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

considered to be a superior agent to Bhavitavya. It is stated therein that Bhavitavya is conditioned by Daiva.1 (e) Time as fixed by men for performing their duties is known as Vihita ( Regulative ). This aspect of time has been illustrated in very many verses of the Rāmāyana and the Mahabharata. These Epics have set down principles for the regulation of duties.

(f ) Bhāgadheya is such kāla as is the cause of happiness and misery of this universe. A detailed discussion of this aspect of Kāla ( time ) is found in section 220 of the Mahābhārata ( B. O. R. I.). Kāla consumes every thing of the universe within itself irrespective of their rank and power. Kāla is an unfathomed ocean which flows incessantly. Learned people conceive it as ultimate Brahman. Such Käla ( time ) is abso- lute. But conditioned time is divided into days, months etc. But Kala as Brahman is without origination and decay. In Ādiparva, it is clearly stated that Kāla ( time ) is the cause of happiness and misery. (g) Purușakāra or time as human exertion has mostly been decried in these two Epics. But heroic characters object to the naive fatalism of Daiva. Lakșmaņa defies Daiva and says that even Daiva cannot hinder him. Lakșamaņa says : Vīrāḥ sambhāvitātmāno na daivam paryupāsate.2 Daivam puruşakāreņa yaḥ samarthaḥ prabādhitum. In Mauśala parva of the Mahabharata it is contended : Purușam hi param manye daivam niścitya muhyate. (h) Kāla is also known as krtānta or that which is death or that which is lord of death or that which brings an end.3

1. R .- 6. 113. 24-26. 2. R .- 2. 23. 17-18. 3. R .- 5. 37. 3- Aiśvarye vā suvistirņe vyasane vā sudāruņe. Rajjveva puruşam baddhva krtāntaļ parikarșati.

CHAPTER III 27

In Kauțilaya's Arthasāstra, it is mentioned that of strength, place and time, strength is the best; for a man who has strength can surmount over difficulties irrespective of uneven place and unfavourable time. Here a reference to Purușakāra has been made. Others hold that time is the best, because during day time the crow kills the owl and during night the owl kills the crow. But Kautilya holds that of strength, place and time, one is helpful to another. Thus kala is treated as one of the causes of human success.1 A detailed description of kāla is given in the Vairāgya Prakaraņa ( Sargas 23-26 ). Mumukșu Prakaraņa ( 4-9 Sargas ) and in Utapatti Prakaraņa ( 60 Sarga ) of Yoga Vāsiștha. Various aspects of Kala such as Daiva, Krtānta, Bhavitavya and Purușakāra are dealt herė.2 Time is the universal spirit that creates, sustains and destroys the Universe.3 It is all pervasive and indestructible but it partly manifests itself through years, yugas and kalpas.4 Time is also treated as a pantheistic entity which consumes every thing as sea bubbles.5 Time is shown to be possessed of con- tradictory attributes. Time in itself is indivisible yet it is divided; it is imperceptible, yet is perceived; it is endless yet at the same time it is the cause of the end of all objects. Here a distinction has been made between the nature of absolute time and conditioned time, It also reflects the elusive chara- cter of Kāla or time. A complete sarga has been devoted to discuss Kāla as krtānta. Kāla is said to be the chief designer and destroyer of the universe. With the help of Niyati, it controls and guides the course of the universe.6 This Niyati is said to be spouse 1. Kautilya's Arthasastra-Shamsastry ( translation ) P. 368. 2. Yoga-I. 25. 1, 5, 6; II. 4. 11; II. 5. 3. Yoga-I. 23. 4. 4. Ibid-I. 23. 7. 5. Ibid-I. 23. 25. 6. Ibid-I. 25. 31.

28 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

of Krtānta. Niyati is Avaśyambhāvīrūpa or inevitable. Chandi, the beloved of Krtänta, is the chief destructive force through whom Käla brings destruction to the universe.1 Like a deceit- ful actor, Kāla appears at the stage, performs play-acting for a period of Kalpa and ultimately disappears altogether. At the time of dissolution, Kāla also merges into the universal spirit. But after a short recess it again creates the universe just as a child creates a mud house.2 Thus creation and disso- lution are playful acts of Kāla. Here Kāla or time has been treated as a real individual.

In mumukşuvyavahār-Prakaraņa, Kāla as purușakāra has been depicted. Purușakāra is such human endeavour as are done according to the dictates of scriptures and religious teach- ers. Other human endeavours have been declared as insane acts.3 The identity of Daiva and puruşakāra has been shown in some of the passages.4 Daiva is the human efforts of the past life, so it can be conquered by the human exertion of the present life.5 Purușakāra elevates even ordinary human beings to the highest rank.6 It produces inevitable result. Niyati as Bhavitavyatā determines Purușakāra but ultimately it is helpful to purusakāra as it is the aspect of Brahman himself.7 Efforts done with attachment in the previous birth are Karma in the present life. The force of such Karma can be expended by the good human efforts of this birth. Thus purusakāra is superior even to Karma. Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtra says that purusakāra ( human exertion ) is the chief instrument of

1. Ibid-I. 24. 5. 2. Ibid-I. 25. 32. 3. Yoga-II. 4. 11. 4. Yoga-II. 6. 1 to 3. 5. Ibid-II. 6. 119. 6. Ibid-II. 6. 11. 7. Ibid-II. 9. 6.

SMIT CHAPTER III 29

achieving success in life : Purușa-kārapurvakatvāt sarva- pravrtti nām upāyah pratyayah.1 The epics and the Purāņas also support this contention of Yoga-Vāsiștha. In this text, relativity of time and space has been shown. It is contended that the existence of time and space depends on thoughts.2 Every individual experiences events according to his modes of consciousness. A moment is conceived as a Kalpa and a Kalpa is conceived as a moment under changing modes of consciousness.3 The same night is experienced as a Kalpa by a suffering man and as a moment by happy ones. In dreaming state, a moment is experienced as a Kalpa and a Kalpa passes away as a moment. Time and space entirely depend on mental condition. A day is experienced as a year by a forlorn beloved.4 The entire world process takes place in the millionth portion of the moment of the consciousness of the self.5 The duration of the same world process may be a moment for some and a long age for another person.6 The above illustrations refer to the fact that the existence of time and space solely depends on the modes of consciousness. Modern Physics also supports the contention of this text. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krsna says that he is everlasting time, the all faced sustainer of the universe.7 He also says that he is the mighty destroyer of the worlds. He comes into being for their destruction. This kāla destroys .indestructible

1. Kāma-Sūtra. II. 30. 2. Ibid-III. 110. 9 : Desakālābhidhānena Rāma samkalpa eva hi. Kathyate tadvaśādyasmāddeśakālau sthitim gatau. 3. Yoga-III. 20. 29-Yathaitatpratibha matram jagatsarvabhāsanam, 4. Ibid-III. 20-51-Kāntā virahiņāmekam vāsaram vatsarāyate. 5. Ibid-III. 61. 17. 6. Ibid-III. 40. 30. 7. Gita-X. 33.

30 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Yoga also.1 Thus the creative and destructive aspects of kāla are pointed out. In one passage, it is suggested that the nature of time depe- nds on the observer. The spheres of activity of an ordinary man and a self-poised man differ altogether. Day stands for activity and night for inactivity. There are two regions, the phenomenal and the noumenal, latter is the basis of phenomena. Ignorant persons consider the former as the real one. He calls that his waking life. The self-poised man withdrawing his senses from attachment to objects, regards the latter as real. He calls that his waking life. In this region, an ordinary man is blind, that is his night. Here time has been shown to be relative to the observer.2 A systematic exposition of this aspect of time has been attempted by Swami Madhvatirtha in his book 'The concept of time'. He establishes the relativity of time. The following fact will illustrate. At the time of the ensuing war of the Mahābhārata, Arjuna requested Krsna to station his chariot at a place from where he could see both the armies. When this was done, Arjuna saw and thought that so many friends and relations of his would be killed for a piece of land. He began to tremble and refused to participate in the fighting.3 The friends and rela- tions of Krsna were also there but Krsna's vision was different from that of Arjuna. In his vision, time was unimportant. He wanted Arjuna to change the nature of his observation and said, 'the soul is eternal and unborn'. According to his exposition, an attempt has been made by Krsna to change the nature of observation. Time changes with the change of obser- vation. When the personality shifts, the time does not mean the same thing. The question of time depends on the relationship

1. Ibid-X. 32. 2. Gītā-II. 69. 3. Ibid-I. 28-32.

CHAPTER III 31

of the human observer and his finite level. This relation- ship is not true. If the relationship is changed as stated above, time-space order will admit of a great degree of inter- pretation. To measure a length, he must say what he means by two points at the same time. For this he requires a defini- tion of simultaneity. To measure a time, he must say what he means by two events at the same place viz. in his individual consciousness.

Krsna gave a new power of observation to Arjuna by which he saw that the whole universe with its innumerable forms existed as one whole being. In this vision, he saw-Nāntan na madhyam na punastavādin1-neither the end, nor middle nor beginning of anything. Besides he said, there is no fundamental space.2 This is exactly what Einstein has proved. The structure of space is not determined unless the functions of co-ordinates are known. Kāla as Daiva has been described in Manusmrti, Daiva, he says, is purvakrta.3 Every person has to reap the consequences of such Kāla ( time ). Kāla ( time ) as vihita or regulated by human beings is elaborately discussed in this text.4

The concept of Kāla ( time ) as described by Vişņusmrti needs special mention. Kāla ( time ) has its sway even over God, who is the creator and destroyer of the universe. God is destroyed by mighty Kāla ( time ). In the Purānas and Epics, Kāla is treated as ultimate principle but in that aspect it is personification of God. Here in this scripture, kāla (time) is shown to be the consumer of God. It clearly suggests that kāla ( time ) is mightier than God.5

1. Gīta-XI. 16. 2. Ibid-XI. 25-Diśonajāne. 3. Manu .- VII. 166 and XI. 47- Kşiņasya caiva Kramaso daivātpūrvakrtena vā. 4. Ibid-VII. 164-Svayamkītasca kāryārthamkāle Kāla eva vā. 5. Vi .- Sm .- Chapter XX.

32 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Division of Time.

The Pauranic and epic writers have made different divisions and sub-divisions of conditioned time. The division of time and computation of yugas, Manvantaras and kalpas etc. come under it.

The division of time as shown in the Puranas are detailed below1 :- 3 Paramāņus make 1 Aņu 3 Trasarenus make 1 Vedhas 3 Vedhas make 1 Lava 3 Lavas make 1 Nimeșa 3 Nimeşas make 1 Kşaņa 5 Kşaņas make 1 Kāșțhā 15 Kāşțhās make 1 Laghu 15 Laghus make 1 Nādika 2 Naikas make 1 Muhurta 6 or 7 Nādikas make 1 Prahara or Yāma 4 Yāmas make 1 day or night 15 days and nights make 1 Pakşa 2 Pakşas make 1 Mäsa or a day and night for pitrs. 2 Māsas make 1 Rtu. 6 Months make 1 Ayanam 2 Ayanams make 1 Year 1 day of Brahmā make 1 period of Manus. 1 Night of Brahmā make 1 period of Pralaya 1 Yuga is equal to 5 years This calculation is based on Sürya.

Kauțilya in his Arthaśāstra points out the following divisi- ons of time in respective order : Truți, Lava, Nimeșa, Kāșthā, Kalā, Nalikā, Muhurta, Forenoon, Aftermoon, Day, Night, Pakșa,

1. Bhg. III. 5 to 15; Bd .- II, 24. 58; Va .- 50. 179-182. Mt .- 358-360 pages.

CHAPTER III 33

month, Rtu, Ayana, Samvatsara and Yuga.1 According to Kauțilya, Yuga is equal to five years. He does not make any mention of Manvantara and Kalpa.2 The Manu-Smrti details the divisions of time in the order stated below :- 18 Nimeşas make 1 Kāșthā 30 Kāşțhās make 1 Kalā 30 Kalās make 1 Muhurta 30 Muhurtas make 1 Day and Night It also refers to Manyantaras and Kalpas and to days of manes and Gods.

The calculation in respect to divisions of time in the Vāyu Purana tallies with that of Manu-Smrti differing only at one place, that in Vāyu 15 Nimeșas make a Kāșțhā.3 The division of time as shown in Kūrma Purāņa agrees with Manu Smrti save that 15 twinklings make 1 Kāșțhā.4 Vișņu Purāna differs from the above table only in mention- ing 15 Nimeșas as one Kāșthā.5 The Computation of Yuga The term 'Yuga' at first occurs in the Rgveda and it denotes a period of time. Yuga refers to a 'Longer period of time' in such statements as Devänäm Prathame Yuge® In Atharvaveda the concept of Yuga has been elaborately discussed.7 In Atharva- veda, it is said, "We allot to thee a hundred, ten thousand years, two, three, (or ) four Yugas". Yuga expressly means a period of not less than 10,000 years. In that age, the maximum 1. Shamshastry-Page 107. 2. Ibid-109. 3. Va .- 50. 179-182. 4. Kū .- Chap. V. 5. Vi .- I. 3. 8. 6. Rg. Veda-X. 72. 3. 7. AV-VII.2.21. 3 A. T.

34 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

period of Yuga is indicated to be ten thousand years. The four Yugas have been clearly mentioned in Brähmana Litera- ture. The fourYugas, Pusya, Dvāpara, Kharva and Krta are mentioned in the Sadvimsa Brāhmana and Dvāpara in the Go- path Brähmana. Mention has been made about Kali in Vedic literature but it is not clear whether it is the name of Yuga. The Purāņas speak about Yuga in a familiar tone. Kauțilya has mentioned a Yuga of five years which he connected with the general division of time. A correct picture of Yuga system, we find in the Manu Smrti where the four Yugas along with Manvantaras and Kal- pas have been discussed.1 In the Mahābhārat also four Yugas have been mentioned but Manvantaras and Kalpas have been vaguely referred to.2 Both in the Epics and the Purānas, the duration of the Yugas is the same. The Manu Smrti and the Mahābhārata allot 1,000; 2,000; 3,000 and 4,000 years to four Yugas of Kali, Dvāpara, Tretā and Krta respectively. Thus the duration of other Yugas are reckoned by doubling, trebling and quadrupling the duration of Kali. Manu and Vyāsa add a period of 2,000 years which state the intervening periods bet- ween the different Yugas known as Sandhyā and Sandhyāmsa. Sandhyä denotes the time of dawn in ordinary literature. According to Mr. Aiyar, Sandhyā means morning twilight and evening twilight. As Sandhyā pervades three out of thirty ghatis of a day, so one tenth of the period of each Yuga is assigned to the transition periods. Thus the period of 10,000 ( ten thousand ) years is increased to 12,000 years. The four Yugas cover a period of 12,000 years as detailed below :- 1. Krta Yuga 4800 years including Sandnyā and Sandhyāmsa

2. Tretā Yuga 3600 years -do-

3. Dvāpara Yuga 2400 years -do-

4. Kali Yuga 1200 years -do-

5. Manu-I. 69-71. 2. Śanti Parva-Chap 224 ( B. O. R. I. )

CHAPTER III 35

An attempt has been made by Paurānic writers to convert human years to divine years. A single divine year is equal to 360 human years. Manu observes-"that this period of 12,000 years is called the Yuga of a God". Thus this device of con- verting human years to divine years is rendered plausible, and as people were unwilling to believe that they could be in a Yuga other than the Kali, this solution of the difficulty was univer- sally adopted. Kaliyuga of 1200 ordinary years is changed to 1200 × 360×12000= 5184000000 human years. This calculation affects the calcuation of higher cycles of Manvantaras and Kalpas also. According to Manu and Vyāsa, the cycle of four Yugas comprises a period of 10,000 years and including San- dhyās 12,000 years. This period tallies with the period given by the Atharva Veda. It seems that in the Atharvaveda, the four Yugas have been comprised together. Manu and Vyāsa have tried their best to maintain the old tradition though this tradi- tion has been mutilated by the new devices to fit in with the changed circumstances.

Characteristics of Yuga

Yugas are connected with Dharma. When Yugadharma is violated, Vișnu appears in the form of Avatāra to set right the declining Yugadharma. It is stated in the Vāyu Purāņa : Yugadharmapravrtte Kāle ca Šthite Prabhuḥ Kartum Dharma- Vyavasthānām jāyate manusviha.1 The gradual decline of Yuga has been traced from the Tretā Yuga to Kali Yuga. In Kaliyuga, it has been shown on its last leg.

The concept of Yugas is relative and not the absolute one. The assignment of Yugas depends on particular place, While a particular span of place is passing through a particular Yuga, the others are passing through other Yugas. As the cycle of time is going on, all of them have to pass through all the ages. This suggests the relativity of space and time.

1. Va-97. 65-66; Bhg-III. 11. 20-21; Mt-484 Page.

36 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Manvantaras Manvantra is one of the five characteristics of the Purānas. Every Manvantara is presided over by a lord named Manu. A particular Manvantara is named after particular presiding lord. Thus they are fourteen in number. In Vaivasvatta Manvantara, Vaivasvatta was the lord of men. The names of the Manvan- taras arel :-

1. Svāyambhuva 8. Sāvarņi

2. Svārocișa Dakşa-Sārvarņi

3. Auttama 10. Brahma-Sāvarņi 4. Carisnava or Raivata 11. Dharma Sāvarņi

4. Tāmasa 12. . Rudra-Sāvarņi

5. Cākşusa 13. Raucya

6. Vaivasvatta 14. Bhautya. Six Manvantaras have already elapsed and we are passing through the seventh which is Vaivasvatta. Duration of Manvantara-Seventy one yugas make one Man- vantara. There are seventy one padas ( steps ) of kāla, when it traverses one pada, one yuga elapses. Thus it covers entire Manvantaras in 71 padas. A Manvantara will constitute 71 ×12,000 Divine years i.e, 8,52,000 Divine years equivalent to 30,67,20,000 human years. If the excess fraction is taken into [account, a Manvantara will constitute 8,57,142" divine years.2 According to Pargiter, the verse 37 of canto xlvi of Mär- kaņdeya Purāņa seems to be incorrect. The four yugas contain

7. Bd-III. 1. 3-116; Br-5. 1-64; H-406-544; Śiddh-58. 2-82; Va-100. 3-118; Mr-XLVI (canto)-(Cal) Mt-9. 139; Vi-III. 1 & 2 chapters; Kū-51. 1-36; Gd-I-LXXXVII ( canto ) 2. Va(c)-57.33; Manu. I. 79- Yatprāgdvādas'asāhasramuditam daivikam yugam. Tadekasaptatigunam Manvantaramihocyate.

CHAPTER III 37

12,000 divine years or 51,84,000,000 human years and 71 times this period contains 8,52,000 divine years or 306,720,000 human years. This latter period agrees with the enumeration in verse 36 ( viz 30,67,20,000 years ), but the text suggests 8,000 +52,000 i.e. 60,000 divine years., unless we read Sata- Sahasrāņi for Varșa-Sahasrāņi. 'Yutam' seems wrong as reg- ards grammar and meaning. This does not agree with verse 31, if we take the words 'this period' to refer to verses 35, 36 and 37. In verse 31 one of Brahmä's days is said to be 12,000,000 divine years, but 14 times the period mentioned in latter verses contain 11,928,000 divine years, or 4,294,080,000 human years. We must bring in here the excess fraction refer- red to in verse 34, which by calculation is found to be +, 71§ times the Yugas of 12,000 divine years = 8,57,142 divine years of the Manvantara and 14 times this last period is exactly equal to 12,000,000 years of Brahmā's day. In the Bhagvad-Gitä, the number of Manvantara has been fixed at four only.1 The Mahabharata furnishes information about Manvantaras but about the number it suggests four. The Manu Smrtirefers to Manvantaras as innumerable (Manvantrāni asankhyani )2 and does not point out the number. In Purānas, fourteen Manvantaras have been universally mentioned. 'Innu- merable' as suggested by the Manusmrti should be taken to signify endless cycle of creation and dissolution. It seems that the concept of Manvantara and Kalpa are post-epic developments. Kalpas and Pralayas After describing the five Laksanas, Sūta refers to Kalpa3 in the Vayu Purāna. A Kalpa is so named as Brahmā ordained it : Kalpayāmāsa vai Brahmā tasmāt Kalpo nirucyate.4 At

1. Gita-X. 6. catvāro Manavastathā. 2. Manu-I. 80. 3. Vã (c )-IV. 10-13; Bhg. III. 11, Br .- PP. 1058-1061. 4. Va ( c )-VII. 71.

38 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

the end of thousand chaturyugas along with Manvantaras, the Kalpa lord Mahādeva creates this universe. A day and night of Brahmā are each equal to a period of time called Kalpa. To calculate higher periods of time, Kalpa is a measuring unit. According to Manu and Vyāsa, the four yugas form a yuga of God and a thousand such yugas make a Kalpa of 12,000,000 years. At the close of such a Kalpa, the universe is destroyed by great deluge (Pralaya). The other method of calculating a Kalpa as followed by the Puranas indicates that 14 times the Man- vantaras make a kalpa which contains 4,320,000,000 years.1 The first calculation depends on human years while the latter depends on divine years.

In the Vāyu Purāna, the number of Kalpa is said to be 33.2 At another place, the number of Kalpas is mentioned as ten.3 Past and future Kalpas cannot be numbered. They are as infinite as the moments are.4

The principal Pralayas are named as the Nitya Pralaya, Naimittika Pralaya, the Prākrta Pralaya and the Ātyantika Pralaya.5

The Atyantika Pralaya concerns the individual when a yogi attains perfect knowledge, he becomes one with Parame- śvara. Thus he escapes the cycle of birth and rebirth. The Nitya Pralaya refers to the constant change of the uni- verse. Each object is undergoing changes every moment.

1. Bhg-III. 11.23- Niśāvasāna ārabdho Lokakalpo'nuvartate. Yavaddinam bhagavato manūn bhuñjanscaturdaśa. 2. Va (c )-Chapter XXI 3. Ibid-VII. 27- Tatra Kalpān daśa sthitvā satyam gacchante vai punah. 4. Yoga-I. 27. 32- Kalpābhidhānakșaņajīvino hi Kalpaughasamkhyā Kalane viriñcayāḥ. 5. Bhg-II. 12; Vi-I. 7. 40-48; Mt-P. 485.

CHAPTER ITI 39

The Naimittika Pralaya takes place at the end of each Kalpa when Brahma remains in the state of sleep. The Präkrta Pralaya is the last stage of dissolution when every element merges into its higher element-prithvi into Apas, Apas into Agni and so on. Thus they ultimately merge into Avyakta. This universe itself is beginningless and endless. Likewise Kalpas and Pralayas are also beginningless and endless. The Kalpas and Pralayas follow each other intermittently.1 Madam Blavatsky says-"In sober truth they are infinite; for they never had a commencement ; or in other words, there never was a first kalpa nor will there be a last in eternity".2

A critical estimate :- In course of our discussion on Kāla or time, stated in the Purānas and the later literatures such as Kauțilya's Arthaśāstra etc., we find that the metaphysical problem has become impli- cated with the grand problem of Ethics, viz, freedom and neces- sity. Time is the most important factor in moral and religious activities. It seems almost certain that there were thinkers in India who had made time the prius of creation. Time has in this line of thought been identified with the personal God. In fact, if time can be invested with self-consciousness and self- directed will, it can be equated with God. When Raghunātha Śiromani, the great logician of Bengal, in the 16th Century A.D. propounded the theory that time should be equated with God, he only voiced a very ancient theory which exercised enormous influence on the ethical thought of India for centuries. From the account given above, time is found to be the crea- tive principle and also the negative principle of destruction. To the Bhagvad-gitā; God describes himself as Kāla or time,

1. Yoga-4. 7. 80. 2. Secret Doctrine-Vol. I-Page 395.

40 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME the devourer and exterminator of the whole creation ( Chap. II-Gitā). Now the question of supreme importance for Ethics arises as to whether the course of world events is enti- rely determined or there is scope for human-exertion to undo the dead-weight of past Karma. It is the issue of freedom ver- sus determinism. In India the School of Maskari Gosāla is credited with the theory of irrevocable fatalism.1 They were called Akriyāvādins. They did not believe in the efficacy of Karma or the value or disvalue of moral action. The best course of action is to refrain from all acts and take the events- pleasurable or painful-as a matter of course without either self-exaltation or depression. This theory is the apotheosis of fatalism with its consequential inactivism. It makes morality and religion absolutely nugatory. Buddha raised a relentless crusade against this dange- rous heresy. We find in the Mahābharata, concrete accounts of Käla as the sole determining factor irrespective of all exer- tions of man to extricate himself from the meshes of misery and degradation. Man is thus the slave of time and circu- mstances. The wisest policy will be the Kotow to the inevi- table. We find also such sentiments put in the mouth of Rāma, the hero of the Rämäyana. It must, however, be admit- ted that the doctrine of freedom as opposed to determinism is an intractable and an inscrutable one. So far as the present world is concerned almost every age gives illustrations of the futility of human endeavour. There have been wars with their results namely victory and defeat. The defeated nation finds it handy to seek consolation in the irreversible dispensation of fate. In Greek mythology, we come across the powerful goddess called Nemesis. The Calvinistic doctrine of pre- determination with its analogue in Islamic theology leaves 1. Digha Nikāya- Trans. Dr. Belvalkar and Prof. Ranade-P. 457; Inscriptions of Asoka-Sircar-P. 62.

CHAPTER III 41

little room for the amelioration of the unhappy conditions of life. Even in the Upanisads, we come across passages which make God responsible for the good and bad actions of an individual. In the Gitā, Lord Krsna says : God is seated in the innermost recesses of the heart of living beings and turns them like so many automata mounted on a machine ( Isvarah sarva bhūtānām .. ... yantra ). These views savour of absolute determinism. Commentators such as Śam- kara struggled with these texts and appealed to contradictory statements found in the same work and drew forth impli- cations which make room for determinism consistent with moral freedom. In the Mahābhārata also, we find passages which relegate the influence of Kāla ( time ) to a very insigni- ficant position. In one place, the question is raised : is time the sole arbiter of human affairs ? Is it responsible for Kings and Governments or the latter, the master of time? The answer is given that the King is the master of time. The King here stands for the state. The good King can initiate the golden age or Tretā or Dvpara or Kali; the first typifying the predominance of virtue, the last that of vice and the two intermediate ages progressive deterioration. Here the palm of victory is given to human exertion. It must, however, be acknowledged that we may succeed in approaching the truth by striking the middle path between the two extremes. An age of perfect happiness embodying the triumph of virtue and justice over the seamy side of life is the utopia of noble minds. At any rate whether in mythology or in history, such a golden age has been a transitory phase. Human life consists of good and evil forms, sometimes one getting the better with the other in alternation. Even our heroic efforts fail to achieve the objective. This constitutes the tragedy of history. The failure of Hitler and Mussolini and the success of Stalin, philosophically considered cannot be regarded as the result of the moral law ending in justice. If we scan the major events of history, it is extremely difficult to

42 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

draw a conclusion either way. The tragic end of the Pāndavas and Yadu clan headed by lord Krsna cannot be adjudged with- out sophistication as the outcome of the operation of the moral law and justice. Thus if we approach the question without any prepossession either for or against, it is very difficult to apportion the field of moral freedom and necessity. It is plausible to hope that the law will be vindicated in the next world. But this seems to be the argument of despair. The Christian believers have hoped . for the advent of millenium during their life time, but circum- stances have compelled them to defer this happy consummation to an indefinite future date which is, however, receding further and further onward. The problem of determinism versus moral freedom is ever green. It has not yet been possible to arrive at a unanimity. In spite of all odds it must, however, be acknowledged that we cannot plump for determinism or freedom without reserva- tion. Man is born under conditions over which he has no control or his choice was not consulted. But by education, discipline and strong resolve, men have achieved wonders. The discoveries of science and the consequent improvement in the living conditions of progressive nations are cases in point. The failures of best minds have not been entirely unqualified. They failed because the conditions and circumstances in other countries were not amenable to their control. At any rate, man has innate belief in his capacity for changing his life for the better. Though dependent on circumstances, a man can effect appreciable improvement in his economic, intellectual and moral conditions by self-exertion. In spiritual life, the scope of personal exertion under the guidance of a competent master is not at all inconsiderable. The triumph of justice over injustice is instinctively an article of faith with many a noble soul.1 The failures of the past need not be an evidence of

1. Soeva sādhu karyanti ...... ...... Upanișad.

CHAPTER III 43

the proposition that the world is rotten to the core and is in- corrigible. Sankarāchārya in his commentary on the Gītāl makes certain opposite observations on the scope of freedom against the deterministic influence of past Karma. It has been stated that a man follows the lead of his natural disposition ( Prakrti ) under duress and no amount of coercion will be able to deflect him from the course. Again in the same very context Lord SrI Krsna lays down the injunction-"Love and hatred, attachment and aversion are definitely attached to the several sense-objects. One ought not succumb to their in- fluence because both are inimical to his wellbeing." There is apparently a contradiction between the two assertions. If the former statement relates to an irreversible state of things, all moral injunctions positive or negative are absolutely unavailing. But in the next statement, God forbids an aspirant after spiritual well being to resist the influence of love and hate. How can these two apparently incompatible statements be re- conciled ? Śamkara propounds the solution in this way. The facts of experience are apt to excite our love or to provoke hatred according as they are pleasurable or painful. A man has got the power to subdue his feelings whatever may happen. Here lies the scope of freedom. One can control one's passions, however desperate or provocative may be the situation. Fur- thermore in the description of a perfect man who has won his freedom from the bondage of animal instincts, it is said-"His mind does not yield to dejection in the midst of sorrow and in happiness it is freed from desire and craving. He has conquered his greed, fear and anger". It may be the case that an indi- vidual may not be able to change the course of events and to adapt it to his advantage but he can refuse to be overwhelmed by the circumstances.

If we probe the question a bit more closely and deeply, it must be obvious that even the uncompromising advocate of

1. Indriyasīndriyārthā.

44 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

passivity like Gosāla makes a call on the action or inaction of an individual when he asserts that all actions and exertions are futile and wisdom lies in desisting from all endeavours to better the conditions around him, he unconsciously calls upon an individual to refrain from fighting against the wind-mill in Don-Quixotic fashion. Even a negative attitude of forbearance and self-restrain presupposes an act of will. If every event, psychical and physical, be irrevocably determined by blind fate, there will be no occasion for offering moral advice either by way of affirmation or negation. Moreover, the question of right or wrong cannot be brushed aside. The state has establi- shed law course to administer justice. If absolute determinism is ruling principle in the moral plane, there is no raison d'etre for punishment and reward. We instinctively believe that a man ought not to have done, what he has done and ought to have done, what he has not done. 'Oughtness' involves the question of obligability as has been shown by Dr. C. D. Broad. So far, we have discussed the question from the standpoint of the individual. A particular individual may feel powerless before a hostile environment. But a nation or a state can effect appreciable change. The improvements in the conditions of life effected in the civilized nations by the application of science and technology are a pointer. Amenities and comforts which were beyond the dream of our ancestors have been made available even to an humble individual. But the grand achievement of man lies in his self- conquest. Science has placed enormous power in the hands of nations for doing good or evil, and it ultimately depends on the moral advancement of human beings whether judicious or injudicious use of it will be made. It is true that men, who are placed in position or power for doing good or evil, are found to be self-centred and bent upon promoting their own interest or that of their relations or supporters. Under these conditions, worthy men do not get their deserts and bad men rule the roast. But this is feasible in a country where the people are

CHAPTER III 45

backward in education and are accustomed to tyranny. With the awakening of the moral sense and self-confidence and sense of justice, this state of things will come to an end. History records many such instances. Though it may not be a practi- cable theorem and perfect justice and the kingdom of heaven may be a far off event, it is not theoretically an absurd dream. Indian Ethics has laid enormous emphasis upon the individual moral upliftment. Though it may have erred on it by extremism the principle is sound in score. We must pursue science and Ethics in a balanced harmony and must learn to essay the value of extremistic utterances particularly those which harp on the imbecility of man before an unkind fate. As we have shown, even the rankest determinist unconsciously banks upon the capacity for true choice on the part of their clientele. The Concept of Space | The twin aspect of time is space. It is comprehended, though in itself it is incomprehensîble. It is an enigmatic sort of stuff attributed with contradictory qualities such as limited and un- limited, conditioned and unconditioned, finite and infinite. In a way, it is the subsratum of opposites. Abstract space is an absolute entity. Absolute space is boundless. Such space permeates everything even the Void. It is the "all enclosing bag." God himself is absolute space and these Lokas have come out of this space by apparent transformation. ( Yoga 55.47 ) Out of absolute space; the concrete space called the worlds has come out. This concrete space is limited and con- ditioned. It is divisible also. Concrete space makes possible the extension of material objects. Ākāśa literally means that which gives space. At first, Mahat, the subtle element divides itself and pervades the whole space. After that, matter tends towards becoming grosser in the lower worlds. Sri K. N. Aiyar comments-"It is sighificant that Brahmā comes from Brh, to expand, while Vishnu comes from Vis, to pervade. After Brahmä, the creator has expanded himself with matter in the

46 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

conditioned state : Vishnu begins to pervade it as the cementer of particles through his präna hence is called sustainer. The third figure of the trinity is the destroyer."1 The Puränas have posited three worlds keeping in view the three aspects of the ultimate principle. They are Brahma Loka, Vaikunțha and Kailāsa. Seven Lokas are the manifest forms of these three primordial worlds.

Lokas A detailed description of these Lokas has been given in the Visņu Purāņa, Vāyu Purāņa, Šiva Purāņa and Kūrma Purāņa etc.2 They hold that these seven Lokas have emerged out of the three primeval Lokas viz. Brahma, Vaikuņțha and Kailāsa. These Lokas are not separated in water-tight compartments rather they interpenetrate one another but at the same time they extend beyond one another. From the spatial standpoint, they are not higher to one another. Their grades are determined by subtleness and grossness of matter. The grosser the matter, the lower the worlds are. The concept of Lokas can fairly be illustrated by the following verse of the Visnu Purāna.3

Dhruvädurdhvam Maharloka yatra te Kalpavāsinaḥ. Ekayojanakoțistu yatra te Kalpavāsinaḥ. Dve koți tu Janoloko yatra te Brahmana sutāḥ. Sanandanādyāḥ prathitā Maitreyāmalcetsah. Caturgunottare cordhvam Janalokāttapah sthitam. Vairāja yatra te devāḥ sthitā Dāhavivarjitāh. Şadguņena Tapolokātsatyaloko virājate. In the above verse, the extent of the three higher worlds has been described thus : "At a distance of ten million yojanas above Dhruva situates Maharloka. The inhabitants of this

1. The Purana-Sri K. N. Aiyar .- P. 71. 2. Ku (c)-Chapt. 44; Vi-II 7,16 .- 20. 3. Vi-II. 7.12 .- 20.

CHAPTER III 47

Loka live for a Kalpa or a day of Brahmā. At twice this distance is the region of Janaloka where Sanandana and other sons of Brahmā reside. At four times the distance above Janaloka lies Tapoloka, inhabited by Vairājas who cannot be consumed by fire. At six times the distance, situates Satya Loka (Brahma loka), the inhabitants of this loka are immortal." Similar views have been subscribed by the Brahmānda Purāņa and Vayu Purana.1 In the same Purana, the position and the extent of the three lower worlds have been described thus : "Of the three worlds, Bhuh, Bhuvah and Svah, the terrestrial earth which can be treaded by foot, forms the part of Bhur- loka. The sphere which extends from Bhuh to the Sun, where Siddhas and Munis reside, is Bhuvarloka. The distance between the Sun and the Dhruva extendidg fourteen hundred thousand yojanas is Suvarloka. These lokas are called Krta ( transitory ) whereas the three higher worlds namely Jana, Tapa and Satya are Akrta ( unmade or permanent ). Mahar- loka stands between the two regions hence it shares the nature of both the categories of Lokas i.e. the Maharloka is Akrta and Krta. At the end of Kalpa, Maharloka is deprived of all beings yet it is not fully destroyed".2 Regarding concept of Lokas, the three following points may be noted : (a) From the above analysis, it is clear that the Pauranic writers are fully acquainted with the heliometric and the Geometric standpoints. They described lokas in the light of the two. (b) It has been clearly stated that the three lower worlds are transitory ( Krta ) and the three higher worlds are permanent ( Akrta ). The Maharloka shares the nature of both.

1. Bd-I. 7. 23 and 24; Ibid-I. 5. 115; Va-7.37 and 8.24. 2. Vi-II. 7. 12-20 ( quoted )

48 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

(c) As we descend to the lower worlds, the matter be- comes grosser and grosser. The most crude form is found in the lowest world.

The Presiding Authorities of the Seven Lokas The highest subplace of Brahma Loka is inhabited either by Brahmā or Manu. When Manu is named as presiding authority, the same Loka is known as Satya Loka. This presiding deity is the omnipotent force of creation.

Manu's sons preside over the second world viz. Tapoloka. They are named as Vairajas or the sons of Viraja or Manu. They are the embodiment of Jivätmans. They are said to be engaged in performing penance hence the Loka is so named.

The third world is Janaloka. It is the dwelling Place of human beings or Jana. The Kumaras, Sanak and other Munis reside in this sphere. The Munis are considered to be free from humanly passions. In pursuance of the order of Rudra, these Kumaras have to inhabit this sphere.

The fourth world is Maharloka. The presiding lords are Rsis. These Rsis are such persons who should be worshipped both by men and the Devas. Then we come to the fifth world or the first lower world. It is known as Suvarloka and is inhabited by Devas and others. Their number is said to be 33 crores.

The third lower world viz. Bhurloka depends for its exis- tence on Bhuvarloka. The Bhuvarloka is inhabited by Rahu, Ketu, Siddhas etc.

Talas and their presiding authorities

Like seven lokas, the Purāņas presuppose seven"Talasjalso. The Talas have been variously named in the.Puranas. The Vișņu Purāņa names them as follows :

CHAPTER III 49

Atala, Vitala, Nitala, Gabhistimān, Mahātala, Sutala and Pātāla.1

The Bhâgavata Purāna furnishes an authoritative nomencla- ture which stands as :

Atala, Vitala, Sutala, Talātala, Mahātala, Rasātala and Pātāla.2

There is correspondence of each Tala with a particular Loka. Patāla corresponds to Bhurloka and other Talas to other Lokas in respective order. A detailed description of these Talas has been given in Bhägavata Purāna.3 Underneath the earth, there are seven cavities. Each is separated by ten thousand yojanas and their length and breadth are ten thousand yojanas each.

In these regions below the earth are dwellings, gardens, sporting fields and pleasure resorts even more charming than heaven itself, overflooded with enjoyment, wealth, delight, offspring and affluence. There Daityas, Dānavas and Nāgas inhabit. They along with their friends and relations pass their lives in enjoyments and merriments. Big mansions have been constructed by the Danavas by their Māya power. Different varieties of flora and fauna are found there. That sun does not shine there hence the divisions of time do not prevail. Conse- quently creatures of that region do not fear even Kāla. The presiding authority of Atala is Vala, the son of Māyā Dānava. He is famous for his Māyā power. Beneath the aforesaid region is Vitala. The presiding lord of Vitala loka is Mahādeva himself, who resides with his

1. Vi-II. 5.2. 2. Bhg. V. 24. 7. Vistārenopaklrptā Atalam Vitalam Sutalam Talatalam Mahātalam Rasātalam Patālmiti. 3. Bhg .- V, 24. 7-31. 4 A. T.

50 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

courtiers there. He is also with his consort Bhavänt to further the cause of Procreation.

Beneath the above menioned region is Sutala. This region is the abode of illustrious and pious Vali, the son of Virocana.

Under the region of Sutala, is the region of Talātala. The presiding authority of this region is Maya Dānava himself.

Under the above mentioned region, lies the region known as Mahatala where innumerable hooded offsprings of Kadru reside. Among :these serpents, the Kuhkas, the Kaliyas, the Susenas are principal ones.

Under the above mentioned region, is the region known as Rasālata. Here Daityas and Dānavas named Paņi reside. They are on inimical terms with the Devas. They are chivalrous from their very infancy. But their pride of power has been vanquished by the Devas.

Below Rasātala is Pātāla. Here the great serpent Vāsuki along with some other serpents reside. The gloom prevailing in the nether regions is dispelled by the radiance of the gems adorning their hoods.

These Puränas have mostly dealt with the finite space which can be divided into regions. The description of the Lokas and Talas subscribe to the fact. The seven Talas are the divisions of the second plane, the first plane being the Lokas.

It has been shown in the Visnu Purana 1 that the process of dissolution begins with the decaying of Lokas and Talas by drought, fire and water. The term 'Trailokya' is sometimes used in proverbs. Trai- lokyanātha or Trailokya is an epithet for Indra. 2 But at first it referred to the three worlds of Gods, Asuras and men. The

1. Vi-VI. 13. 41. 2. MB-7.62. 1 & 7.5.11.

CHAPTER III 51

'phrase' was later on interchanged with 'seven worlds,' 1 The epics have not clearly stated whether these worlds are supported on earth or on water. Siva is identified with these seven worlds which he himself creates. 2 These worlds are also personified as sentient beings. 3 As at one place in the Rāmāyana it is said that these worlds saw Sītā entering fire. By these worlds, the gods, the Gandharvas and Dānavas are meant. It seems that Pauranic concept of worlds has not affected the epic concept. In the Ramāyana, a peculiar con- cept of worlds as wind paths has been given. 4 The first world is said to be the abode of Hamsa, the second that of the clouds, the third that of saints and singers, the fourth that of pious beings, the fifth that of Ākāsa Gangā, Nāgas and elephants, the sixth that of Garuda, .the seventh that of the Sun, planets and stars and finally the world of moon. 5 The two epics do not describe 'explicitly the Paurānic con- cept of Pātālas. They simply describe Rasātala which is one of the seven under worlds. But at one place in the Mahā- bhärata, some familiarity with these worlds has been shown, 6 It clearly speaks about seven worlds under the earth. Pātāla as Rasātala is a watery under world where Vāsuki resi- des. Later on this region is identified with hell. Space has been described in Utpatti-Prakarana of the Yoga- vāsisthaḥ in 17 sarga. Lilä wanted to know the whereabouts of her husband. The Goddess replied there are three forms of space, namely :- 1. Cittākāśa or space full of desires. 2. Cidākāśa or spirtual space.

1. MB-3.3. 45-Sapta Lokah. 2. ibid .- 13. 16. 34. 3. R-6. 101.56. 4. R-6.117.31 & 120. 24.

2. ibid-7. 24. 4.

3. MB-5.102. 11.

52 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

3. Ākāśa or physical space. The Goddess pointed out that her husband was in the spiritual region. By deep concentration, that region could be seen easily. Lil fell into trance and reached the region of her husband where he was ruling as king Vidurath. Then Lilā again acquired her original state and saw the dead body of her husband lying. Lilä begged the Goddess to throw light on thetrue world and the false world. The Goddess said, "the new world seen by you cannot exist without a cause. The old world is the cause. The new creation has been formed by the impressions of the old, your anxiety to have your husband alone has been the cause of the creation of the new world, This present creation is also false ; it looks true and beautiful by external environments. " Further the Goddess explained that in the sphere of self, there was a space. In one corner, there was a village where a priest performing the daily penance lived. His name was Vasistha. He had an ardent desire to become a king in the next life. His wife also wanted to be with him. After some time, the Brahmin died. He stayed in the etherial space. Due to the desires of the previous birth, the Brahmin assumed the form of King Vidurath who was the husband of Lilā in the pre- sent birth. Lila was no other than Arundhati, the wife of the Brahmin. This present illusion was the reflection of the pre- vious illusory creation.

Further the goddess said that in the spiritual region, there is no definite span of space. Thus space is unlimited. The Bhagvadgita has described space as all-pervasive. All manifest objects inhere in it, 1 All is immersed in it and yet being the subtlest of all, while it affects everything, nothing affects it in return.

1. Gītā-XIII. 32 .- Yathā sarva gatam saukșmayādākāśam nopalipyate X. 6-Yathākasasthito nityam Vayuḥ sarvatrago mahān Tathā sarvāņi bhūtāni matsthānityu padhāraya.

CHAPTER III 53

The relative aspect of space is also discussed in the Gītā. The following incident will illustrate. The incident is given in the eleventh chapter of the Gitā. On the request of Arjuna, Krsna showed his cosmic form i. e. Viśvarūpa. Arjuna was bewildered to see that form. Krsņa endowed him with supernatural power of observation as it was difficult to see that form with ordinary eyes. Arjuna saw many worlds in that form at a time. This clearly speaks of the relativity of space and time. The concept of space as described in the Purānas, upapur- ānas and epics mostly refers to the conditioned space. The extent and divisions of Lokas and Pātālas support the above contention. However, the primeval worlds viz. Brahma, Vaikuntha and Kailasa vaguely refer to absolute space which is unlimited and unconditioned. The concept of space as de- picted by these texts cannot fairly be compared with the modern concept of space.

CHAPTER IV

Thc Concepts of Space and Time in the Buddhist

and Jaina Thought

PART-A

The Indian School of Buddhism is divided into two broad groups, viz. Hīnyāna and Mahāyāna. MahāyānIsts innovated such nomenclatures in order to prove their superiority over the other. There are two main schools of Hinyāna : Vaibhāșika and Sauträntika. Likewise there are two main schools under Mahāyāna also : Yogācāra and Mādhyamika or Šūnyavāda. The Sarvästivāda is one of the oldest schools of Buddhism. The doctrine of this school has been fully developed into a sys- tem under the Vaibhāşika system. Time comes under the category of Samskrta Dharmas according to Vaibhāşikas. While describing Samskrta Dharmas four synonyms, viz. Adhvā, Kathāvastu, Saniḥsāra and Savas- tuka have been used. Adhvā means that constituted objects are subject to time. Kathāvastu refers to past, present and future which are applicable to composite objects, Saniḥsāra means that all constituted objects are subject to disappearance. Savastuka means that constituted objects are conditioned by causes. Out of the past deeds, fresh existence arises. 1 Vasubandhu, in his authoritative work Abhidharma Kośa, 2 says that because one asserts the existence of things in three

1. Sphooțartha-I. 7-Te Punaḥ Samskrta Dharmā; rūpādiskandha- pañcakam. Te evadhvā Kathāvastu Saniḥsāra Savastukāh. 2. Abhidharma-V25 - 26 ( Caturvidhāh ete. Bhāva - lakșaņā- Vastha - nyatha nyathikahvayah ). Trtiyah Sobhanoadhvānab Kāritrena Vyavasthitāh ).

CHAPTER IV 55

times, past, present and future, one is named as Sarvāstivādin. Sarvāstivādins emphatically assert the existence of past, pre- sent and future.

The Sarvastivadins uphold the three divisions of time on the following grounds :-

(a ) The first argument is based on scriptural sayings. Buddha has said in Samyuktāgama 1 that Rūpa is non-eternal. Further he has asked the Śravakas to remain unconcerned with the past rüpa, the present rüpa and the future rüpa. The Sar- vāstivādins hold that, if the past rüpa does not exist there is no need of giving any warning to Śrāvakas to remain uncon- cerned with the past rupa. The same argument applies to present and future also.

(b) The next interpretation points out that every Vijñāna is produced out of two causes-sense organ and sense object (rūpa ). If there are no past and future objects, the mental consciousness of those objects will be impossible. 2

(c ) If an alambana ( object ) is there, then and there alone vijñāna is possible. This necessitates a belief in past and future times.

(d) If the past does not exist, how can past act, good or bad, produce any result ? When the effect is produced, the cause ( Vipaka-hetu ) becomes defunct and the thing of the past, because it does not produce the same effect again. 3

Thus the Vaibhāsika establishes the existence of entities in three divisions of time. Here a pertinent question arises as to

1. Samyuktagama-III 14. Rupamanityamatītamanāgatam. 2. Samyuktagama - III. 32; ( Sphooțārthā-Na dvayam Pratitya Manovijñānam Syāt ; yadatītānāgatālamvanmiti visesah. Tato Vijnanameva Syāt Ālamvanābhāvāditi. 3. Sphoota-Vidyamana-Svalakşanam Subhasubhamatitam Karma. Vipaktikāla Utpadyamānaphalatvāt. Varttamāna Dharmavaditi.

56 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

how can the Buddhists hold the continued existence of the entities in three divisions of time when it is asserted by all Buddhists that all existents are impermanent. Of course, the Vaibhāșikas believe in three eternal entities or Asamskrta Dharmas namely Ākāśa. Pratismkhyānirodha and Apratisam- khyānirodha. These entities are not subject to birth, decay and extinction. Besides these unchanging eternals, they affirm the existence of seventy two categories or dharmas in Aristotelian sense which though constantly undergoing change maintain their existence in all the three divisions of time. The Vaibhaşikas admit, they are momentary and perma- nent at the same time. This assertion has provoked contro- versy and the Sautrāntikas, and so also Nāgārjuna have sub- jected them to relentless criticism. How can these two con- tradictorily opposite characters namely permanence and cease- less change be reconciled in the one and the same entity ? In answer to this charge, four different theories have been pro- pounded by four reputed Ācāryas ( teachers ) of Vaibhāșika School. It is plausible that these Acaryas ( teachers ) were the founders of different sub-schools. The views of these Ācāryas ( teachers ) are given below 1 :-

(a ) Bhadanta Dharmaträta-He is the advocate of the doctrine of difference of modes ( Bhāvanyathātva ). He says that when there is a change in anything, that change is only in modes, the substance is not affected at all. Gold is changed into different ornaments yet it remains gold in and through all these transitions. When a certain object renounces its future mode, it assumes present mode; and when it leaves present mode, it assumes past modes; yet the object remains the same throughout. The change is in the form only. (b) Bhadant Ghosaka says that changes undergone by objects are in its distinguishing character ( Laksana). He argues that though past is attributed with the specialities of past

1. T. S .- Sir Ganga Nath Jha-XXI.

CHAPTER IV 57

yet it does not renounce fully the characteristics of present and future. Likewise, future also retains the characteristics of past and present. For instance, a person attached to one lady, may maintain relations with other ladies also. Thus he em- phasises that the notions of three divisions of time are simul- taneously present in an object.

(c ) Bhadanta Vasumitra is a staunch champion of the theory of Avasthänyathika. In other words, he maintains that the changes undergone by the objects take place in their states ( Avasthä ). The same flgure is one or hundred or thousand according to the change of positions of states. Similarly, when a thing is in the state of activity ( Käritra ), it is present. when it has ceased from action, it is past and when it is not active at all, it is future. So the things are spoken of according to their different 'states though there is no change in the thing itself.

( d ) The doctrine of Anyatha-anyathika is held by Bhadanta Buddhadeva. He holds that changes are due to changes in relation ( anyathänyathika ). He argues that an object is called one or other in relation to what has gone before or what is to come. For example, the same woman is called daughter, wife and mother, and according to changing contexts when some- thing precedes and something suceeeds, it is the present. When there is no preceding factor, there is a succeeding factor, it is past. When there is a preceding factor but there is no succeed- ing factor, it is future.

In his Abhidharmakośabhāsya, Vasubandhu has criticised the theories propounded by three teachers namely Bhadanta Dharmatrāta, Bhadanta Ghoșaka and Bhadanta Buddhadeva and has accepted the theory of Vasumitra though he is not fully satisfied with his theory also. Bhadanta Dharmatrāta is said to have walked into the spider's parlour. In other words, he has accepted the Sämkhya doctrine by asserting the reality of change. According to his theory, the present becomes

58 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

the past and the future becomes the present. But do the future and the present or the present and the past coincide ? If in the transition from one temporal state to another, there is no renunciation of the previous states, they will coalesce. The future, the present and the past will be heaped together in one whole and this will obliterate the distinction altogether. If the previous mode is supposed to lapse, the central doctrine of universal existence collapses.

The doctrine of Bhadanta Ghoșaka does not safeguard the position of the Sarvāstivādins. Are the characteristics 'past- ness', 'presentness' and 'futureness' numerically identical with or different from the entity ? In the former case, the confusion of characteristics is bound to arise. In the latter case, the characteristics will not qualify the entity and will hang in vacuum with no support to stay on. The illustration of a. person attached to one lady and at the same time maintaining relations with other ladies also is a complete hoax. The attach- ment to one is not incompatible with that to the others but pastness is obviously inconsistent with presentness and futurity. The past man or thing must be different from the present, and the doctrine of universal existence amidst change is untenable and utterly absurd.

The fourth theory of Bhadanta Buddhadeva has made these temporal characteristics relative to temporal divisions. But he has not pointed out how the past becomes different from the present or the future. The definitions of past or present or future do not overcome the confusion. The future becomes present and the present becomes past. If these characteristics are always present, the confusion cannot be removed, but if they are supposed to be non-existent in one position or the other, the doctrine of universal existence will collapse. The difficulty lies in the dynamic nature of time itself in relation to which the different changes are explained by Buddhadeva. It seems Buddhadeva has faîled to visualise this nature of time.

CHAPTER IV 59

The example of the same woman being mother or daughter is not mutually opposite. The terms of reference are fixed and they cannot coalesce. It is not the case with temporal determi- nations, here time itself is absolutely dynamic hence the tem- poral determinations are found to be affected.

The third theory of Vasumitra, which is based on causal efficiency ( Kāritra ), is acceptable to ·Vasubandhu. According to his theory, the past and the future are said to be divested of the causal efficiency. Only the present is capable of exercising this efficiency. This theory makes possible the demarcation between the present and the past or the future. We shall show that this theory also does not solve the problem. The causal efficiency ( Kāritra ) would either be identical with the entity or not. If it were an external determination, somehow attached to it, it would make the entity present and existent, but would make it a non-entity in the past and future, for causal efficiency is the criterion of existence. If on the other hand, causal effici- ency were to be present in all the divisions of time, it would obliterate the distinction between fthe past and the present and vice versa. Sarvāstivādins hold that an entity continues to exist for all times but at the same time assert that it exercises causal efficiency only in the present. This position is self-contradic- tory. It amounts to saying that it is both existent and non- existent.

Though names of reputed teachers of Buddhism have been associated with the interpretation of changes given above, it seems that it is a borrowing from the Sämkhya-yoga doctrine of Pariņāma. It is now universally admitted that Sāmkhya-yoga system preceded Buddhism in time and also it must have influ- enced Buddha's philosophical ideas and spiritual discipline. Buddha became the disciple of two Samkhya teachers namely Adara Kalan and Rudrak Rāmaputra. The fundamental doctrine of the dynamic conception of things was most likely borrowed from Sämkhya view of matter.

60 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Prof. R. Pischel holds : "theoritical Buddhism reposes enti- rely on Sāmkhya-yoga," ... "it has borrowed from Sämkhya- yoga almost everything." H. Oldenberg admits in modifed form the contention stated above. He says : "We have ample right to call Samkhya that doctrine which appears as the remote, if not the nearest, background of the fundamental ideas of Buddhism". Prof. R. Garbe and M. E. Senart admit still greater influence of Sämkhya-yoga on Buddhism. M. E. Senart however, is of the opinion that Buddhism is more dependent on yoga. 1 The opinions expressed by authorities quoted above give us reasonable ground to hold that the doctrine of Parināma ( change ) as maintained by reputed Buddhist teachers has also been borrowed from Sāmkhya-yoga. The nature of Pariņāma (change) is clearly stated in yoga-Bhāşya, III-13 : "Tatra Vyutthānanirodhayoh Abhina- vaprādurbhāvam dharmiņi dharmapariņāmaḥ. Lakșaņapariņ- ämo nirodhastrilakşanah tribhiradhvabhiryuktaḥ. Sa khalu anāgatlakşaņamadhvānam hitvā dharmatryamanatikrānto. Vartamānalakşaņam pratipannaḥ yatrāsya swarupeņa abhivya- ktiḥ ... Nirodha Kşaņesu nirodha samskāra Babvanto bhavanti, durbalā vyutthānasamskārāḥ, ityevam dharmāņāmavasthāpari- nāmah." Thus according to Sāmkhya-yoga the change of appearanc is the Dharma Pariņāma. Lakșaņa Pariņāma and Avasthā Pariņāma are intrinsically identical with Dharma pariņāma but they are separately mentioned as they possess certain distinguishing characteristics. Due to Lakșaņa Pariņāma certain thing comes into being and dies away. Though birth or death also is contained in the change of appearance yet on account of its special characteristic, it has been given a separate name as Lakşaņa-Pariņāma. This Pariņāma takes into account the three aspects of an appearance, viz. the unmanifested ( of the future ), the manifested ( of the present ) and manifested which is lost but conserved ( of the past ). Avasthā-Pariņāma

1. As quoted in Indian Historical quaterly-PP. 753-754.

CHAPTER IV 61

is considered as the mode of Laksaņa-Pariņāma. Due to this Pariņāma ( change ), a substance is said to be new or old.

The description of the doctrine of change ( Pariņāma ) as given above clearly proves that Buddhism has borrowed it from Sāmkhya-yoga.

Vasubandhu, in course of time developed a soft corner for Sautrantikas and championed their standpoint. A detailed discussion leading to the victory of Sautrantikas has been shown in Abdidharma-Kośa itself. 1 Certain explanations are given in Yasomitra's commentary and the Tibetan commentary of Mchims-pa, which is the standard work on Abhidharma in Mongolia and Tibet. 2

The Sautrantikas critically examine the arguments advanced by the Vaibhasikas for accepting the realities of three times viz. the past, the present and the future. An examination of these arguments from the Sauträntika standpoint is given below :- ( a ) The Sauträntika holds that the first argument of the Vaibhasikas, which is based on scriptural sayings, should be judged by its context. The assertion of our sublime lord, "there is a past, there is a future" should be understood in another sense. While the sublime lord was in discussion with the Ajivikas ( who denied moral responsibility for past deeds ), he asserted the existence of past and future also. He strongly disparaged the doctrine of the Ajivikas which denied any con- nection between past deeds and future result. He categorically asserted the existence of past and future, in order to make it known that a former cause and a future result are something which happened formerly and will happen in future. The word 'is' occurring in the above assertion should be taken as particle ( which may .refer to something existent and also to

1, Abhidharma-V-24-26. 2. Translated by Th. Stcherbatsky in the book, "The central con- ception of Buddhism.

62 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

something non-existent ). For intance, people may say : "there is absence of light" ( before it has been kindled ), "there is absence of light" ( after it has been put out ). When Buddha declared 'there is a past, there is a future', he used the word 'is' in that sense. 'Is' is here not a predicate but is more like a copula without any existential import.

(b) The second argument, which maintains that Vijñāna is produced by two causes, viz. sense organs and sense objects, is also disparaged. The Sauträntikas distinguish between mental object and sensuous object. They hold that the 'object' referred to above is not an active cause like the intellect. If it is taken as active cause then it will mean that events happening after a thousand aeons will constitute an active cause of corresponding cognition. But this position is absurd. If it is mere passive object of operating mind, then it can be maintained that they may be both future and past. Congnition reposes on two fac- tors : a perceptive faculty and a corresponding object. Is this object a real cause in the same sense as the intellect ? Or is it passive object realized by the intellect ? If it were a real active cause, how could events which must happen after the lapse of a thousand aeons, or those which will never happen possibly constitute an active cause of the correspounding cognition ? And the Final Deliverance, Nirvana which is synonymous with the total causation of every operation of all the elements of existence, how can it constitute a really active cause of its own conception ? But if on the other hand, such objects are mere passive objects of the operating mind, then we maintain that they may be future and may be past. Vaibhāșika raises an objection: if they ( objects ) do not exist, how can they possibly be objects ? To this Sauträntikas reply that their existence is admitted in the very form in which they are conceived at the pre- sent moment in the present place. In reply to another question as to how they are conceived as past and future, the Sautranti- kas say that when somebody remembers a past object or a

CHAPTER IV 63 former feeling, he has never been observed to say "it exists", but only "it did exist". They are existent only in the form in which they are conceived by us at the present time and at the present place. When somebody remembers a past object, he never ssys 'it exists', but only, 'it did exist'. (c) The Sauträntikas challenge the third argument also which maintains that Alambana is necessary for the produ- ction of Vijnāna ( cognition ). As sense objects, the past ones are remembered in that very form in which they were ex- perienced when they were present, and the future ones are known to Buddhas just in that form .in which they will be present. Thus to maintain the existence of past and future is futile. Both existence and non-existence may be objects of mental conception with apparent objective reference but this should not be construed as an objectively existent fact. It is what is called Vikalpa or Kalpanā in Dinnāga's epistemology. This Vikalpa is nothing but pure ideation which has been defined as the objective cognition in Yoga-Sutra. It is a purely subjective conception like that of a 'Square Circle' or a barren woman's son. ( Sabdajnāna anupāti Vastusunyoh Vikalpaḥ ) (d) As to the fourth argument ( in favour of the real ex- istence of the past, viz. because it has real result), it can be said that the Sauträntikas did never maintain that a result can be produced from a past deed ( directly ). 'This deed' is the beginning of the peculiar chain of events ( in course of which the result is produced sooner or later ). From the above examination it is quite clear that the Sau- trantikas maintain that only the present exists. 1 It seems that Vasubandhu also endorsed the view of the Sauträntika school. There is one school named Vibhajyavādins by Vasubandhu which has attempted a reconciliation between these two rival schools of Sautrāntikas and Vaibhāșikas. This school admits 1. Cf. Madhyamika, Vrtti - Sautrantikamate, atitānāgatam śtnyamanyadaśūnyam.

64 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

the reality of the present facts and of that part of the past ones which has not already lost its force but it 'denies the rea- lity of the future ones and of that past ones which has lost its force. 1 This school is known as Kassyapiyas in Kathāvastu. 2

On the basis of Vimsatikā of Vasubandhu, the yogācāra standpoint regarding space and time can fairly be known. Vasubandhu also embraced this system of thought. Vimśatikā is one of the important texts of this school.

According to this school, there is no reality aloof and apart from consciousness. The objects which appear as the sub- strata of consciousness are absolutely unreal. 3 The whole world of appearance does not enjoy better status than that of hallucination of a man of tainted vision.

The realists point out that if consciousness is to be regarded as the only reality, no rational explanation can be given for Spatio-temporal determination. This determination always presupposes experienced objects. Experience is found to occur in a particular space and not everywhere and in that space also it occurs at a particular time and not for all times. Thus the reduction of all objects to hallucinations will involve insoluble difficulties. 4

The Yogacarins hold that Spatio-temporal determination can be explained on rational grounds. This determination does not require at all any objective reality. They illustrate it on the analogy of dream experience. In dream though there are not any garden, women or men and the like existing in reality (independent of the dreams), yet these are experienced in a parti- cular place and at a particular time. This clearly shows that

1. Abhidharma and also Bhaşya-V. 24. 2. I. 8 ( Kathvattu ) 3. Vimśatikā-Verse I-Vijnapatimātramevaitadasadarihānbhāsanāt. Yathā Taimirikasyāsatkeśacandrādidarśanam, 4. Vimsatikā-Verse II-Anarthā yadī vijñapatirniyamo Desakālayoh.

CHAPTER IV 65

Spatio-temporal determination can be conceived even if there is no objective reality. 1 Thus space and time are only ideal appearances. Space and time perhaps are also conceived as uncaused, immutable and eternal by the Vaibhāşikas. But the Mādhya- mikas do not approve of this position. They hold that all things are related as cause and effect and an entity which is not related as such is non-existent. If the Vaibhāsika conten- tion is admitted, then space and time, which are uncaused, will become non-entities. "There is no existence anywhere which is not dependent. The permanent entity does not exist in reality anywhere". 2 Space and time have no objective existence even from the empirical standpoint. 3 They are not the objects of per- ception as other objects such as chairs, tables etc. are. By force of habit, we posit objective existence to these two mental concepts. Time is considered as an important factor which brings changes in the objects of the world. Time is also taken as all- pervasive and eternal as all objects are subject to time. Thus time is an ultimate cause. According to Mādhyamikas, there is sufficient reason to hold that time is not a cause. They adduce the following reasons in support of their contention :- Firstly, time is supposed to be an unchangeable and uniform entity. If it is a cause, it will mean that under its influence, things such as seeds will incessantly produce certain effect, which really does not happen. At one time, the seed produces

1. ibid-Verse III-Deśädiniyamah siddhaḥ svapnavat. 2. CŚ-R. 2; MK-XXIV. 19-Apratītyāstitā nāsti kadācit Kasyacit Kvacit ;- Na Kādācit Kvacit Kaścit vīdyate tena śaśvataḥ. 3. MK-IX. 5-Akasadim Kalpante Nityanīti Prthagjaneih Laukiken- āpi tesvarthān na Pasyanti Vicakşanāh. 5

66 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

effects and at another time, it does not. Time, as cause, will have to assume variable character. Thus it will be reduced to an impermanent entity as the seed itself.

Further an effect is the manifest form of cause. In other words, cause undergoes certain changes to produce an effect. The Seed perishes, then and there alone a sprout is brought forth. Likewise, time will have to modify itself to produce an effect, thus time as permanent and uncaus- ed entity, cannot produce anything at all. If any permanent entity is apprehended as cause of another entity it will mean that the particular entity is produced at random, for the cause does not share at all in the production. 1 Cause and effect should have the same nature, as the effect is nothing but the cause transformed. Time is taken as eternal, conse- quently the effect produced by time should also be eternal. But it is never the case. Thus there exists a disparity between the cause and the effect. The above argument fairly proves that time as permanent and uncaused entity can never stand as cause.

Nāgārjuna attacks the reality of three divisions of time, viz. past, present and future as advocated by the Vaibhāşikas. He holds that the existence of these three divisions of time is inter- dependent and relative. The existence of the present and the future depend on the past, so, they should exist in the past. 2 Thus they are included in the past. "If it is argued that the present and the future remain distinct and do not exist in the past; 3 a non-relative present or future is to be admitted and

1. CŚ-IX. 10-Śaśvatam Karaņam Yasya Bhavoabhūtvā sa jāyate Svamevodbhavastasya kāraņam vinivartate. 2. MK-XIXI; CŚ-XI. I Pratyutpanno nāgataśca yady atītam apeksya Pratyutpanno nāgataś ca kalo'tite bhavişyatab. 3. MK-XIIX. 2- Pratyutpannonāgatas' ca na stas tatra punar yadi, Pratyutpanno nāgatas ca syātām katham apekşyatam,

CHAPTER IV 67

that is not possible; and without distinctions, time too is not available". 1 Similar arguments may be adduced regarding the existence of the past also. The existence of time apart and aloof from the objects is inconceivable. 2 Time is always thought to exist in relation to changing objects. These changing objects themselves are unreal, consequently, time becomes unreal. Besides these schools, we should mention certain texts which , show a clear grasp of the concept of time. Milinda-Pañha has elaborately discussed the concept of time. 3 In reply to queries made by Milinda, it is stated that by time, we should mean the past, the present and the future. Thus the conditioned aspect of time is discussed. It says that there is time which exists and the time which does not. Here time is inter-related with dispositions ( Samskāra ). There are certain dispositions which have passed away, ceased to be, dissolved and altogether changed. To them time is not. But there are some dispositions which are still producing certain effects or which have the potentiality to produce effect or which will otherwise lead to reindividuation. To them time is. There are beings who suffer from the cycle of rebirth, for them time is. There are Arhatas, who have attained Nirvāņa, for them time is not. Thus Nirvāna is said to be a timeless state. The root of the past, the present and the future is said to be ignorance. Thus time is associated with the chain of causation. The beginning of time can not be known. It is made clear by the analogy of seed; egg, hen, egg etc. It is finally suggested that there is constant continuity between the past and the present and the present passes over to the future. Here it may be remarked that people generally regard

1. MK-XIX. 3 2. MK-XIX. 4. 3. Mil-2.2. 17-20.

68 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

time as progressing in a straight line from the infinite past through the present to the infinite future. Milinda-Panha regards time as a circle with no beginning or end. Time is relative. The wheel of life clearly suggests a representation of living being in relation to both space and time.

Kathāvattu has elaborately discussed the concept of time. But it does not give us any clear picture. According to this text, time distinctions have no objective existence and reality is confined to the present1. The past reality is destroyed and the future reality has not yet come into being. 'Reality' and 'Present' refer to the same entity. They are interchangeable terms. "When it gives up its reality, it gives up being present; when it gives up being present, it ceases to be real".2 Further this text points out that objects in time are not constantly fixed.3 Those who are ignorant of the true nature of reality, 'see only a continuous and static condition in these phenomena'.4 This text asserts the true momentariness of all consciousness on the one hand but on the other, it decries such theory.5 It emphasises the existence of sense matter, viz. trees etc. on the basis of canonical text.6 From the above contention, the conclusion may fairly be drawn that Kathāvattu admits consciousness to be momentary, but at the same time it does hold that material objects have some endurance, though they are not permanent. This view is in accordance with the canonical texts.

1. KV-I. 6-8. 2. K.V. I. 6; 5. 3. K.V.I. 10. 4. Ledi sadaw's view. 5. K.V. I1. 7.

2. M.N.I. 190.

CHAPTER IV 69

The minor views regarding the concept of time as gleaned from Kathävattu are summed up as follows :-

The Kassapikas of the Sabbattavädin group, does not fully agree with the tenets of the Vaibhāsika school and maintains that "those past things of which the effect is not matured exist, those past things of which the effect is matured do not exist."

The Andhakas and Pubbaseliyas maintain that "all things exist in time, by way of material and other qualities, as past, present or future, but that there is no past is at once future and present, nor any future and present that are also past, and therefore, all exists only as thus, and not as thus".

The Concept of Space Vasubandhu has divided Dharmas into Samskrta and Asamskrta according to Sarvāstivādins. Samskrta Dharma is that 'which is made up of elements or parts' hence it is destructible and mutable also.1 Asamskrta Dharma is that which is not composed of elements or non-composite. It is unproduced, indestructible and immutable.2 Ākāśa is one of the Asamskrta Dharmas. The chief nature of Akāśa is freedom from obstruction ( Anāvaranatva ) of limitlessness. Due to this characteristic, it is known as permanent and all-pervasive substance. It does not obstruct any other thing and at the same time it is not obstructed by other elements also. Innumerable objects are produced and destroyed at a time in Ākāśa without bringing any change in Ākāsa itself. Vasubandhu says, "Non-obstruc- tiveness is the very nature of Äkāśa and due to this characte-

1. Abhidharma Kośa-IKa. 4. "Samskrtā Margavarjitah ... " 2. ibid-I Ka 5- "Anaśrava Margasatam Trividhamcāpisam- skrtam Äkāśam dvo nirodho ca."

70 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

ristic it provides room for material objects"1. There is no other Dharma which partakes the nature of freedom from obstruction, hence an instance cannot be given to prove the non-obstructiveness of Äkāśa.2 Light and darkness are also non-obstructive in the sense that they do not obstruct other things but they are obstructed by other elements. Further they do not provide room for other elements as things exist both in light and darkness. Äkāśa should not be considered as void or non-existent, as Abhāva is a negative element. A negative element can never render possible the activity of other elements as Ākāśa does. Even if Abhava is taken as a positive element (as in Sāmkhya philosophy) it is never a Sapratiyogika ( relative ) element as Ākāśa is. Thus Ākāśa is not non- existential in nature. It is positive ( Bhāvarūpa ). Śankara in Šānkarabhāșya on Brahmasūtra has criticised the concept of Ākāśa or space as held by Vaibhāșikas on the following grounds3 :- (i) "You cannot call Ākāśa-Nirūpākhya as it is a Vastu or substance". ( ii ) "To say that Akāsa is nothing but the general absence of Avarana would hardly meet your case. Suppose one bird is flying. It would create an Avarana or covering of space, consequently a second bird cannot fly at the same time as there would be no space left for it to do so".

Buddhist objection.

"But the second bird may fly where there is no Āvarana or a covering".

1. Abhidharma Kośa-I. Ka 5-"Tatrakasam anavrtih" Sphooțartha-I Ka 5- "Avakāsam dadātityākaśamiti nirvacanam. Bhrśamasyantaḥkāśante Bhāvā Ityākāsamityapare." 2. Sphooțarthā-I. 5- "Tadepratyakşavişayatvadanyadharmanāvrtyanumiyate." 3. Brahmasutra ( Bhaşya )-I1.2.24.

CHAPTER IV 71

Answer. "Your objection points out that Ākāsa is a real Vastu or entity, since it is that by which the absence of covering bodies is distinguished. In other words, it is space in the ordinary sense, and not, in your Buddhist sense, mere 'absence of covering bodies'. If you ask yourself what enables you to declare that there is absence of covering in one place and not in another, the answer will be "space" which, therefore, must be something real". (iii ) "With respect to his views regarding space, the Buddhist contradicts himself. For instance, in a Buddhist Sūtra, Buddha is represented as saying, "Air has for its basis Ākāsa" in answer to the question "what is the basis of air ?"1 This saying of Buddha clearly admits that Ākāśa is a positive entity and not mere negation as the Buddhists maintain." ( iv ) "Moreover, the Buddhist statement concerning the Asamskrta dharmas is self-contradictory. They say they are Nirūpākhya ( i. e. non-definable ); in spite of their being so, they characterise them as eternal. Now when a thing is not a vastu or a reality, you can not speak of its being eternal or non-eternal, because contradiction of attributes entirely depends on a thing being real". An examination of S'ankar's views. (i) "The term Nirupākhya is never used by the Buddhist while describing A-Samskrta Dharmas. Even if it is a Buddhist epithet, it does not mean "undefinable" as Śamkara takes it to be. It simply means 'Nihsvarūpam' or devoid of form. Besides, the Sarvāstitvavādins regard Ākāśa as a positive element, all-pervasive and eternal. It is a vastu, if by Vastu is meant an entity but it is not a Vastu, if Vastu is taken as a material thing. According to Buddhists Ākāśa is immaterial. Thus Śankara has mis-understood the Buddhist technical term 'Nirūpākhya' or immaterial thing", 1. D.N. II. 107.

72 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

( ii ) Āvaraņa means 'obstruction', consequently 'Anāva- raņa means freedom from obstruction. Śankara has misinter- preted this term also. He gives it a wrong sense viz. 'occupa- tion of space', to prove his point that Akāa is a positive entity. Ākāśa is regarded as a positive entity even by Sarvās- tivādins. Hence the charge levelled against the Sarvāstivādins does not stand at all. (iii ) The 'Sūtra' quoted by Śankara in support of his contention, speaks about common sense view of 'sky' and not in the Philosophical sense of 'space'. ( iv ) This charge is based on the misinterpretation of the Buddhist technical term 'Nirūpākhya' as already pointed out. Ākāśa or space is regarded by the Sautrāntikas as mere conceptual form bereft of any objectivity. They do not posit any uncaused category and reduce the permanent and eternal element like Ākāśa of the Vaibhāșikas to mere intellectual fictions. They have vehemently criticised the Vaibhāșikas for regarding an uncaused fiction as an existential category. They point out that Ākāśa ( space ) is nothing but the absence of something tangible or resisting substance just as a man in darknesss says it is Ākāśa ( vacuity or space ) when he does not perceive anything tangible or resistible; likewise the Ākāsa of the Vaibhāșika should be understood1. While replying to Uddyokatara, Kamalaśīla observes- "your statement, that uncaused categories are twofold, viz, eternal and non-existent, only shows your ignorance of the opponent's ( Buddhist's ) position, as the Buddhist rationalists ( Sautrantikas ) hold uncaused categories as non-existent fictions. Verily it has been said by the Master "The Boddhisattva

1. Sphooțardha-II. 55-Na rupādibhyah pancabhyoh samskrtam bhavantaramasti. Ato na samskrtam Dravāntaramiti Sautrāntikāḥ.

CHAPTER IV 73

while reviewing the entire phenomenal world does not find a single phenomenon, which is exempt from the law of causa- tion. As regards the Vaibhāsikas who regard Ākāśa and the like as having objective existence, they are classed by us with the heretical schools and are not the true followers of Buddha ( Śākyaputrīyāḥ )"1 Thus the Vaibhāsika standpoint regarding the concept of space is condemned as rank heresy. The Lankāvatāra Sütra is considered to be one of the texts of Yogacara school. The standpoint of Yogacara school with respect to the concept of space can well be known on the basis of this text. Those Philosophers, who do not know the real nature of space, discriminate between the separate existence of space and form. In reality, space is form. These two interpenetrate and cannot be separated at all. To establish the relation of the supporting and the supported, there obtains the separation of the two, space and the form. Discriminations regarding space and form may be discarded as fictitious like a hare's horn.2 Space is generally conceived as an all-pervasive entity which provides accommodation to other elements of the world. It is said to be non-composite also. These two characteristics of space endow eternity and permanence to space. But Madhyamikas do not accept this position. They critically examine the nature of space and hold that space is also compo- site, i. e. made up of parts. If the space is non-composite, a particular object like chair will occupy the entire space, leaving no room for other objects to be accommodated. If it be argued that a chair exists in one part of space leaving sufficient room in another part for other objects to exist, it will amount to saying that space has also parts like other

1. T.S.P., P. 140, II. 8-12 ( Tattvasamgraha Panjikā ). 2. Lankā-53-54 Sutra-page 48.

74 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

material objects.1 Space is alwaya known by such epithets as 'here', 'there' and 'elsewhere'. These epithets clearly speak of the compositeness of space. Composite entities are always conditioned by causes. Thus space also is reduced to someth- ing impermanent and mutable.

Further, if it is argued that space is a mental notion devoid of objective existence, the purpose of the Mādhyamikas is served as they do also hold that space is subjective form ( Vikalpa ).

On the basis of Kathävattu2, space is described as a perm- anent concept. Space is void, unperceivable and without objective existence. Strangely enough Kathāvattu goes so far as to maintain that Ākāśa is not an Asamskrta Dharma or unconditioned entity.

Ten characteristics of space have been shown in Milinda- panha-"Space is unborn, undecaying, permanent, static, unknown, absolute, not to be stolen, independent, non- obstructive, and infinite"3.

Some minor views with respect to space as gleaned from Kathavattu are stated below4 :-

Space possesses three modes, viz. limited, without any objective reference and void. The first mode is conditioned, while the other two are mere mental fictions. The Uttarapa- thakas and Mahisaskas hold that the latter two modes are unconditioned as they are mental fictions.

The Andhakas hold that void space is visible as we cognise enclosed space like keyholes. Thus space is rūpa i. e. material visible object. There are some who do not agree with the view of the Andhakas and maintain that enclosed space is not

1. CŚ-IX. 6 Pradeśini na sarvasmi pradeśo nāma vartate. 2. KV. VI. 2, 4. 6; XIX 3, 4. 3. Tasmāt Suvyaktam Anyo'pi Pradeśo'śti Pradeśini. Mil-(4.8.81) 4. KV-VI-2, 4, 6; XIX, 3, 4.

CH APTER IV 75

visible such as the enclosed space between two pillars. It is a figment of ideation and not an object of sense-cognition.

A critical re'sume

We have enumerated the views of the different schools and sub-schools of Buddhist thought on the nature of space. The divergence of views regarding a very commonplace fact which is inevitably encountered in everyday experience only proves that the nature of things is not capable of being determined in the light of commonsense. It is undeniable as Kant has shown that there can be no experience of outer objects without reference to space. The difference of philosophers' appraisal ultimately reduces to the issue whether space is a subjective concept or an objective real existing in its own right. The idealists, particularly subjectivists, cannot be expected to subscribe to an external reality like space. If there be no extramental object, space will also have no raison d'etre. Kant regarded it as a subjective form of intuition. Realists would regard it as a form of external matter in the sense that it must be there as the universal objective conditioning all external objects whether perceived or inferred. One remerkable feature of space consists in its opposition to division. Space divided will be nothing but space, because it is devoid of sensible qualities. The idealists have found in it a veritable crux for the realists. Space defies all limitations whether it is a notion or an objective fact. However much the analysis of the concept of space may demonstrate its refractory nature, one cannot get rid of it. This also holds good of time mutatis mutandis. Time can be reduced to atoms ideally but it transcends all such attempts at division. It eludes all grasp of it. The analytical division attempted by philosophers only shows that time as well as space can be viewed as one and many according to the exige- ncies of our knowledge of things. The problem, therefore, will ultimately turn out to be reconciliation of one and many.

76 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

The philosophers have revelled in exposing the antinomies inherent in the compresence of unity and diversity. Whatever be one's philosophical predilections, it is an ineluctable concept.

PART-B Jaina concept of time and space Kāla is real ( sat ) according to Jaina Philosophy, as it possesses origination, decay and permanence which is the characteristic of all reals1. This philosophy admits the reality of change and motion in physical domain, and growth and development in organic world, hence it has to maintain the reality of Kāla. If Kāla is reduced to illusion, then consequ- ently change and growth also become unreal appearance. Kāla is a substance ( Dravya ). In the beginning, it has not been mentioned as dravya by the Sūtrakāra but its function is described. Later on, it is included in the list of Dravyas2. Dravya or substance is that which possesses Gunas ( qualities ) and Paryāya ( modes )3. Kāla makes the modifications of Pudgalas ( physical objects ) and also of spiritual objects possible4. Kāla is ever present, hence material objects ( Pudg- als ) undergo constant changes5. Constant change is the very nature of these Pudgalas, yet there must be an efficient cause. Just as the axle of the potter does not create any movement in the wheel rather it simply keeps the wheel moving, likewise kāla assists in the changes of Pudgalas6. Without Kala the

1. Tattvartha-V. 30-Tadabhavavyayani nityam. 2. ibid-V.39-Kālasca; Pancāstikāya-102 3. Tattvarthasutra-Guna-Paryāyavat Dravyam 4. Dravyasamgraha-Gathā-11. 5· Pancāstikāya-98-Jivāh pudgalakāyah saha sakriya bhavanti na ca śeșaņ ......... Kālakaraņāstu. 6. Dravyasamgraha-Gatha 21 ( Vrtti )-Svakiyopadarupena Svameva parināmamananam padarthanam kumbhakāracakrayāghastana ( Sivat )

CHAPTER IV 77

evolution of the world will cease to be. In the absence of samaya ( moment ) the origination and destruction of objects will appear as strange phenomena. Thus it may fairly be concluded that käla or time is a substance.

Jaina thought maintains that there are two kinds of Kāla ( time )-viz. Vyavahāra kāla (Empirical time ) and Niśca- yakäl1 ( transcendental time ). Innumerable and partless atoms of time ( kalāņus ) which fill the Lokākāśa is Niścayakāla. In alokākāśa there is absence of matter ( Pudgala ), hence there is absence of Kālāņus also. These anus ( ultimate particles ) are not capable of mixing up with one another, hence they always remain separate. They cannot form a skandha. They are compared to the heaps of jewels ( Rayanan rasimiva ). The jewels embedded in a garland remain separate, likewise these aņus do not form a Kāya ( aggregate ) as other five Dravyas or substances do2. Besides, each kalāņu occupies only one Pradeśa ( Space point ), hence it does not possess a kāya3. Pradesa is that portion of space which is obstructed by an aņu4 ( atom ). These Kalāņus are imperceptible, formless and inactive5. Thus they have existence but no extension. According to Jaina thought, extension is of two dimensions viz. Urdhva-Pracaya ( vertical extension ) and Tiryaka-Pra- caya ( horizontal extension ). Besides kāla, all other Dravyas possess extensions in both these dimensions. As kala consists of infinite samaya ( instants ) hence it possesses Urdhva- Pracaya ( vertical extension ). Käla occupies only one Prad- eśa hence it does not contain Tiryak-Pracaya ( horizontal

1. Pancastikaya-100-Kalabpariņām bhavaļ. Parināmo Dravyakāla- sambhutaḥ. Dvayoreşa Svabhāvah Kalah Kșanabhanguro niyatah 2. Dravyasamgraha-25. 3. Dravyasamgraha-Gathas-24.26 4. Dravyasamgraha-Gatha-2. 5. Tattvātthasāra-III. 44.

78 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

extension )1. This vertical extension of kāla points to the fact that the world is constantly growing and developing with the help of kāla or time.

The Niścayakāla is the substratum of Vyavahārakāla or samaya2. It is never the cause of the changes of substance, it simply helps in producing changes. It is eternal3. Vyavahārakāla is also known as samaya in Jaina thought4. This samaya is the very modification of Niścayakāla. But it is made explicit by the movements of jivas ( living beings ) and Pudgalas ( physical objects ). This Vyavahārakāla is depen- dent on Niścayakāla for the determination of its measure5. Vyavahārakāla has a beginning and an end whereas Niścayakāla is eternal and infinite6.

The chief characteristic of Niścayakāla is Vartanā i. e. con- tinuance or duration7.

Käla or time assists in maintaining the existence of other substances. It is the substratum of all changes and transform- ations. In other words, it helps in origination, decay and permanence of the entire universe. It also helps in growing young and old8. Kāla ( empirical ) also undergoes change, growth and decay, viz, Utsarpini and Avasarpini.9 It is itse!f

1. Dravyasamgraha-Gathās-22 & 49. Pravacanasāra-Samaya-Viśista Vrtti Pracayastadurdhvapracayaḥ Pradesapracayo hi tiryak pracayah. 2. Pancāstikāya 100 3. ibid-100 4. V. 50-Tattvarthasütra-Soanantasamayaḥ. 5. Pancastikaya-25 ... Kālaḥ parāyattaḥ. 6. Pańcāstikāya - 100 7. Pravacanasāra-"Sarvadravya vartanā nimitta bhutaḥ" 8. Tattvārthasūtra-V.22 Vartanā Parināmakriyā paratvāparatve ca Kālasya. 9. Tattvārthasūtra-III. 27-Şațsamayābhyāmutsarpiņyavasarpiņi- bhyãm,

CHAPTER IV 79 the cause of change. If any other cause is posited for the change of kāla, it will lead to the fallacy of infinite regress. Kāla is an independent entity and its chief function is to assist in bringing changes in other substances. Division of Time The smallest unit of kāla is samaya. Samaya is defined as the period of time taken by an anu ( atom ) in traversing to îts consecutive aņu ( atom )1. Vyavahāra kāla consists of infinite samaya. The time taken by a normal adult person in inhaling and exhaling is Prāņa. Seven Prānas comprise one Stoka. Seven stokas make one Lava. Thirty eight and a half Lavas form one Nali. To Nalis make one muhurta. Thirty muhurtas form one Ahoratra. Fifteen Ahoratras form one Paksa. Two Paksas make one month. Two months together make a Rtu { season ). Three Rtus make one Ayana. Two Ayanas form ā year. Five years make a Yuga. The Yugas are named as Saurya, Savan, Cāndra, Nakșatras and Abhivadhite. Eighty four lacs of years form a Purvangas. One Purva consists of eighty four lacs of Purvängas. The higher compu- tations are known as Ayuta, Kamala, Nalina etc.2 The greatest unit of kāla is Mahākāla, which is the sum total of Utasarpiņi and Avasarpiņi kāla and the smallest unit is 'samaya'. A Critical Re'sume' The conception of time in Jaina ontology seems to bear close affinity with that of the Vaisesika. The Niścaya kāla3 1. Tattvarthasutra-V.40 2. Tattvarthasutra-IV. 15-Tatkrtaḥ Kālavibhāgaņ; Pancāstikāya 25. 3. Tattvārtham Niścayo bakti Vyavahāro tathoditam ( Niścaya naya represents the transcendental standpoint which takes stock of things in their intrinsic character apart from their relation to and consequent interruption of other things. Vyavahara is the empirical standpoint which takes stock of the changes induced by external reals which are interrconnected and interuptive )

80 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME corresponds to the metaphysical unitary kāla called also Mahā- kāla. This one, infinite, eternal, unchanging time hardly fits in with the empirical events. These events have a before and an after. In fact, as Bradley in his Appearance and Reality has shown, time is inconceivable without a before and an after. Even the smallest atom of time, variously designated as Kșaņa ( moment ), Samaya in Jaina terminology, is found to be liable to fission into a before and an after. Idealists have made capital out of this trait of time and have reduced it to a subjec- tive concept or an illusion. We observed before that however much the philosophers may exult in their condemnation of time, it is impossible to do without it in both common place and scientific estimation of things. Time as eternal 'now' is a grand concept but an average man finds in it nothing but bizarerie. The ultimate reality is perhaps timeles. But constituted as we are, the human mind cannot make a picture of it. The Jainas make change the sssential character of all reals. Though change may be intrinsic, it is intelligible only in terms of time. Obviously there seems to yawn an unbridgeable gulf between the metaphysical time and the empirical time. It is obvious that the antinomies found in the concept of time which though diverse must be one, have unbalanced many a philo- sopher. Time is one, and at the same time many. It is eternal, yet perishing every moment and arising again like phoenix from its ashes. The Jaina philosopher with his law of Anekanta which steers clear of the antinomies invented by pure Logic, could have given an intelligible account of time as a constant variable. Every real is dynamic according to Jaina thought and so also time. But the diversity entailed by changes does not reduce it to atoms as is done by the Buddhist fluxist. An eternal time with everchanging moments would answer to the exigencies of logic and experience both. But we are disappointed to find the Jaina philosopher unconsciously trapped in the trammels of conventional philosophy who keeps the two types of

CHAPTER IV 81 time-one, unitary and eternal continuance and another dispersed in diverse discrete moments in two water-tight compartments. The Concept of Space ( Akasa ) Jaina thought exalts the reality af Ākāsa or space. The existence of Pudgalas depend on spatial accommodation.1 Space is devoid of the qualities of Pudgala. It has no colour, no taste, no touch, and no smell. It is eternal existence, form- less and inactive.2 It is also unconscious. Ākāśa or space possesses both innumerable and infinite Pradesas hence it is aśtikāya ( extended body ). Śabda arises from Skandha ( a class of material objects existing apart ). In other words, sound is material in character. It is not the nature of Ākāsa. If it is the nature of Ākāśa it should also partake of the nature of being formless like Ākāśa. In that case, it cannot be grasped through the organ of hearing, which possesses form. Thus it is not the nature or the quality of Ākāśa.3 Regarding sound ( Sabda ), the Jainas have got an original theory of their own. They regard it as matter existing indepen- dently and alongside of other material objects. When the sound matter comes in contact with the auditory organ by moving forward to the eardrum, auditory perception takes place. As we have observed before, it is not the quality of Ākāša as Vaiseșika holds but some kind of substance. It is noteworthy that a school of MImämsakas also hold that sound is a substance and not a quality of Ākāśa. According to them, Śabda ( word ) is a metaphysical entity which is eternal. 1. Pancāstikāya-90. Śarvesān Jivānān Śeșanān tathaiva Pudgalānān ca yaddadāti vivarmakhilan Talloke Bhavatyakņsam. 2. Tattvārthasūtra-4.7. 3. Tatparyavrtti on Pancastikaya-79. Bhāsāvargaņāskandebhya utapadyate ityupādakah niyato niścitah na cākāśdravyarūpas tad guņo vā yadvākāsaguno bhavate tarhi. Śravanendriyavişayo na bhavati kasmīt Ākasaguņasyamur- tatvāditi. 6 A. T.

82 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

As regards Ākāśa, it is the name of space in Jaina ontology. No distinction is made between Ākāśa and Dik as is done in Vaiśeşika.

Ākāsa is that which provides room for Dharma, Adharma, Kāla and Pudgalas. Dharma and Adharma pervade entire Lokākāśa ( mundane space ). ( Tattvārthasūtra-V.9 ( Bhāsya ) -Lokāsasya tu Dharmā-dharmaikjim Vaistulyaḥ. This aspect of Ākāśa is called Lokākāśa ( mundane space ) 1 Lokākāśa or mundane space consists of innumerable Pradeśas. It is limited. Here a pertinent question arises : how does Lokākāśa or mun- dane space accomodate infinite physical objects ? The reply is : just as a small room accommodates innumerable lights or just as a small bag contains innumerable gold coins, likewise Lokākāśa, which has innumerable Pradeśas, contains infinite physical objects. 2 Beyond this Lokākāśa (mundane space ) there exists Alokākāśa ( Extra-cosmic space ). This Alokākāśa (extra cosmic space ) is devoid of physlcal objects. It has infinite Pradeśas.3 It is also indestructible. Jaina Philosophy maintains that Śabda or sound is not the quality of Ākāśa as some other philosophers hold. Śabda ( sound) is produced by the collision of two Skandhas.

1. Pancastikaya-91 and Tattvarthaśutra-V. 12. Jīvā Pudgalakāyah dharmādharman ca loka to manye Tato'nanyadanyadakāsamantavyatiriktam. 2. Tatparyavrtti on Pancastikaya-91. Ekāpavarke ānekapradipaprakāśa Vadekagudhanāgarasagad- yāņake. 3, Pancastikaya-91 Tatvarthasutra-V9 Ākāśasyānantaḥ.

CHAPTER V

The Concepts of Space and Time in the Nyaya-Vaisesika The Existence of Time

The Nyāya-Vaisesika system believes in the theory of crea- tion. Kāla is considered as the eternal back-ground of the creative process. 1 Time is the cause of things that .are pro- duced. Besides, time is conceived as the substratum of the notions of priority ( Paratva ) and posteriority ( aparatva ), of simultaneity ( Yaugapadya ) and succession ( ayaugapadya ), and of quickness ( Ksipratva ) and slowness ( ciratva ). 2 Oridinarily priority means the lapse of larger amount of time and posteriority means the lapse of smaller amount of time. If they are used in the above sense, the inference of time becomes superfluous. Hence in Nyāya-Vaiseșika system, the notions of priority and posteriority are related with the revolutions of sun. A proposition such as 'Now there is the jar' takes into consideration the motion of the sun and so on. When we say 'now', we automatically refer to the motion of sun above or below the horizon by so many degrees 3 Likewise the notions of priority and posteriority depend on the revolution of sun. These two qualities are possessed by every produced object in respect to its relation to a relatively

1. N. K .- Page 22-Sarvesām Samyoginām murtadravya-namākāśah Samānodeśa eka ādhāra ityarthaļ ...... Bhașā- Pariccheda-45- Janyānāń Janakaņ, Kālo Jagatamāśrayo mataḥ. 2. Bhass Pariccheda-46 - Paratvaparatvadhīhetuh VS., II. 2. 6; PPBh, P. 63-Kalaḥ Parāparvyatikarayaugpadya-yaugpadyaci- rakşiprpratyayalingam. 3. Siddhānta Muktavalī-45. Idanīm ghata Ityādipratītiḥ Sūryaparispandādinā ghațādeḥ sambandho vācyaḥ.

84 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

large or small number of revolutions of the sun. In other words, when we say Devadatta is prior to Yajfadatta, it is the same thing as to say that Yjñadatta is posterior to Devadatta. The above statement clearly indicates that Devadatta is related to a larger number of solar revolutions than Yajñadatta. 1 Now a pertinent question arises : how can any object be related at all with the solar motion ? No direct relation of samavāya is thought of as the motion of the sun inheres in the sun alone. The relation of Samyoga ( conjunction ) is not possible between the object and the rotating sun as they are situated at wide distances. Thus they are supposed to be related through a connecting link. 2 That connecting link must be a substance which is in con- junction both with the object and with the sun in which motion inheres. The connecting substance must be of unlimited mag- nitude as it has to determine the priority and posteriority of all finite substances of the world. In other words, it must be an ubiquitous substance. Now there are two other ubiquitous sub- stances viz. Ākāśa and soul. But these two, though they are ubiquitous, cannot be a connecting link, The ubiquitous sub- stance in question should not only establish relation between the object and the sun but should also be capable enough to establish relation between the object and the motion of the sun. Both Ākāśa and soul lack this capability. If Ākāśa possesses the capacity, then it should be possible that the sound

1. Siddhānta-Muktāvali-46. Paratvāparatvabuddherasādhāraņan nimittām Kāla eva. NVTT, II. 1. 39-Suryodayāstamayakriya- pracayalpattva - bahutvavi- siştatpindadeva paratvāparatvebhavişyatah Krtamatra dravyān- tareņa Kāleneti cet, 2. Na Ca Stryagatih Sakşātpiņdasambadha, nāpi samyuktasamavāyah Sambhavati piņdasūryayoḥ Samyogābhāvāt ...... Evrieaitādrsame- kam dravyam svikāryam yat yāvatpindasūryasambadham- KVBha-Page-137.

CHAPTER V 85

produced by a particuar stroke in one drum should cause similar sound in other drums as Ākāśa is connected with those drums also being an ubiquitous substance. If the soul establi- shes such relation, then finite things will acquire peculiar attributes as it is connected with all finite things. In other words, the fragrance of rose will be perceived in sandalwood and the yellowness of gold will be perceived in white lily. It seems plausible to hold that mere conjunction of substances with a third never guarantees any connection between one of the two substances and the property of another. The absurd position shown leads the Vaiśeika to posit a unique substance which may establish indirect relation between the finite sub- stances and the Sun. This unique substance is named Kāla ( time ) in Vaiśeşika system. 1

Regarding Kāla also, it may be argued that if it is posited as the connecting link between two substances, it is not immune from the difficulties faced by the two ubiquitous substances, viz., soul and Ākāśa. As they produce confusion in qualities of substances, they are debarred from being the connecting link. Likewise Kāla may suffer from the same malady. To this, the Vaiśeśika replies that Kāla is posited after proving that the two ubiquitous substances lead to absurdity. The existence of Kāla is proved by argumentum reductio ad absurdum, which is a logical process. Besides, in the particular case the

1. Siddānta M-45-Sa ca sambandhaḥ samyādirna Sambhatīti Kāla eva tatsambandha ghațakaḥ Kalpyate. KV-pp 115-16, NLV-pp 290-91. Na akāsasya Svapratyāsattimātreņa Samyukta - Samvāyinam dharmamanyatra Samkrāmayitumasamarthatvāt. Tathatve Caikatra bheryāmabhihātayam Sarvabherișu Sabdotpattipraasa- ngat. Atmano'pi dravyāntaradharmeşu dravyāntarāvacchedaya svapratyāsattyatiriktasannikarșāpekșitatvāt. Anyatha Varāņasīsthitena nīlena pāțaliputrasthitasya sphatika- maņerūparanjanaprasańgāt.

86 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

capacity is judged in a particular reference i.e. the relation of a finite substance with the solar motion. Hence there is no possibility of interchange of qualities among substances. Thus there is sufficient logical grounds to posit Kāla as the unique substance which connects flnite substances with the solar motion.

In the same way, the notions of simultaneity and succession, and of quickness and slowness are reasonable grounds for the inference of time. Simultaneity means the relation of two ( or more ) events with a certain solar motion and succession points out such relationship with dlfferent solar motions, Quickness or slowness of an event is nothing but the relation of the event with longer or smaller solar motions.1 These notions are possible only in relation to time ( Käla ) hence the inference of time is a logical necessity.

The category of causality presupposes the existence of time. When it is said that Ākāsa is uncaused, it simply means that Ākāsa is never non-existent or it is existent from eternity. Likewise a barren woman's son is also uncaused as it is non- existent from eternity. Vaiśeşika system believes in Asatkārya- vāda hence causation is possible only in the case of non-exis- tent objects which come into being after the operation of causes. The temporal non-existence is a necessary precondi- tion for the production of events, Hence the principle of causa- tion can be fairly explained only in particular reference to time. 2 Further Käla is taken to be the cause of changes and modi- fications. When we say that one person is old and another per- son is young, we simply mean the physical changes undergone in the passage of time. Hence Kāla is inferred as the only cause of these changes. 3

1. KV-Page 117, NVTT-II. 1. 39, Page 281. 2. NK-Page 65. 3. NK-Page 65.

CHAPTER V 87

The existence of Kāla as an independent category seems to be proved by the above arguments. Characteristics of Kala The basic nature of Kāla suggests that it is ubiquitous 1 and is of superlative dimension. The notions of priority, posteriority are intelligible only in reference to Käla. It is also conceived as instrumental cause ( nimitta Kāraņa ) of all objects of the world.2 This causation suggests that Kāla is eternal. 3 Kāla is also conceived as the substratum of motion. The judgment 'Doing at present' clearly points out that Kāla is the substratum of objective motion. 4 Further, Kāla is the sub- stratum of the universe itself. Thus it is the cause of the origi- nation, maintenance and destruction of all objects of the world. 5 The distinction in Kāla such as moments etc. is due to its various limiting adjuncts. 6 Our conception of a moment etc. depends on some action. Suppose disjunction takes place in something through action. Cause always precedes effect, hence there must be an interval between the action and resulting dis-

1. KV-Bha-Page 137. PPBhā-Page 63, Bha. P. 26. Kālakhātmadisam sarvagatatvam paraman mahat. 2. 1 VS-II. 2.29, NS-II, 1.23, ( also Bha ) - Digdesakalakase svapyevamprasangah. Bhāșa-

Pariccheda-45. 3. PP Bha-Page 64- Tasyākāsavaddravyatva tvanityatve siddhe kālalingāviseşīdānya- saikatvepi sarvakāryānāmārambhakriyābhinirvrttisthitinirodhopā- dhibhedānamaivatpācakavadvā nānātvopācāra Iti. 4. VS-V. 2.26-Idānīm gacchatītyādipratītistu idānīm ravītityā- dipratītivat kalikasambandhāvacchinnādhārādheya bhāvamava- gāhate na tu samvāyasambandhavacchinnamiti. 5. Bha. Pari-45. 6. Ibid-46 ..... Kşaņādiņ syādupādhitah.

88 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

junction. In other words, there is the previous non-existence of the disjunction produced by that action. The time associated with that is the First moment. This disjunction becomes the cause of the destruction of previous conjunction. Again there must be an interval between disjunction and the dissolution of the conjunction. This is the second moment. In other words, the disjunction determined by the antecedent conjunction is the second limiting adjunct. Again, when this conjunction ceases, that cessation becomes the cause of the subsequent conjunction. As such, there must be an interval between the two. Thus there is the previous non-existence of that conjunction, and this is called the third moment or the third limiting adjunct. Again subsequent conjunction arises, and the taction determined by the time associated with that is the fourth moment or the fourth limiting adjunct. At the fifth moment, the action ceases. It can not be argued that the term moment would not be used after subsequent conjunction, for there would be other actions still. Further it may be urged that at the time of dissolution, all actions cease and such moments will not exist. In reality, Nyāya-Vaiśeșika system does not admit such distinction at the time of dissolution. If at all it is admitted that these distinctions remain, it can be explained in relation to the destruction of non-eternal objects. The aggregate of particular groups of moments accounts for days, months etc. 1 Some hold that these divisions are innate in the nature of

1. Siddhā M. - 46 - Kalastvako'pi Upādhibhedātl șaņādivyavahā- ravișayaḥ. Upādhistu Svajanyavibhāgaprāgabhāvācchinnam Karma, Purvasamyoganāśavacchinnottara-samyoga-prāgabhāvo vā, Uttarasamyogāvacchinnam Karma. Vā, Na cottarsamyogānanta- ran Kşaņavyavahāra na syāditi. Vācyam Karmāntarasyāpi sattvāditi. Mahāpralaye Kşaņādivyavahāro yadyasti Tadānā- yatyā Dhvansenopapādanīya īti. Dinādivyavahārastu Tattkşaņ- akutareveti.

CHAPTER V 89

Kāla itself and are not due to limiting adjuncts as suggested above. 1 But this is not acceptable to Nyāya-Vaiśeşika for the following reasons :- 1. There is no evidence percetual or inferential for the existence of these distinctive moments in time. They are only felt when particular events occur. So there is no perceptual evidence in support of the innateness of the characteristic. 2. Inference is also not capable of being adduced as proof because it must be based on observed data. There is on the contrary absurdity entailed by this supposition of occasional emergence of these qualities. On the contrary if they are innate, they were to become eternal facts, so the division of past, present and future or of prior and posterior would have no meaning. As we have observed before, the Nyāya-Vaiśeşika philosophers do not subscribe to the theory of Satkāryavāda. If the effects are pre-existent, and the causal operation only serves to reveal the existent facts, nothing new would be produced. This will be tantamount to the denial of causation itself and effect eternally existing in the view of Vaiśeșika philosophers, is a contradiction in terms. Is Perception of Time Possible ? The Bhatta Mimamsaka and the Vedantins hold that time is an object of perception, Time is perceptible as it is all perva- sive like the soul. If time is not perceptible, then its very existence will not be established, because there is no source of valid knowledge regarding it, other than perception. Further the Mimāmsaka argues that it is a qualifying element (Visesaņa) of the notions of Kärya. The notions of simultaneity and succession, quickness and slowness etc. do not depend only on Kārya. 2

1. KV Bha, Page 144. 2. Māna-Page 187-Vyomakāladišamādau pratvakşatvam Samarthy- ate; NM. Pt. I page 124-Pratyakşagamyatāmeva ke citkālasya manvate. Viseşanatayākāryapratyaye pratibhāsanāt. Krameņa

90 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

The Vaisesika has not accepted this position of the Mimām- sakas and the Vedäntins. It has related time determinations to solar motion. Thus time is an object of inference. According to the Vaiśeşika, Kāla ( time ) is devoid of colour hence it can- not be an object of perception. The above argument of Vaise- șika suffers from the fallacy of universalising a particular rule. Certain perceptual data possess sensible character whereas others do not. The Vaiseșika holds that colour itself is colourless, yet it is an object of visual perception. Atoms do not possess sensible colour and they are infrasensible. In other words, the possession of colour is not the only cause of visual perception. The perceptibility and the non-perceptibility of any object depend on the facts of experience, hence it cannot be contra- dicted by any apriori law. Laws must always conform to the facts and must not contradict or supersede them. 1

Further it may be argued that kāla as a viśeșaņa is devoid of colour hence it cannot be perceived. This argument is met on the ground that there are certain visesaņas ( adjectives ) which are devoid of colour yet they are perceived, for instance, general concept or universal ( Sāmānya ) and the like. It may be urged that this rule applies to substance alone. Against this, it may be said that an object of cognition through the sense organ of sight is visual, even if it is not a substance and even if it does not possess colour. When we say regarding a rod of iron that it is a heavy substance, the heaviness becomes an object of perception and the act of falling does not turn it into a content of inference. Thus the MImamsaka concludes that Kāla is an object of perception. The Vaiśeșika does not accept the position gof MImāmsaka

yugapatkşipram cirātkrtamitīdrsah Pratyayānāvakalpante Kāry- amātrāvalambanāḥ. 1. NM-Pt. I. Page-124-ıNanudravye? ayam niyamo na rūpādau, Dravye'pi nayam niyamaḥ yadrūpavaditi, taduktam, trāyānān, pratyakşatvarūpavattvadravyādīniti.

CHAPTER V 91

and Vedantins that the time is a perceptual datum, because it overlooks the limitations of perception and also does not take into account the different aspects of time. The time which is perceived through sense organs is empirical and conditioned time. It does not take into consideration the .transcendental aspect of time. Transcendental time is unitary, indivisible, infinite and eternal. It transcends the limits of sensuous exper- ience. It can be inferred as the common objective background of all the perceived qualities of events. Besides, simltaneity and succession etc. simply refer to the collocation and relatedness of events in temporal schemes. In the above cases, the extrane- ous modes of real time are perceived. Transcendental time transcends the limits of sensuous experience, thus it can never be an object of perception. The Nyāya-Vaiśeșika very sensibly rejects the position of Mimāmsaka and Vedāntins. Śrīdhara maintains that Kāla (time ) is basically imperce- ptible but it is presented as a qualifying element in such per- ceptual judgement as I see the table now-here time is associated with the perceptual object as Viseșana ( qualifying element ). In Jñāna Lakșaņa Pratyakșa also, we admit such association to be valid. For example, 'I see a cold Ice.' Coldness can be perceived only through the tactual sense but here visual organ has been utilised. It is done on the basis of previous experience.1 Conclusively it is said that the knowledge of time is inferential but it becomes an object of perception when it is taken as the qualifying element of a perceived object.

Are Divisions of Time Real ?

Vaiseșika does accept the divisions of time. Ordinarily we divide time into past, present and future. But the real time is unitary, infinite, and indivisible. The empirical divisions of

1. NK-Page 65-Apratyakşeņa Kālena Katham Višișta Pratītiriti cet tacāha Kaşcit visiştapratyayasyotpattāvindriyavat kāranatvam kālasya na tu daņdāđivadviseșanatvamitI.

92 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

time into past, present and future cannot be said to be the inherent nature of time. The Vaisesika holds that time obtains these distinctions due to its relation with events. They are said to be limiting adjuncts, which are of finite duration. 1 In reality, time is the universal substratum and thus transcends all limits. It is independent and apart from the events of the world. But time as present is determined in relation to an event which has already begun but has not yet ended. Like- wise, past is the time related to an event which ended 2 and future is related to an event which is yet to begin. Real time is never conditioned by these limiting adjuncts. Thus these time distinctions are reduced to the position of apparent reality which is not consistent with the realistic standpoint of the Nyāya-Vaiśeșika.

The Nyāya-Vaiseșike system is vehemently criticised by Śriharsa for its stand on time distinctions. The Vaiseșika maintains that past, present, and future are determined by external conditions, viz. different solar motions. Śriharșa says that this argument is not plausible as all the three divisions of time are related in the same way with the same solar motion. To illustrate, it is stated that a particular day is taken as present with reference to a particular solar motion but it is also considered as past and future in relation to that very motion. The day, refrrred to above, is considered as present on the very day, as past on the days that follow and as future on the days that come before, The same solar motion becomes the conditioning factor of the three time determinations which are obviously distinct from one another. Thus it lands the Nyāya- Vaiśeșika in to an absurd position. 3 Śrīharșa anticipates the

1. KKK-P. 379-Dvitiyascederādhirabhidhīyatām. 2. KV-PP. 120-121. 3. KKK-page-379. Ya eva divasah sury'yagativis'eșavacchinno varttata iti Pratītah sa eva hi tadavacchinno vrtta ityavagamyate vatsyaruniti ca.

CHAPTER V 93

views of the exponents of the Nyāya-Vaiseşika. They may argue that the difficulty has arisen due to the absence of certain necessary qualifications regarding relation. We cognise as pre- sent when the time of an event is in 'actual' relation to solar motion. When the particular relation 'has been' and 'is no more', we cognise it as past; when the relation in question 'will be' but 'is not yet', we cognise it as future. Śriharșa argues that the above argument of the opponent is bare tautologous one. The term 'actual' signifies 'existent', which is synonymous with present. 'Has been' and 'will be' are also synonyms of past and future. 1 It is furthher argued by the Vaisesika that the time deter- mined by action is present, the time determined by pre-nonexis- tence of action is past and the time determined by post-non- existence is future. 2 ŚrIharsa holds that the above argument also does not improve the position of the Vaisesika. All the distinctions of time are determined in the same way by action and thus obliterate the distinction itself. Further the terms 'pre-non-existence' and 'post-non-existence' themselves refer to the notions of past and future. In absence of these two, i.e. past and future, the terms themselves become completely uni- ntelligible. The Vasiesika is thus bogged up in the mire of its own arguments. To save his position, the Vaiśesika suggests a modified defi- nition of time-division. The time which is determined by a particular action is present in respect to that action alone and not in relation to other actions. 3 But this also does not save 1, KKK-page-380-Nanu satyametat Paran yada Tadupādhisam- bandhastasya Svarüpenāvatisthamānastada bhavisyatpratyaya iti, naitadasti. 2. KKK-page-380. Kriyāvacchinnaḥ Kalo vartamānah tatprāgabh ävacchinno bhutah tatpradhvansāvacchinno bhavişyanniti cenna. 3. KKK-page 381. Yatkriyāvacehinno yah kālaļ sa tatkriyāpek- Şayā vartamāno na tva anyāpekșayā,

94 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

the position of the Vaisesika. The same action determines pre- sent, past and future. A particular span of time which is known as present in respect to its relation to a particular action is also past and future in respect to that very action. In the above definition, present time has been shown to be determined by present action when the meaning of the term 'present' itself is not known. Further, even if it is held that the time determined by a particular action is present at the time of that action, yet it does not solve the problem. The Vaiśeşika admits one time- continuum, hence such time cannot be the receptacle of time division. 1

Śrrharsa has attacked the time-division of Nyāya-Vaiseșika system. Time division is not the inherent nature of time hence it does not affect at all time-in-itself. Thus the criticisms of Śriharșa do not take away the reality of absolute time even if the time-divisions are shown to be unreal. These time-divisions really belong to the events which are in time.

The Nature of the 'Paesent'

In Gautam's Nyāyasūtra and bhāșya on it, the three points of time are admitted as objectively real. The view of the opponent stands as : "There is no present ( time ) for when an object falls, the only possible points of time are that which has been fallen through, and that which has to be fallen through".2 Dr. Satish Chandra Vidyabhusan finds in this sūtra an explicit reference to the Mādhyamika standpoint. 3 This is obviously wrong, for according to this system, all the three points of time viz. past, present and future are unreal whareas

1. KKK-page 382 - Kālasya Kālāśrayatayānirūpanāsambhavāt- kalāntarasyānabhyupagamāt, tasyaiva kālasya tadāśryavattve VyaktamātenāŠrayattvāpatteņ. 2. NBh-II. 1.40-Na' dhvavyāngyah Kalah, Kim tarhi, Kriyāyañgyaḥ. 3. History of Indian Logic.

CHAPTER V 95

the view in question asserts the reality of the past and future and disparages only the existence of the present. The Naiyāyikas have taken great pains to refute this suppo- sedly Mädhyamika standpoint and have ultimately established the existence of the present ( time ). In reality, time is not conceived in relation to space rather it is manifested through action. In the present context, action of falling determines the nature of time. The time when the action of falling has ceased, it is past, when the action of falling is going to happen, it is future and when the action of falling is going on, it is present. From the above explanation, it is clear that at both points of time ( past and future ) the object is devoid of action. Only in present, the action is always connected with the object. Past and Future are appre- hended on the basis of existing connection and the time indi- cated by it. Thus Past and Future are relative to Present, if Present does not exist they become inconceivable. 1 Further they hold that 'Past' and 'Future' cannot be accom- plished entirely in relation to each other as held by the opponents. They ( opponents ) might quote such relative terms as 'long' and 'short', 'light' and 'shade' to illustrate that 'Past' and 'Future' are relative conceptions and they can be accomplished on this basis. As against this, it is argued that there are certain pairs of conceptions such as 'cold' and 'touch', 'odour' and 'taste' etc. which are not relative terms. Likewise Past and Future can not be accounted for on this ground. 2 Furtber, 'Present' is conceived of in both ways, i. e. (a) as not associated with 'Past' and Future (b) as associated with them. The present which is unassociated is indicated by mere existence (continuity ) such as "the substance exists". This expression points to the continuance of substance, while such expressions as 'is cooking', 'is cutting' etc. point to the 1, NBh .- II. 1.4I-Arthasabdhāvavyangyaś ca'yam kalaņ. 2. Ibid-II. 1.42.

96 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

mixed state of present. When we state 'he is cooking', some of the actions composing the composite act of cooking have already been performed, while some are being performed and some are yet to be performed. Thus the mixed state of 'Pre- sent' includes the three points of time. 1 On the above grounds the Naiyäyikas come to the conclu- sion that the 'Present' time exists.

The Atomic View of Time

According to Vyāsa, the author of Yogabhāsya, the moment is conceived as the absolute and irreducible unit. Apart from these moments, the infinite time has no objective reality as held by Nyāya-Vaiśeșika. These moments are not determinations of time which depend on external limiting adjuncts. If a change is represented by time-series, moment is the unit of change. Consequently all physical changes are reduced to the motions of atoms in space. Even an atom has subtler parts ( Tanmätras ), hence the movement of one atom to another must take more than one moment. The motion of tanmātras from one point in space to another must be instantaneous and it is considered as absolute unit of change. Time is mono- dimensional. Two moments cannot co-exist, consequently any series of moments does not exist in reality. Order in time may be understood as the relation of antecedence and sequence bet- ween the moment that is existent and the moment that has just passed away. Series of moments is an ideal construction. The intellect pieces together these discrete moments. Thus only one moment i. e. the present exists. The future and the past do not exist as independent entities though they share in change of mark ( Lakșaņa Pariņām ). 2 The Vaisesika does not agree with the view that the Time-

1. NBh, II, 1,43-45; 2. YBh. III. 52kTasmād evaikah Ksaņo na purvottarakșanāh Santiti tasmādnāsti tasmāhārah,

CHAPTER VI 97

series is the 'schema' of the understanding and is formed by the conceptual fusion of discrete moments. Such a fictitious series is never encountered by us in our empirical conscious- ness. 1 But the Yoga does not reduce the moment to absolute non-entity. The moment is regarded as a real entity even by the Vaisesika. But it is not considered as absolute entity as is held by Vyäsa. It is merely a relative entity according to the Vaiśeșika.

The Vaisesika further maintains that the objective existence of a momentary entity cannot be proved. The perceptual judg- ment, "The jar exists for many moments" is never a clear proof of the objective existence of moment. The moment referred to above has no transcendental existence. As a moment is supposed to vanish just after its contact with the sense organs, it cannot synchronise with the perceptual judgement. In absence of probans, it cannot even be proved by inference. But, is not the use of the term 'moment' superfluous ? To this, it is replied that it is a part of cognition. Further, the question is raised that every cognition presupposes a determinant datum hence a particular datum in this case should be pointed out. Vallabh says that the datum in this case is a particular motion and the pre-non-existence of disjunction caused by it as the determining factor of motion. Each of them covers a definite duration, hence they cannot separately be the datum. These two, taken together, form the datum of cognition. But how are they related ? Vallabha replies that every cognition acquires them together, hence cognition itself is the connecting link. The datum of such a cognition is the moment itself. Thus we arrive at the concept of moment indirectly. A moment is the point of time which refers to the final phase of cause and the initial phase of effect.2 Vallabha defines moment as that. intervening span of time which comes between the completion

1. NKU. Pt. II. P. 5. 2. NLV-pp 42-48. 7 A. T.

98 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

of totality of causal conditions ( Samagri ) and the production of effect. 1

The above discussion reflects the staunch realistic attitude of the Nyāya-Vaiśeşika system. This system does not admit that time is apprehended as the schema of understanding. It clearly disparages that Time-series, finite or infinite, is an ideal construction. Thus it upholds objective existence of metaphysical time. It is clearly emphasised that time per se is unitary and indivisible. The division of time as moment, hour and day etc. are external determinations which do not touch the unity of time. It does not accept the absolute reality of moment.

To sum up : Time is sought to be proved by inference by the Vaiseșika. Of course, time, as an eternal, transcendent principle is not amenable to perception. But this metaphysical time will at least be the presupposition of temporal experiences. Whether time is one or many will remain a vexed question. Of course, the law of parsimony demands that time should be a unitary principle just like space and this is borne out by the consideration that we cannot conceive a limit to time, prior or posterior. Time tends to shade off into a division which is without time. However distant and remote limit may be conceived, it turns out to be time. This also holds good of space. This point was noticed by Kant. As regards the proof of time, Kant adduces powerful reasons against the position that it can be proved by inference. The notions of priority, pos- teriority, succession etc. are all temporal notions. The Vaise- sika has sought to prove by inference the existence of time on the notions of priority, posteriority etc. This also holds good of the notions of past, present and future. As regards the number of solar motions, which has been made a ground by the Vaiseika for inference of time, it has to be carefully scrutinised whether 'the notions of number is the condition or

1. KV-p. 118.

CHAPTER VI 99

a consequence of time. If number be only a consequential idea derived from time, which seems to be the position of Kant and if we are to endorse it, the arguments adduced by the Vaiśesika would all be guilty of committing the fallacy of petitio principii. It is, of course, almost certain that the notion of a unitary and eternal time is only a deduction from experi- ential data. But one cannot lose sight of the peculiar character of time as an eternal fact, which makes it timeless. Time bereft of sequence, before and after, is a notion which is difficult to conceive. Kant has made time the form of intuition. He makes it the subjective condition and manner of perception of things both inner and outer. The MImämsakas also endorse the analogous position. They assert that there is no cognition in which time is not presented ( Na soasti pratyaya loke yatra kälo na bhāsate). But there is vital difference between the MImamsaka view-point from that of Kant. All universal and necessary ideas are believed to be subjective by Kant but the MImāmsakas are realists out and out. They believe in the existence of objective universals. Time, of course, is not unive- rsal being. In the ultimate analysis it is a unitary principle. The Mimämsakas contend, in view of the invariable presence of time in all perceptual experience as a determining principle, that time is a perceived fact. Time is rather the inescapable content of all experience. As we have noted above, Śridhara, the author of the Nyäya-Kandalı, regards time as the deter- mination of perceptual content and herein he seems to subscribe to the Mimamsist's position. The Vedantist, of course, holds time to be an illusion. Bradley also finds contradictions in the notion of time and dismisses it as appearance. Mc. Taggart in The Nature of Existence analysed the concept of time and arrived at the con- clusion that time is an illusion. Whatever be the contention of the idealists, it does not carry conviction to an ordinary man who sees things in natural

100 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

perspective and from an unsophisticated point of view. All our activities and thoughts and reflections are made possible in and through time. It is extremely difficult, if not impossi- ble, to conceive of the state of existence which is beyond time and to which all temporal determinations are irrelevant. The Vedantist Brahman and Buddhist Nirvāna are asserted as timeless facts, but it is also admitted by them that they are not accessible to normal experience. It must be admitted that time is an intractable concept. The difficulty lies in the fact that time is known as diverse units, as past, present and future, and yet it is a unique individual. It is thus one and many. By itself, it is timeless though it conditions and determines all processes of activity in temporal order.

The Existence of Dik ( Space )

Kāla ( Time ) and Dik ( Space ) are considered to be back- ground of the entire cosmic order.1

It is an admitted fact of experience that two finite objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. They must exist in separate spaces. 2 But the determination of the relative positions of these objects necessitates the acceptance of the existence of a substance known as Dik, as this function can- not be performed by any other substance recognised in the system. The Vaiśesika in consonance with its realistic attitude holds that Dik possesses objective reality and exists independent of experience. But it does not admit like Kant that it is an apriori principle which is apprehended as a necessary form of perception.

1. NK-Page 22-Iha tu Sarveşāmādhāra ityucyate. 2. NIV-Page 34. Vacyamevetivat ayogavyavacchedasya padar- thantare bhātvam nastītyanyayogavyavacchedasya vā bibhāgār- thatvāt.

CHAPTER VI 101

Some Naiyāyikas are of the opinion that Dik is an object of perception. 1 It is cognised on the basis of the notions of east, west and the like. Some Mimämsakas support the views of the Naiyāyikas. 2 The Vaiseșika has refuted the perceptibility of Dik ( Space ). The arguments are exactly similar to those which have been given by us while refuting the perceptibility of time. The Vaiseșika says that 'the perception of Space' as conceived by the Naiyāyikas is really certain space relations of finite objects. But space is not, of course, a subjective idea but though objective, it is not perceived as it does not possess sensible colour and gross magnitude. Thus Dik ( Space ) is supra- sensuous and it is inferred through the notions of east, west etc. 3 The Vaiseşika further maintains that space is also in- ferred on the ground of spatial priority and posteriority. 4 The existence of Dik ( Space ) is also proved on the bas's of the relative positions of the finite objects with reference to the sun. The space which is nearest to Mount udaya (Sunrise) in respect of a particular person is the east. Similarly the space which is farthest from Mount udaya is the west. Like- wise the space which is nearest to Mount Sumeru in respect of a particular person is the north, and that which is the farthest is the South as it is clearly stated, "Mount Sumeru is situated to the North of all divisions of the world." According to Indian mythology the sun rises on the moun- tain and sets on an opposite mountain. The first is called Udayācala and the other is Astācala. This account, of course, has very little philosophical significance and is now con- tradicted by modern theories. In spite of this anomaly, the

1. NM pt I page 125-Purvāparādipratyayagamyā dig api pratyakșā. 2. Māna .- p. 187. 3. PP Bhã-page 66 ( quoted above ). 4. KV-page 122-Paratvaparatvalingatvam disah.

102 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

philosophical argument regarding the different points of space does not lose its logical value. The existence of Dik is also established on the basis of relative positions of objects in relation to the contacts of the sun. For example, a particular object which is nearer to the rising sun is said to be in east whereas some other object is said to be in the west as it is nearer to setting sun. 1 Such notion is possible only when we admit Dik to be a substance which establishes relation between the sun and the objects concerned. Ākāśa and Atman are not capable of establishing such relation as both of them are incapable of transmitting dharma of one to the other. Kāla is also incapable as its chief function here has been confined to movement of objects alone. 2 It is remarkable that the Vaisesika philosopher tries to interpret space in terms of directions indicated by the points of compass. This demarcation of directions is effected by reference to the movements of the sun. The point at issue seems to be that the movements of the sun is a property which inheres in the sun and is obviously unrelated to the objects in space. This difficulty is overcome by the supposition of a medium with which both terms namely the sun and the objects are related. The relation of the solar motion with the object is an indirect one.

Now what will be the medium ? One may suppose that any ubiquitous substance may serve the purpose. The Vaise- șika believes in many such substances, such as Ākāśa, soul and time. What is then the necessity of postulating Dik as the medium in preference to Ākāśa, Ātman and time? The answer

1. KV Bha. pp. 147-48. Etadpekşyedam pürvametasya hi sannitādimādityasamyogāmityar- thah. Etadpekşeyedam paścimamityasyatu Sannihitacaramādi- tyasamyogāvacchinna mitayarthaḥ. 2. KV Bhã-pp. 147-48.

CHAPTER VI 103

cannot be found apriori. It is an empirical fact and experience alone can furnish the evidence. Time is related only to facts which are changing and moving. One does not feel disposed to regard spatial relations in terms of time. As regards the soul or Ätman, which being an all-pervasive substance, is in contact with every substance of limited dimension and is not found in experience as a medium of relation of external things. The soul is only the substratum of psychical events, viz. knowing, feeling etc. Moreover, so far as ordinary experience goes, the soul or ätman is felt to be operative within the physical body and not outside. Though metaphysical grounds adduced by the Vaiseșika tend to prove that it is as ubiquitous as Dik, Ākāśa etc., this conclusion is not arrived at from the evidence of experience. One is repelled by the sense of con- tradiction when one sheds unit to time or space, but no such contradiction is felt with regard to soul. So, on empirical grounds, the soul is not supposed to be competent to establish a relation between two external facts, though on logical grounds, they may be supposed to be related to the soul as they are to space. This seems to be the reason for postulating dik as a separate substance in addition to soul, time and ākāśa. Another consideration is in favour of Dik as a separate substance. Dik or Space has no specific quality of its own. Ākāśa is characterised by sound as specific quality and the soul or Atman by several specific qualities such as knowing, feeling, willing and moral dispositions etc. The same con- siderations which have made the Vaiśesika to eliminate Ākāśa as the medium of spatial objects also hold good in the case of the soul or Atman. Dik or Space thus serves as the con- necting link between the solar motion and the objects, by virtue of which it is called Dik and also is the substratum of external objects. It is the latter aspect which has received emphasis in physics. Citsukha maintains that it is superfluous to assume the existence of Dik to explain the notions of spatial priority and

104 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

posteriority as they can be better understood otherwise. Citsukha holds that the prior and posterior relations among objects can be known through a measuring rod. This rod be so placed as it touches the spot of the ground where the observer stands and also the two bodies observed by him. If it is not long enough to touch the three objects, it may be repeatedly placed in straight line thus it will touch the three. This rod will have a series of conjuctions with the intervening objects or place units between the observer and the observed objects. These number and conjunctions will specify the priority and posteriority. 1 The above argument of Citsukha does not seem tenable on the ground that it suffers from the fallacy of petitio principii. He has shown that the existence of space is not required and it can be explained in terms of units of measurement. But a unit of measurement is a unit of distance which is composed of series of conjunctions of mutually exclusive parts and it can be possible only when the existence of space is admitted. Thus the unit of measurement presupposes the existence of space. The Definition of Dik ( Space) Space or Dik is defined as the cause of the notions of distance, nearness etc.2 The Sarva-Darsana-Sangraha defines space as that which is different from time, yet is coextensive and is devoid of any specific quality. Space is the cause of usage with reference to far and near.3 Space is also defined as the non-intimate cause of priority and posteriority but which is also unconnected with the revolution of the sun and which is not the abode of priority and posteriority.4 Space is defined 1. Cit. p. 517. Dikkalpanām antarenai'va Vyavahārtuh svena Samyukta-prthivyadibhirhastadandā-diśamyogānām - alpī-yastva bhūyastvābhyām-eva viśistaparāparavyavahāropapattcḥ. 2. Bh. p. 46. Dürāntikādidhīhetuvekā nityā Digucyate-page 62. 3. S. D. S. ( Cal. Ed. )-page 103. 4. Sapta-Padārthi-page 66. Ādityasamyogānutpādya Paratvā- y paratvāsamvāyikāranādhārah Paratvāparatvānadhikaraņam Di k.

CHAPTER VI 105

as that from which the notions of different directions are produced. Eleven directions have been mentioned in the Sapta- padārthī. Each direction is associated with a presiding deity.1 It is significant to note that in the above definitions of space, no genus has been mentioned. Space is unitary substance. But the conception of genus presupposes plurality of objects. Hence genus has rightly been avoided. Some Attributes of Dik ( Space) Dik ( Space ) like time is also a substance as it is sub- stratum of qualities. Space possesses the qualities of infinite extension, unitariness, separateness, conjunction and dis- junction.2 Dik ( Space) is a ubiquitous ( Vibhu ) substance and it possesses superlative dimension ( Param Mahattatva ). Arrange- ments of finite objects of the world are possible due to spatial relations only. It is in conjunction with all limited things. The different bodies possess the qualities of priority and posteriority as space pervades everywhere. Thus space is said to be of infinite dimension. This infinite space appears as finite when it is in relation with the finite objects. But this finitude of space is only apparent due to conditions and not real.3 Dik ( Space ) is eternal as it is a non-composite substance.4 It has no parts and it cannot be produced or destroyed. When we speak of certain unrelated portions of space, it is done with particular purpose in view. It is not the basic nature of space. Dik ( Space ) is unitary. Although it is one, it is spoken of as east, west, etc. owing to its different limiting adjuncts.5 1. Sapta-Padarthi-page 18. 2. PPBh-page 67-Tasyāstu guņāh samkhyāparimānaprthakatva samyogavibhāgāḥ. 3. Bh-page 32-Kālakhātmasisam sarvagatvam paramam mahat. 4. V. up .- II. 2. 11-Diśo dravyatvam nityatvańca ... 5. Bh. P-page 94-upādhibhodādekāpi prācyādivyapadiśabhāk.

106 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME These directions are to be understood as the qualities of bodies which are in space. If the different directions are taken as different spaces, it will create serious difficulties. If the East is a space different from the West, there is no common entity to interrelate them. Thus it will make the space dererminations incomprehensible. For the east is intelligible only with reference to.and as contrasted with the west. Dik ( Space ) and time are conceived as the efficient cause of the entire universe. They are the chief conditions of the pro- duction of all elements-both physical and non-physical.1 Without space and time as substrata, causal functions of the objects are not conceivable at all. In the production of a particular object a particular material cause is no doubt necessary but the production of the effect presupposes space and time as permanent receptacle where the produced objects have their being. Thus space and time are necessary common condition in the production of effects. Besides, a particular event happens at a particular place and in a particular point of time. Causal operations can be determined only with reference to space and time. Thus spatio-temporal conditions become the intrinsic character of a cause in the production of the effect.2 Dik ( Space ) like time is supra-sensuous. In other words, it can not be directly perceived.3 In support of the above contention, the arguments are the same as have been adduced in case of Kāla.4 Dik ( Space ) is said to be devoid of any movement as it is not of limited dimension (murta). Movements in bodies produce 1. PPBh-page 25. ...... Sarvotpattimatām nimittakāraņatvam ca. 2. N. K .- page 25-yatra deśekāle ca kāraņāni bhavanti tatra teşām janakatvam nānyatretyabhyupetavyan visisțadeśakālayo- rangatvam Kārya janayāya tayoḥ kāraņairpekșaņīyatvāt. 3. V. up .- VIII. 1. 12. 4. NM-page 124.

CHAPTER VI 107

the illusion that the space is the Upādāna kāraņa (material cause ) of all these movements. But in reality, it is not such a cause. It is the substratum of these movements in a restricted sense only. Just as a jar is the substratum of curd, likewise space is the substratum of these movements.1 Certain Views Regarding Dik ( Space ) and Kala ( Time) Raghunāth Śiromaņi does not admit the separate existence of Dik and Käla. He brings these two entities under Isvara. According to him, independent existence of these two cannot be proved. The various notions explained by Dik and Kāla can fairly be explained by Isvara through his limiting adjuncts.2 Venīdatta refutes the above contention of Raghunātha Śiromani and holds that Isvara being one cannot explain the difference of notions. Further it is improper to hold that the limiting adjuncts of Isvara will explain the differences of various notions of Dik and Käla as they are not found in the case of ubiquitous JIvātman. The expressions like "This is Caitra" and "this is Maitra" point out that there are differences in Jīvātman. But according to the above argument, the multi- plicity of Jrvätmans should have been explained by the limiting adjuncts of a single conscious soul. Further the multiplicity of Jivätmans should have been included in Isvara.3 Besides the sayings of Śruti, "Imā Deśah" and "Sa esa Samvatsarah" prove the independent existence of Dik and Kāla.4 But the consequential difficulties as alleged to accrue from the postulation of God functioning as space and time are endorsed by the Vedäntist absolutist as the true nature of reality. It is not entirely implausible that Raghunātha Śiro- maņi came under the influence of Vedänta. As regards the

1. V. S .- V. 2. 21-25. 2. PTN-PP-1-3. 3. P. M .- PP-1-3. 4. PMV-PP-1-3.

108 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME plurality of individual selves, this also is not regarded as an ultimate appraisal of truth. The realist, who believes in objec- tive space and time, is bound to face powerful objection arising from the synthesis of one and many in both space and time. But the Vaiśeșika essays to give a rounded rational explanation of commonsense estimation of these fundamental categories. Measurements of Space and Time The Siddhānta Siromaņi of Bhäskara gives the following measures of time1 :- 100 Truțis 1 Tātparya 30 Tātparyas 1 Nimeșa 18 Nimeșas 1 Kāșțhā 30 Kāșțhās 1 Kalā 30 Kalās 1 Ghațika 2 Ghațikas 1 Kșaņa 30 Kşaņas 1 Ahorātra ( Day ) Dr. Brajendra Nath Seal says that a truți of a time is equal to 1/33750 of a second, which is nearly the measure of paramāņu of time as given in Vișņu Purāņa. The above measures were adopted by astronomers but the physicists have adopted some other measures which have been mentioned in Udayana's Kiraņāvalī and Śrīdhara's Nyāya Kandalī as following2 :- 30 Muhurtas 1 day ( 24 hours ) 30 Kalās 1 Muhurta 30 Kāșțhās 1 Kalā 18 Nimeșas 1 Kāșțhā 2 Lavas 1 Nimeșa 2 Kșaņas 1 Lava

1. Kālamānādhyāya-Verses 16-17. 2. KV-Kşanadvayam lavaḥ prokto nimeşastu Lavadvayam, Aștādaśanimeşāstu Kāșthā trinsantu tāh. Trinśat kalā muhūrtaņ syāt trinsadrātrayahaņī ca te.

CHAPTER VI 109

According to Dr. B. N. Seal, the above table, suggests that 1 Kşaņa of Nyāya-Vaiseșika is equal to 2/45 of a second. The astronomers were fully acquainted with a much smaller unit of time. The truti of astronomers measures about the thirty four thousandth part of a second. Dr. Seal observes- "This is of special value in determining the exact character of Bhäskara's claim to be regarded as the precursor of Newton in the discovery of the principle of the differential calculus, as well as in its application to astronomical problems and computations".1 Differences Between Kala, Dik and Ākasa Though the conception of time is very akin to the con- ception of space, yet the two entities can be clearly distingui- shed. The difference between time and space is slight but obvious. Time is the cause of temporal priority and pos- teriority whereas space is the cause of spatial priority and posteriority. The limiting adjuncts which bring diversifications in time are some sort of action, whereas the limiting adjuncts in case of space are contact with objects.2 Another distinction between time and space is that the time is constant.3 For example, when a span of time is deter- mined as present with reference to a particular event, it always remains so. But the relations of space change and do not remain constant. For instance, a particular span of space which is eastward of one thing at a time, might be westward of the same thing at another occasion or of another thing at the same time. This clearly suggests that the divisions of time are absolute whereas the divisions of space are com- 1. The positive sciences of the acient Hindus-PP-76-80. 2. S. C .- Janyamatram Kriyāmātram vā Kalopādhih. Murtamātram Digupādhiņ. ( quoted by Athalye and Bodas-Pg. PP-132-133). 3. SDS-Page 104 ( Cal ).

110 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

paratively relative. But the above contention is not absolutely correct. Time is as relative as the space itself. The same event is past with reference to a particular moment, is present or future with reference to another moment. Thus the above distinction is not conclusively established. Nyäya system has clearly distinguished between Dik and Ākāśa. Ākāśa is Bhūta Dravya while Dik is not. Ākāśa is the material cause of sound but Dik does not possess such quality. Dik like Kāla is the cause of all effects but Ākāśa is the cause of a particular effect. Thus Naiyāyikas have clearly distinguished between these two entities. The Naiyā- yikas recognised Ākāśa and Dik as separate entities as they could not reconcile the material cause of sound ( Ākāśa ) and the general cause of all effects1 ( Dik ).

Whether or not Ākasa is Space

In Vaiśesika Philosophy, a distinction has been shown between Ākāśa and space. Kanāda has tried to show that Ākāśa is not in any way associated with the substratum of free movement. Thus on the basis of free movement, the existence of Ākāśa cannot be inferred. Ākāśa being an all pervasive substance is static, hence it is incapable of becoming the substratum of movement. Movement always inheres in moving substance. It is not even the non-material cause as it is deci- dedly a substance and a non-material cause is always a quality or action. Besides, it cannot be said to be nimittakāraņa also. Ākāśa as the cause of movement can be conclusively proved only when agreements in presence and absence with effects are shown. But Ākāśa being an ubiquitous substance is present everywhere hence agreement in absence cannot be thought of. Thus we cannot hold that movement is not possible in absence of Ākāśa. In absence of tangible objects, anything moves

1. PP Bh-page 22 ( quated above ).

CHAPTER VI 111

freely. Thus the real obstruction is tangible bodies and not the Ākāśa.1 Nyāya-Vaiśeşika undoubtedly admits the non obstructive- ness of Ākāśa but that is due to superlative magnitude.2 The real point of distinction as is pointed out lies in the Vaiśeșika conception of Ākāśa as the material cause of sound. The difficulty alleged to accrue from the ubiquity of Ākāśa is common to Dik also. The agreement in absence is an obstacle to the determination of causal relation is not peculiar to these categories but also to other ubiquitous substances like the soul or Ātman as conceived by the Vaiseșika. The difficulty caused by the lack of this criterion is avoided by Vardhamäna on the basis of numerical difference. Thus an ubiquitous substance is regarded as the cause of an effect on the ground that the latter does not occur in any other substance. The affiliation of psychical events to the soul as its condition is capable of being established only by this method. The soul is not only ubiquitous but also permanent. We find that there is the soul and there is act of knowing, it is their concomitance in agree- ment but it is not possible that the soul is ever to cease to be. So it is not possible to observe the absence of the soul. For instance, knowing is not found to occur in space, time or in any external objects but only in the soul. This constitutes the numerical difference of the soul with other things followed by the absence of knowing. How can the latter be regarded as the effect of the former ? This difficulty is avoided by making the method of difference understood as a case of numerical difference. Knowing, feeling etc. are affiliated as effects to the soul on the ground that they are not capable of being predi- 1. VS-II. 1. 20-23 & also V. up. on it. Nişkramaņam praveśa- namityākāsasya lingam. Tadalingamekadravgatvāt Karmmaņaļ Kāraņāntārānuklrptivai- dharmyacca. Samyogādābhāvah Karmmanaḥ. 2. NBh-IV-11. 22

112 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

cated of any other substance. Vardhamāna, therefore, argues that causal relation is thus amenable to the application of both the methods of agreement and difference. This is illustrative of the criteria of causal relation in respect of all other sub- stances which are both ubiquitous and permanent alike.

Dik which is considered as space in Vaiśesika system is not really space if by space is meant an expanse, extension or room. In this sense, Akāśa is the real space which provides room for other objects.1 The Vaiśesika also treats Dik simply as relative positions.2 It has clearly been stated in Bhāśā Pariccheda that Dik is something like 'gravitating power' if 'gravitation' is treated as an independent reality.3

The difference between Ākāśa as space and Dik, is almost like the difference between a wall, on which, and cords, by which pictures may be hung. The wall provides place or room or accommodation and the cords hold the pictures in relative positions.4

In fact, the difference of Ākäśa from space is not universally accepted in Indian Philosophy. The Jainas hold Ākāśa and space to be the same.5 They, of course, believe in two other reals viz. dharma and adharma as the conditions of motion and rest. Of course dharma and adharma are all pervasive so far as the cosmic space ( lokākāśa ) is concerned in which all particular entities live, move and have their being. The Jainas, however, do not seem to believe with modern physicists that space is of a limited dimension. They believe in extra- cosmic space ( alokākāśa ) which is however an empty vacuum.

1. PPBH-P 22 line 11; N. K. page 22 line 17. 2. VS-II. 2. 10-Ita idmiti yatastaddiśyam lingam, 3. Bh. P-45-quoted above. 4. TS-page 133. 5. Tattvarthasutra-( Bh )-V. 9 Lokākāśasya dharmādhrmaikajim vaistulya.

CHAPTER V 113

The Vaibhāşika Buddhists maintain that Ākāśa is a sub- stance which is unobstructive to and unobstructed by any other object. Thus Ākāśa provides room for material objects.1 The Sämkhya-Yoga system treats Ākāśa as the universal substratum in which all finite objects exist.2 It seems that Ākāśa should be at least treated as physical or ethereal space.

Existence of Ākasa The existence of Akāsa is maintained on the following grounds :- The Paramanus are much the same as abstract points. Things of limited magnitude are composed of these paramāņus. But they cannot produce such limited elements if they actually touch one another as they can only constitute pure points. Things are produced though they remain aloof and apart from one another. They are conjoined together through a medium. There must be an all-pervasive entity to bring union among them. It is undoubtedly maintained that there should be an all- pervasive continuum to hold these discrete things together. This all-pervasive continuum and universal medium of union of discrete elements is called Ākāśa.3 The other argument for the existence of Akāśa is based on Ākāśa being the substratum of sound or Śabda. Śabda is not a quality of four tangible substances, viz. earth, fire, air and water that are said to possess specific qualities. Then it must be the quality of an intangible substance.4

1. Sphotārtha-I. 5-Avakāsamdadātityākāśamiti nirvacanam. 2. Tattvavaiśaradi-III. 40. 3. NBH-IV. 2. 2, line 15; PPBH. P. 58 line 16; NK-page 62 line 15; VS-VII. 1. 22. Vibhavānmahānākāśastathācātmā. 4. PPBH-p. 58; NK-p. 59.

8 A. T.

114 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME Among intangible substances, time, space and mind are not said to contain any specific quality. Thus sound is not the quality of these three intangible substances.1 We should now consider whether or not the fourth intangi- ble substance, viz. the soul possesses this quality. Cognition, pleasure pain etc. are the qualities of the soul which are psychical in nature and they are perceived by an internal sense, viz. mind. Sound is a physical quality and is perceived through the external sense-organs. Expressions like 'I am happy' 'I am sorry' point out that mental qualities are invariably attached with antah-karana but the quality of sound is not perceived through antah-karaņa. Thus sound is not the quaiity of soul.2 It seems, therefore, conclusively proved that ākāśa exists as the substratum of sound. Some Attributes of Ākaśa We have already seen that ākās'a is an all-pervasive con- tinuum of discrete things and being a continuum, it should necessarily be eternal, uncaused and indestructible.3 Ākāśa cannot be produced or destroyed as it is a continuum. for only those things are produced or destroyed which are made up of parts. Thus Ākāśa is eternal. Ākāśa is motionless.4 It is an all-pervasive continuum, hence it cannot be supposed to move from one place to another. Ākāśa is supra-sensible as it cannot be perceived by the senses.5 Things are perceived by the senses on the basis of

1. Ibid. 2. NK-page 60. 3. PPBH-p. 68, lines 17-19; V. S. II. 1. 28 & V. Up. on it- Dravyatvanityatve vāyunā vyākhyāte. 4. VS-V. 2. 21-Dikkālavākāśanca kriyāņi. kriyāvadvaidharmyanniş-

2. VS-VI, 1. 6-Mahatyanckadravyavattvāt rūpāccopalabdhih.

CHAPTER V 115

some contrast. Contrast means some sort of isolation and distinction. But these two are not possible in the case of Ākāśa, it being an ubiquitous continuum. It cannot be isolated from other things. Thus Ākāśa is supra-sensible.

An objection may be raised against this line of argument on the ground that it will make the soul imperceptible. The soul is admittedly an ubiquitous and permanent substance and as such should be supra-sensible. But the soul is supposed to be perceived by the mind. Does not this constitute a case of contradiction ? The answer of this question may be propoun- ded as follows :-

The soul, that is perceived as "I" is not perceived as ubiquitous substance. It is for this reason, the real soul is asserted to be imperceptible in the Nyāya-bhāsya. As regards ākāśa or space also, it is supposed to be perceived when enclosed in an object of limited dimension. Thus one may legitimately say that space in the jar is iarge or small. But these are relative properties of space. Such is also the case with the soul. The soul that seems to be perceived is not the true soul, which is eternal and ubiquitous. The Nyāya- Vaisesika like others hold that one will attain final emancipa- tion by realising the true nature of the soul. Our empirical knowledge of the soul is not true appraisal of its nature. Like Kant, they hold that the soul can be known only by some sort of intellectual intuition in which space, time and categories of understanding will not have any place.

CHAPTER VI

The Concepts of Space and Time in the Samkhya-Yoga.

In course of describing the process of evolution, it is said that the manifestation of the latent activity of Rajas is a change or evolution. In the external world, the time that is taken by a Tanmätra or an atom to change its place is equiva- lent to a unit of change or unit of time. Now an atom is such a fine point that it cannot be perceived by the senses. Thus atoms are considered to be mere points without magni- tude or dimension and the unit of time ( Ksana ) that is taken in changing the place of these atoms is analogous with one unit of change or evolution. 1 According to Bhiksu, a moment ( Kșaņa ) is defined as the time which a guņa entity takes to change its own unit of space.2 According to him partless units of time can fairly be compared with partless gunas. At the same time he maintains that there are also atoms of earth, water etc. Yoga-sūtra and Yoga-bhāşya speak of aņu and paramāņu in the sense of earth-atoms etc.3 Thus it seems that Bhiksu is not consistent in his interpretation that guņa refers to atoms. Paramāņu may, therefore, be taken as material atoms of earth, water etc. From the analysis made above, it is clear that the change or evolution in the external world may be measured by these units of spatial motion of the atoms. In the mental world, the unit of change is measured by the unit of time correspond- ing to this change of position of an atom.

1. YBha-III 52. yatha'pakarşaparyantam dravyam paramānurevam apakarşaparyantaḥ Kālah Kşaņah. 2. Yvā-III. 51. Sattvādiguņaviśesaḥ paramānuh. 3. Ysü-I. 40. Paramānuparamamahattvanto'sya vaśīkaraḥ; YBha-I. 45. Pārthivasyānorgandhatanmātram sukşmo vişayah.

CHAPTER VI 117

Thus the notion of these discrete moments ( Ksanas) is the notion of time. The notion of succession or continuum i. e. one moment following the other, does not possess objec- tive reality. It is an ideal construction; for two moments do not exist together, one moment comes into being only when the preceding moment has passed off. Thus the succession or continuum of these discrete moments cannot be said to possess objective reality. The division of time in hours, days etc. are mental constructions. Ordinary minds cannot compre- hend the real aspect of this time and they treat it as substan- tive reality.1

Thus time as discrete moments is the real one and the time as succession or continuum is a convenient fiction. Väcaspati further elucidates it. A moment in association with things seems to be as succession. Succession means the relation of antecedence and sequence between two moments. But only the present moment exists and the past and the future moments are included in it as potential and sublatent phenomena. Thus there are no preceding or succeeding moments. The whole world undergoes changes in one moment alone. This change is known as change of mark ( Laksaņā-Pariņāma ) as distinguished from the change of quality ( Dharma-Pariņāma ) or change due to lapse of time ( Avasthā-Pariņāma ). In this change, a thing changes from the potential to the actual and from the actual to the sublatent. It is said in Yoga-Bhāșya, III. 53 : Kşaņastu vastupatitaḥ kramāvalambī. kramasca kşaņantaryyātma tam kālavidaḥ kāla ityācakșate yoginah naca dvaukşanau sahabhavatah. Kramasca na dvayoh sahabhuvo- rasambhavāt. Purvvasmā-duttarabhāvino yadānantaryyam Kşaņasya sa kramaḥ. Tasmāt varttamāna eva ekah kșaņo

1. YBhā-III. 52-Kşaņatatkramayornāsti vastusamāhāra iti. Bud- dhisamāhārāt muhurtārhoratrādayah. Sa tvayam kālah vastu- sunyo'pi buddhinirmāņaḥ.

118 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

na purvottarakşaņāh santiti, tasmānnāsti tatsamāhāraḥ. Ye tu bhūtabhāvinaḥ kşaņāste pariņāmānvitā vyākhyeyāh tena ekena kşaņena krtsno lokaḥ pariņāmamanubhavati. Tatkșaņo- parudhā Khalvamīsarvedharmāh. We have already seen that Bhikşu holds that the ultimate unit of time ( ksana ) is that which a guna entity takes to change its own unit of space. Thus according to him the whole world is nothing else but a series of Ksanas. But this view may not be confused with the Buddhist theory of momentariness as this system does not admit any other reality but the Ksanas.1

Time is nothing but the discrete moments of our relative consciousness. These moments exist in our empirical consciousnes, hence they cannot form a succession or continuum.

We have seen before that change or evolution is intelligible only in terms of these moments ( Ksanas ). We cannot easily grasp these moments of change but they can be reasonably inferred. In yoga-sūtra, it is said : "Succession involving a course of changes is associated with the moments*"2 A cloth is said to be old only when it has passed through a series of moments.3 A new cloth becomes old in course of time even if it is kept with good care. This points out the cessation of a course of changes and on its basis the succession of a course of changes can be grasped. Väcaspati holds that the succession

1. Yva-III 51-Na Kşanatiriktah Kşanikah padārthab kaś- cidiśyate taistu kşaņamātrasthāyyeva padārthaņ sarva iśyataiti ... 2. Ysu-IV. 33-Kşanapratiyogī pariņāmāparāntanirgrahyah Kramaḥ, 3. YBha-IV. 33 -- Kşaņapratiyogī pariņāmāprāntanirgrāhyaḥ kramaḥ. Kşaņantaryyātmā pariņāmasyāparāntena avasānena grahyate kramaḥ Nahyananubhūta kramakșana purāņatvāvas- trasyānte bhavati.

CHAPTER VI 119

can be grasped prior to a thing is old by the sequence of the subtlest, subtler, subtle, grossest, grosser, gross changes.1

It must be mentioned here that different interpretations have been given of the term 'Ksanapratiyogr' occurring in Yoga-sütra, IV. 33. According to Vācaspati, it means the deve- lopment of a particular moment or Ksaņa ( Kșaņapracāśraya ). But Bhiksu interprets it in a different way. According to him Kșaņa means 'interval' and 'pratiyogi' means 'opposite-of' or virodhi. Thus KsanapratiyogI stands for without any interval or continuous. He maintains that the change is continuous and not in succession. According to him, there is no interval between the termination of the previous state and the rise of the new one.2

The Status of the Past, Present & Future

While refuting the Idealist Buddhists, Vyasa holds : "The past and the future exist in reality since the qualities of things manifest themselves in these three ways. The future is the manifestation which is yet to be. The past is that form which has already been experienced. The present is that which is still active. If these three did not exist in reality, then knowledge would not have been possible. Knowledge is not possible in the absence of the object of knowledge."3

1. Tattvavaiśaradī-IV. 33-Navasya hi vastrasya prayatnasań- rakşitasyāpi cireņa purāņatā dras'yate. So'yam pariņāmasyā- parānta paryyāvasānam, tena hi pariņāmasya kramah. Tataḥ pragāpi purāntāyāh sukşma, sukşamatarsuksmasthūlasthūlatara- sthūlatamatvādīnām paurvāparyyanumīyate, 2. Yvā-IV. 33-Kşanapratiyogī kşaņasyāvarasya virodhī ksaņe- napyanantarita iti yāvat. 3. YBha-IV. 12-Bhavişyadvyaktikamanāgatam, bhūtvyaktika- matītam, svavyāpāropārudham vartamānam trayam caitadvastu jñānasya jñeyam. Yadi caitatsvarūpato nābhavişyamedam nirviş- yam jñanamudapatsyata. Tasmādatītānāgatam svarūpato'stīti.

120 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Thus we find that the past and the future do not exist as continuous before or after but the present exists containing within itself both these two. Though the past appears as non-existent in reality, it is conserved in the present. The present is nothing else but the manifested form of the past. Had there been no past, the existence of the present would have been impossible. The future, which has not yet come into existence, exists in the present in potential form. Had it not been the case, the future never could have come into existence as out of nothing, nothing comes. It is said : Nāstyasataḥ sanbhavaḥ na cāsti sato vinaśa. Thus the past subsists in the body of the present and the future also exists in the potential form.1 A no-more is always the no-more of what once was.

From the above analysis, it is clear that the whole world undergoes changes at one point of time and also contains within itself the past and the future history of cosmic evolu- tion. A seer endowed wilh the untainted vision can in one moment perceive the past, present or future or this cosmic evolutionary process.2 Everyting is in everything as we find in the Sāmkhya ( Yogaj pratyakșa ).

Bhiksu is of the opinion that the concept of time as moments does not amount to the denial of time. It simply holds that time does not possess objective reality apart from the moment ( Ksana ). But moment is real, being indistinguishable from the unit of change.3 This also is real only at the stage of Savicāra Prajnā ( Empirical intuition ). At a latter stage of Nirvicāra Prajña ( intellectual intuition ), reals are appre-

1. Vhã-IV. 12-Yadi tu Vartamānatvabhavat atitanāgatyaḥ asatyaḥ hantabho. Vartamānāsya-pyabhāvo'tītānāgatatvabha- vāt. Abhāvavisistatayātu sattvam trayaņāmāpyavisistam. 2. YSu-III. 53. ( quoted above ) 3. Yvā-III. 51-Guņapariņāmasya Kşaņatva Vacanāt.

CHAPTER VI 121

hended as they are, divested of all empirical relations of time, space and causality.

Nāgeśa is an ardent supporter of yoga view of time. His view is somewhat different from that of Patanjali. He frequently quotes him but interprets his view in his own way. He holds like Patanjali that present is real though not perceived but he proceeds further and says that time has no reality apart from the imperceptible atomic present.1 In Sāmkhya pravacana Bhāșya, it is said that eternal time and space partake of the nature of Ākāśa. In other words, they are all-pervasive and eternal like Ākāśa. But empirical time and space are produced out of Ākāśa.2

In Tattvasamäsa, space and time are conceived as the qualities of nature and to be eternal and all present. In the words of A. B. Keith, "In the empiric world both appear as limited, and are explained in a quite inconsistent way by origination from ether through its conditioning by the masses of corporal nature on the one hand, in the case of space, and by the movement of the heavenly bodies in the case of time."3

In Yukti-dipikā, the view of those is criticised who maintain that the origin of universe is dependent on time.4 The author of this text boldly denies the existence of time. He maintains that time is conceived for the sake of assigning a limit in the uninterrupted flow of action such as in the beating of pulse etc. Thus it ( time ) does not basically differ from actions and actions are taken to be the functions of organs by the Sāmkhya texts. Consequently, this 'time' falls within the domain of organs. The following lines will illustrate5 :-

1. VSLM-p. 840. 2. SBhā-II. 12-Dikkālāvakāsādibhyaḥ. 3. Samkhya system -pp. 121-122. 4. Yukti-p. 88. 5. Ibid-p. 158 / 10-12 lines.

122 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Prāgevaitadapadisțam na Kālo nāma kaścit padārtho'sti, Kimtarhi kriyāsu Kāla samjñā. Tasmāt karaņa caitanyapratijnah kalātmaka iti.

The author of this text further asserts that time is not a factor which brings any change in any entity. It simply helps in such change by means of its relation. He says : Kālastu sambandhamātropakāri na vikriyāhetuḥ.1

The Concept of Space. Like time, space also is not a reality beyond us. It is a necessity of human thinking. In the words of Dr. Seal: "Space must be distinguished as Deśa (Locus or rather extension ) and Dik ( relative position ). Space (Dik) as the totality of position, or as an order of co-existent points, is wholly relative to the understanding, like order in Time, being constructed on the basis of relations of position intuited by our empirical or relative consciousness ...... On the other hand, Space as extension or a Locus of the finite body, Deśa, has an alternate unit, being analysable into the infinitesimal extensive quantity inherent in the Reals ( Gunas ) of Prakrti."2 The above contention tacitly implies that Dr. Seal is of the opinion that Sämkhya-Yoga assigns some sort of objective reality to Space which is wholly denied to time. But such contention is not tenable as the Gunas are the constituents of mind also and extension cannot be assigned to it. Besides, the idea of Space is possible only as an order of co-existent points. Lastly Sāmkhya-yoga texts assign the same status to both these principles. It is plausible to hold that the idea of Space is a development of bare notion of externality, this externality becoming extension because diverse and rapidly succeeding impressions are felt to be co-existent.3

1. Yukti-p. 89/ 7-8 lines. 2. Yvā-Gunaprakrteraņupariņāmaņ. 3. A Study of Yoga-Ghosh-p. 255.

CHAPTER VI 123

Time And Space As Conditioning Factors

From the standpoint of the gunas, there is no basic diffe- rence among the things but they differ according to space, time, form and causality. Thus the evolutionary process is determined by Space and time etc. It is said that the same fruit undergoes different changes according to time and place etc. Yoga-Bhāșya says, "Two Amalak fruits having the same characteristic, develop in a different way as they are situated at different points of space. The difference in situation helps us to distinguish them as this and that. In the state of inattention, it is not easy to distinguish between two Amlaka fruits even if, one is brought from a distant place. But right knowledge helps to discern the distinction between the two.'1 It is said in Tattvavaisāradī : "In snmmer there is no rain hence no paddy grows in that season."2

Thus we see that time, Space etc. are conditioning factors which influence to a great extent the varying changes and growth. In a way, they guide the entire evolutionary process. Other factors remaining the same, two Amalaka fruits differ in some respect due to different points of space; here the operation of cause is conditioned by space. In the other illustration given above, it has been pointed out that the operation of cause is also limited by time.3

The Nature of Ākasa ( Space )

The Sāmkhya-Yoga system maintains ākāśa to be an all- pervasive and non-obstructive entity. It is the universal substratum in which all things exist and move freely.4

It seems that the postulation of ākāśa as the medium of free movement is a necessity. This contention is criticised

1. YBha-III. 53. 2. TV-III. 14. 3. TV-III. 14. 4. TV-III. 40.

124 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

by the Nyāya-vaiśeşika system. But there is a general agree- ment among the Indian philosophers on treating ākāșa as a locus of all elements.

According to Bhiksu, there are two kinds of ākāśa-Kāraņa ( Primal ) and Kārya ( Atomic )

Kāraņa ākāśa is identical with the undifferentiated Tamas which cannot manifest itself in sounds. But this Kāraņa ākāśa grows into Kāryākāśa which has the quality of sound. Kāryākāśa is not a mere nothing, but it is an all-pervasive entity, almost analogous with the ethereal space of the modern physicists.

Bhikşu asserts that Dik and ākāśa are not separate entities.1

A Critical Estimate

Yoga view of time given above implies that the nature of time varies according to the objects considered by our mind. The time that is found outside has no separate existence. It is a mental construct. Mathematical time is a creation of ours. The author of the Yuktidipikā denies the existence of time and identifies it with action or function of organs. Perhaps he refers to Physiological time which is different from Physical time. Physiological time is the expression of the changes of body and its activities during the course of life. Some of these changes are rhythmic such as the pulsation of the heart. The movement of the organ itself is physiological time.

This physiological time cannot be properly measured in terms of solar time. Events, of course, are measured in forms of days and years for the sake of convenience. But this method does not apply to the rhythm of organic processes which constitutes intrinsic time. In fact, chronolgical age is not analogous with physiological age. Puberty is attained by different individuals at different ages. It is the same with

1. Yva-III. 51 ...... Digākāsayorekatvaditi dik,

CHAPTER VI 125

menstruation. True age is determined by organic and func- tional states. Some remain young for many years while the organs of other decay early in life. Thus physiological time depends on inner organic processes and it cannot be expressed in terms of extrinsic time.

CHAPTER VII The Concepts of Space and Time in the Mimamsa. There is an element of time in action. The action is in a way determined by time.1 While interpreting Vedic hymns, it has been said that if the hymns are correctly recited, they refer to the laws of time or life.2 The law of life is common to all animals and this law is not conditioned by time and space.3 It is said in Jaimini Sutras that Time is not the cause of the result of action. It is the effort which brings result. Śruti never refers to time as the chief cause, for a result never occurs simply due to the passage of time, In certain cases only reference to time may be made. If even after putting for the sincere efforts, one fails to achieve result, we can attribute the failure to time. Decay, dealh, etc. are caused by time. In ancient conception, time is associated with decay, death and failure. Thus the function of time is to change anything to worse. This text clearly says that everything happens due to the impelling force and time is not connected with it.4 The idea of change is associated both with Nature and time.5 The idea of time arises when something new comes into being. The word 'immeasurable' occurs in the text, which always refers to time or we might say that time itself is immeasurable as it is beginningless and endless. The idea of the birth of a son in Śruti refers to the fact that time can be divided and subdivided. The instrument of intellect gives us 1. J. S. II. 4. 27-Sarasvate vipratişedhādyadettsyāt. 2. Ibid. III. 2-11 .- Sūktavāke ca kālavidhiḥ pararthātvāt. 3. Ibid. III. VI. 21-Tenotkıştasya kālāvadhiriti cet. 4. J. S .- II. 3. 28-41. 5. Ibid-V. 4. 22-24.

CHAPTER VII 127

the proper idea of time, thus through the characteristic of soul we get the idea of time.1 Prof. Thadani says: "It may be of interest to point out that the ancient divisions of time into Yuga, Manvantara, and Kalpa all refer to the exercise of our mental faculties. For instance, the word Yuga is derived from Yuj, one of the meanings of which is "to fix or concen- trate the mind." The word Manvantara is derived from Manu, which is the same as Manas or mind; while one of the meanings of the word 'Kalpa' is research or investigation. Indeed the word 'Käla' for Time is itseif derived from Kal, which means "to perceive, consider." Hence we might say that the idea of time involves a proccss of thought or a func- tion of the intellect or the mind.2

Orderly arrangement of things or the succession of events give us an idea of time. The appearaace of a new thing or the birth of a son refer to the orderly arrangement of things in the world. Thus the idea of time can be had only through the succession of events.3

The MImāmsā holds that time cannot be personified as God, for God creates and sustains the universe. But time is not always conceived like this. Sometimes it is treated as the greatest :destructive force.4 Such concept of time is found in other sacred books also. It may be argued that the time be treated as God at least at the beginnining of things ( Preli- minary sacrifice ). The simple reply to this is that at that stage, time cannot be conceived at all. Thus it cannot be personified as God even at that stage.

Time acts upon everything of the universe after the life begins but it itself remains unaffected. Thus it is said to exist

1. Ibid-VI. 4. 35-42. 2. Mīmāmsa-p. 139. 3. J. S .- VI. 4. 43-47. 4. Ibid-IX. 2. 52-60.

128 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

for other things and not for itself.1 It may be compared with the Prakrti of Sāmkhya. About division of time, it is said that it is like curdled butter which partakes of the nature of both the butter and curd yet the two can be separated. Likewise, Time is divided yet it is a continuous whole.2 The uninterrupted flow of time is like one desire succeeding the other in an endless chain, hence Time is represented in terms of two successive desires.3 This aspect of time can be compared with the concept of time of Whitehead. It has been stated that desire arises when the mind begins to function hence the idea of time is associated with desire.4 The Sütra clearly holds that Time cannot be said to be the cause of creation. The above contention is supported by the gitā where it is maintained that the creator is the God.5 While interpreting the words of the sacred text, it has been said that the number twelve refers to time. 6 Prof. Thadani holds : "As time too refers to the sun, and may be said to be a radiation from it, the number twelve also refers to Time. It will be found on examination that it constitutes the basis of the calculation of the time of day and night, the months of the year, as well as the great ages of Time,-all of which are multiples of the number twelve." 7 The idea of time is closely associated with Prakrti as both of them represent change. The text says dvādaśa-śatam which may mean 112 and 1200. These two numbers either refer to

1. Ibid-IX. 2. 58-60; X. 6. 3. 2. Ibid-X. 6. 64. 3. J. S .- X. 8. 69-70. 4. Ibid-XI. 2. 20-22. 5. Grtal X. 7. or J. S .- XI. 3. 46-49. 6. Ibid-XI. 4. 19-20. 7. Mīmāmsā-p. 377 n.

CHAPTER VII 129

Prakrti or to passage of time. 1 The ancients have divided Time into Yugas, Manvantaras and Kalpas. The Yugas are said to be four in number, the entire duration of these Yugas make a Manvantara and a thousand Yugas constitute a Kalpa. The four Yugas are Satya, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali; their duration is said to be 1,728,000, 1,296,000, 864,000 and 432,000 years of men respectively. On a searching analysis, it will be found that these figures are the multiples of 1200, which may be said to refer to Prakrti or Time. The number 1200 is itself based on the number 12, which really represents Time or Prakṛti. The two schools of Purva-MImamsā-Prabhākara and Kumā- rila-admit that substance is that in which quality resides and they treat time and space as substances. 2 The Ślokavārttika is a commentary in verse by Kumārila on the first Päda of the first chapter of Sabara Bhāsya. This is an important work of Kumārila. This text says that Kāla is one, eternal and all-pervasive. 3 Time, though all-pervasive, is conditioned by extraneous adjuncts. In empirical usage,. different divisions and subdivisions are made. 4 The Tantravärttika is another commentary in prose on Śabara Bhäsya which describes the characteristics of Kāla thus- "Kāla etc. are all eternal like the Veda." 5 Prabhäkara also treats Time as one of the eternal substances. 6 Direct Perceptibility of Time ( Kala ) Prabhākara holds that Ākāśa and the rest ( including time )

1. J. S .- VI. 7. 15-16. 2. Prakaraņa-pp. 24, 54, 77, 84; Māna page 149-Parimānaguņādhāram dravyam dravyavido viduḥ. 3. ŚV-page 806. Kalaścaiko vibhurnityah pravibhakto'pi gamyate. 4. Māna-p. 191. 6. TV-page. 236. 6. Prakaraņa-p. 84.

9 A. T.

130 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

cannot be perceived as they cannot be seen or touched or heard. It should be borne in mind that Prabhākara considers some degree of magnitude along with colour and touch etc., as a necessary condition of proper sense perception. Time, though possessing large dimension, is not perceptible as it is devoid of colour and touch. 1 This contention is supported by the Nyaya-Vaisesika also. The views of this system have "been elaborately discussed in the previous chapter. Bhatta holds that if Time etc., were not perceptible, then their existence would not be established, as there is no means of valid knowledge except perception. The opponents argue that their existence can be inferred on the basis of specific quality possessed by them. Time is inferred from the concept of simultaneity etc. To this, the Bhatta Mīmāmsaka replies that time cannot be inferred on the basis of simultaneity etc. As these probans ( hetu ) have time as their content. If time is the content of the notions of simultaneity etc. they are pro- duced either by the sense organs or by a probans. They are not produced by a probans (linga ) as no probans except simul- taneity etc. is admitted by the Nyāya-Vaiseșika. If the notions of simultaneity etc. are probans, they are self-dependent ( ātmāśraya ). If they are produced through sense organs, then time becomes perceptible as these notions have time as their content. Further it is held that the concepts like 'It is now morning time', 'It is now evening time', clearly prove that they are produced by the sense of sight, assisted by the sight of sunrise. So time becomes perceptible and is perceived by six sense organs. 2 Further absence of colour in time does not prove that it is imperceptible. In fact, it is just a chance that some objects, which are perceptible, possess colour and others are devoid of it. Thus the contention of the opponent suffers from the fallacy of false generalisation.

1. Ibid-pp. 24-26. 2. Māna-pp. 189-190.

CHAPTER VII 131

In this way, the Bhatta MImamsaka has established the perceptibility of time.

The Concept of Space ( Dik ) Jaimini has not discussed seriously the problem of Space. It is vaguely referred to as one of the substances. The nature and function have not been elaborated. Jaimini simply tells us that when words refer to these substances ( including space ), it is necessary to break them up into parts as they are framed in that manner. It has been made clear in the text that a number of words are newly coined for the purpose. 1 Kumārila holds, on the authority of the Vedas, that audi- tory sense returns to its primary condition, viz. space ( Dik ). It is implied therein that the auditory sense is constituted by space or Dik ( which is its primary condition ). Further it is held that the space ( Dik ) is all-pervasive and unitary and it extends as far as Ākāa itself. But when it is limited within the region of ear, it is transformed into the "Auditory sense"-just as Ākāśa is admitted to be (by the Vaiśeşikas ). Kumārila emphatically asserts that his doctrine is supported by the Vedas hence it is more authentic than the theory propounded by the Vaiśesikas which holds that auditory sense is a part of Ākāśa. 2 Space, though all-pervasive and unitary, is limited and divi- ded on account of extraneous adjuncts like before, behind etc. 3 Kumārila also maintains that Ākāśa and Dik etc. are eternal like the Veda. 4 In the Prakaraņapañcikā, among the eternal substances, Dik or Space has also been enumerated. 5

1. J. S. X. 3. 68-70. 2. ŚV-Tejah Prakrtivijñānam .. ...... nabhobhāgaprakalpane. 3. Mana-p. 191. 4. TV-p. 236. 5. Prakaraņa-p. 84.

132 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Thus both these schools of Prabhākara and Kumārila con- sider Dik or Space as eternal substance.

Direct Perceptibility of Space Śālikanātha, representing Prabhākara's view, holds that like time, Dik or Space is also imperceptible, though posses- sing great dimension. Space is devoid of colour and touch which are necessary conditions of perceptibility. 1 Nārāyana, representing the view of the Bhatta School, demonstrates that space is also perceptible like time. He says that the cencepts of before, behind etc. are dependent on the sense of sight and have space or Dik as content. The inference of Space is as ridiculous as the inference of jar etc. when they are before our very eyes. 2 Pārthasārathi Miśra contends that space and time are perceptible as the qualification of other substances. 3

Thus Bhatta Mimāmsakas emphatically assert the percepti- bility of space as well.

The Nature of Ākasa or Space

The text also distinguishes between Dik and ākāśa like the Nyāya-Vaiśeșika. Śālikanātha, representing Prabhākara's views, holds that ākāsa is inferred as the substratum of sound, for sound cannot belong to the source from which it originates and the organ of hearing can never reach the source of sound. 4

According to Kumārila, Ākāśa is eternal, indivisible and all-pervasive. 5 He refutes the position of Śamkara who holds :

. Prakaraņa-pp. 24-26. 2. Māna-p. 190. Evam diso'pi ......... nena nirākaraņiyam. 3. Śastradīpikā-pp. 140, 145, 146. 4. Prakaraņa-p. 145. 5. Māna-p. 186. Svarūpāņi nirūpyate Vyomādīnāmataņ Kramāt. Nityāni cānavayavadravyāņi ca vibhūni ca.

CHAPTER VII 133

"Ākāśa was produced from the soul." In the Mānameyodaya it is said, "The substances ( including Ākāśa ) are eternal, because they are indivisible substances like Soul." 1 The con- flict with the scriptural passages is due to the fact that the meaning of scriptural passages is unintelligible in their literal sense. Dircct Perceptibility of Ākāsa Prabhākara mantains that ākāśa cannot be apprehended by the sense of sight as it is devoid of colour. If it had colour, it would also be tangible, as colour and tangibility go together. The apparent whiteness of ākāśa is due to the particles of fire hanging in atmosphere, while darkness is neither a quality nor a substance and therefore must be deemed to be absence of light. It is never a positive entity. 2 Nyāya also supports this contention. Thus ākāśa is imperceptible according to Prabhākara. Kumārila does not accept the position of Prabhākara. He holds that if ākāśa is not admitted as perceptible, then its very existence will be destroyed as there is no other valid means of knowledge to apprehend it. 3 To this, Prabhākara replies that sound is a specific quality and a specific quality is unintelligible in absence of any substratum; ākāśa results as its substratum. Thus Prabhākara proves that the existence of ākāśa can be established on the basis of inference, which is definitely a valid source of knowledge. 4 Kumārila says that sound as quality is itself unintelligible and even if it is admitted as a quality, it does not prove the

1. Ibid. 2. Prakaraņa-p. 143. 3. Māna-p, 187. Vyomakaladis'āmādau pratyakşatvam samar- thyate. Aniștam Bhatțapādoktimā-dhuryānabhilāșiņām. 4. Mana-page 188. Śabdasya Visesaguņatvāt guņasya ca guņi- nāmāntareņānupapatteḥ śabdaguņāśrayatvena tāvadākāśasiddhiḥ.

134 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

existence of ākāśa for the law of parsimony suggests that it is better to assume a further quality in an established substance than to assume a non-established substance. Further he em- phasises that it is universally admitted fact that ākāśa is perceptible. 1 The inferences that seek to prove its imper- ceptibility are not valid, since they are contradicted by pre- sumption.

Ākasa and Sound

Prabhākara, like Vaiśeşika, treats ākāśa as the substratum of sound. He does not see any ground to give to sound the status of a distinct substance. He reduces sound to mere quality, which resides in a substance. But Kumārila and his followers maintain that sound is a substance. It can never be a quality as it is apprehended independent of the substratum. It is the characteristic of a substance that it is independently and directly perceived and also can exist as self-subsistent real. Thus Kumārila concludes that it is more reasonable to hold that sound is a substance rather than a quality. 2

The position of Prabhākara that sound is a quality seems to be inconsistent as sound and words occupy an important status in Mīmāmsaka texts. Prabhākara seems to be influenced by the Naiyāyikas who have taken great pains to refute the position of Mīmāmsakas regarding sound.

1. Mana-pp. 188-189. 2. Mana-p. 218. Viyadguņatvam sabdasya kecid ūcur maņişiņah Pratyakşādivirodhāt tad Bhațțapādair upekșitam. Tatra guņasya sarvatra Sāśrayatayā pratiyama-manatvad iha ...... ca nirāśrayatayaiva pratītidarsanāt pratyakşavirodhah ... Śabdo dravyam sattve satyanāśrayatvāt gaganavat.

CHAPTER VIII

The Concepts of Space and Time in the Vedanta The process of creation as shown in the Brahma Sūtras points out that the world is in time. 1 The essential charac- teristic of time is succession and sequence. The stages indi- cated in the creative process involves succession. This suc- cession implies that world must be in time. As Brahman is the prius of the universe, creation is necessarily an event in time. The creation and the dissolution of the world are a temporal series. The migration of the finite soul from one body to another till it attains emancipation envisages temporal sequence. The experiences gathered by this finite soul in each birth and the death is an event in time. All the Vedanta Schools agree on one point that the liberated soul is beyond the domain of temporal world. Thus the world and the finite souls live, move and have their being in time. Now a pertinent question arises, as to how can an eternal and changeless Brahman be held to be preceding the world. Precedence is a time-relation. If Brahman precedes the world and brings it into existence at certain point of time, Brahman cannot be above time and cannot be called eternal. The word 'eternal' is used in various senses. Eternal means existing for an unending span of time. Sometimes this word is used in the sense of timeless or above time. Sometimes it is taken as transcending time yet somehow including it. 2 Vedānta texts have made a distinction between self-contain- ed Brahman and Brahman who creates this world. Brahman

1. Brahma Sutra-II. 3. 4. & II. 3. 14. 2. Pringle Pattison-The Idea of God, p. 343.

136 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

as the originating principle is said to be at the further end of the time-series which is the world. Thus an attempt has been made to reconcile the eternal character of Brahman and the temporal world created by him. Thus Brahman is eternal in the third sense of the term as shown above. Brahman is above time, yet somehow is included in it ( time ).

Advaita Vedānta emphasises complete identity between the world and Brahman, hence it denies the reality of the finite world of time and space. Māyā explains the existence of temporal and spatial world.

But the existence of this physical world cannot be denied easily. Besides migration of finite souls is there. These two compel us to admit time as a reality. Brahman is eternal in the sense that it endures for an unending span of time.

It may be borne in mind that the whole world is a process in time. The temporal order of the world is in Brahman. Thus Brahman is above and yet somehow includes it ( time ).

In Advaita Vedänta, Brahman is the highest reality. Bra- hman is said to be non-temporal, non-spatial and non-causal. Space, time and causality are taken to be the categories of empirical knowledge. These categories presuppose manifold- ness which is a product of Avidyā. Avidyā itself is at the root of all empirical knowledge.1 Thus time, space and causality possess empirical reality only. These categories have sway over empirical objects. Brahman transcends these categories. Hence time does not apply to Brahman.2 Brahman is eternal. It is the timeless reality. It transcends the past, the present and the future. Thus it is non-temporal or time- less. 3 Though Brahman is the ground of spatio-temporal world of names and forms yet it is different from it. As

1. ŚB, Mānd K .- II. 14. Bahyānām anyonyaparicchedyatvam, 2. ŚB, Mānd K .- III. 2, 19, 20, 24, 27, 38; IV. 14, 22, 38, 40. 3. ŚB, Mand Up. I. 1; ŚB. Kațha. Up. II, 1, 5.

CHAPTER VIII 137

all mutations are differentiations of names and forms. Thus Brahman is above spatio-temporal sequence. 1

Citsukha, a great exponent of Advaita Vedānta, has elabo- rately discussed the problem of time.

While refuting the existence of time, he holds that time, cannot be perceived by the visual or tactual sense as it is devoid of colour and touch. It cannot be perceived even through mind ( manas ) for mind operates only in association with the external senses. It cannot be even inferred in absence of perceptual data. 2 Time cannot be inferred as the substratum of the notions óf priority, posteriority, succession and simultaneity, quickness and slowness as these notions are not apprehended always and at all places, which should have been the case. 3 It may be urged by the Naiyäyikas that the entity, which establishes relation between the solar vibration and the worldly things, is called time. 4 Citsukha replies that all-conscious self is the cause of the manifestation of time in things and events, hence it is needless to assume the existence of a further sub- stance called time. The notions of priority and posteriority also donot presuppose time. These notions are associated with the larger or smaller quantity of solar vibrations. Thus it is useless to admit time as a separate category. 5

The Upanisads deal with the problem of time and speak

1. ŚBS-IV. 3. 14. Na deśakaladivaśesasamyogaḥ paramātmanah kalpayitum śakyate. 2. Dravyagrāhakyoścakşusparśanayostasmin rupavirahiņi sparśavi- dhure cāpravrtteh manasaśca bāhyendriyanirapekşasya bahir- pravrtteḥ, ananubhavācca-CitsukhĪ. p. 510. 3. Parāparayaugapadyāyaugapadyacirakşiprapratyayah pratyekam lingamiti cet, na; teşām nirupādhikakālanibandhanatve pratya- yavailakşaņyānupattiprasangāt. Ibid, 4. Ibid. p. 511 ( Vallabha's view of time ). 5. Citsukhi-pp. 513-514.

138 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

about the origination of time. Brahman has been shown to be the creator of time. 1 Thus these scriptures maintain that the existence of time is simultaneous with creation. According to Advaita Vedānta, time is always associated with the events. Time does not enjoy any independent and absolute status. It is dependent on occurring events. Śamkara clearly main- tains-"Time is dependent on the nature of events." 2 Swām Vivekānanda, a modern exponent of Advaita Vedānta, main- tains-"Time depends on two elements just as space has to be related to outside objects." 3 From the analysis made above, it is clear that Advaita Vedänta does not accept the existence of empty time aloof and apart from the occurring events or change. Consequently time must associate itself with the objects arranged in spatial order or with the space itself. Swāmī Vivekānanda observes-"Time, space and causation cannot be said to be independent existences. The one peculiar attribute we find in time, space and causation is : they cannot exist separately from other things ... .. "4 Thus Advaita Vedänta shows the interdependence and inter-connectedness of space and time. This aspect has not been clearly emphasi- sed in other systems of Indian Philosophy.

According to Advaita Vedānta, space and time must be referred to the physical universe, Swāmiji observes-"It ( space ) has to be connected with some object to have any existence, so also time." 5 To illustrate it, he compares the universe with the form, the absolute Brahman with the ocean and the material objects with the waves. He shows that the difference among the material objects is due to their forms, viz. space, time and causality. He emphasises that the time,

1. Śveta-6. 2. 2. ŚB .- Mundaka. 3. The complete works-Vol. II. p. 135. 4. The Complete works. Vol. II. pp. 135-136. 5. Ibid-p. 135.

CHAPTER VIII 139

space and causality are solely dependent upon the waves, the material objects. Thus it seems that the Vedäntins were aware of the difficulties involved in admitting space and time as absolute reality, which Naiyāyika realist could not grasp. This standpoint of the Advaita Vedāntins favourably compares with the views of modern scientific philosopher like Einstein. Advaita Vedäntins deny the direct perceptibility of empty time but at the same time they hold that the present time sub- sisting in the object as qualifying element is directly cognised by the percipient. 1 According to Ramanuja, time is among unconscious sub- stances ( acit ). Time is given a separate status. 2 Meghanādāri, one of the earliest members of Rāmānuja School, says that time may not be considered as a separate substance. He has tried to show that Rāmānuja also holds such view. He maintains that the notion of time arises from the relative position of sun in the Zodiac with the reference to earth. 3 In the words of Dr. S. N. Das Gupta-"It is the varying earth-space which appears as time, being conditioned by the relative position of sun." 4 Venkațanātha argues that the attempt of the Vaiśeșikas to infer time from solar revolution and to account for the notions of posteriority and priority is not a satisfactory argument. Even if we admit that the relation between solar motions and objects is understood, that will not account for the notions of priority and posteriority. We can utmost concede that there

1. Dr. Dutta-The Six Ways of Knowing. p. 101. 2. R.B. S. I. 1. 2. 3. Naya-Dyu-maņi-p. 168. Sūryā-di-sambandhaviśeșo-pādhitaḥ prthivyādideśanām eva kalasamjña ( As quoted in A History of Indian Philosophy-Vol. III. p. 349 Dr. S. N. Dasgupta ). 4. A History of Indian Philosophy-Vol. III. p. 349 Dr. S. N. Dasgupta.

140 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TI ME is a solar motion and the object existing side by side. Nor again can we account for it by the larger or smaller number of motions, because the very notion of large or small number is unintelligible without the notion of time. Kant has shown that counting itself presupposes time determination. So the attempt to deduce the notion of time from number of solar motions and from the notions of priority and posteriority suffers from the fallacy of petitio principii. Moreover if time were to be known by inference, it would become absolutely inconceivable. If experience be the criterion, there is no proof of this hypothesis of imperceptible time. People do not infer time from priority or posteriority. On the contrary as we have just observed, priority and posteriority are temporal determinations. It must, therefore, be admitted that time is a matter of intuition. Time is perceived. It is not, however, held as a subjective mode of perception as has been done by Kant. It is, on the contrary, an objective fact which is known as the invariable adjectival determination of all objects of perception. In perception, it is perceived as moment. In recognition, it is known as a span of time such as days, nights and so on. In recognition, a particular object is known to be identical with one perceived in the past and this presupposes the knowledge of a span of time such as a month or a year. In this connection, an objection may be raised : how can there be knowledge of a large span of time such as a day or a year ? It cannot be derived from perception, since the latter is always confined to the present moment. Moreover, time being one, identical, eternal entity without a beginning and without an end is of no pragmatic consequence, inasmuch as our perception takes stock of a fragment of time, felt as the present moment. How can there be distinctions of past, pre- sent and future in one, eternal, identical entity ? It must be conceded that these distinctions are relative to external con- ditions such as the movement of the sun. The present moment is understood only in so far as it is associated with a present

CHAPTER VIII 141

fact. In other words, present time can be perceived only as associated with a perceived datum. In modern times, we can know time by perceiving the motion of the hands of the watch. The contention of the Vaisesika that time is always inferred from the movement of an external object, say the hands of the clock, cannot, therefore, be likely brushed aside. In reply to this contention, it is argued that there can be no doubt about the fact that time is perceived whenever any- thing is perceived. The movements of the sun or the hands of a timepiece are perceived as associated with time. That time is one, eternal entity is also conceded by the Vaiśesika philosophers. These distinctions as past, present and future are determined only by reference to these associated adjuncts. The difference between the position of Venkatācārya and that of the Vaisesika lies in the consideration that these temporal determinations such as past, present and future are externally imposed on time according to Vaiseşika. Whereas according to Venkața, they are the natural and inherent transitions of time, which is a dynamic substance. This is "also endorsed by Yādavaprakāśa, 1 Time is constantly undergoing change in terms of moments. But it is not perceivable by itself. It is perceived when it is associated with a perceivable datum such as the movement of the sun. The determinations of time as past, present and future are discernible only when the movement of an external object is perceived. It is contended that there can be no recognition because a span of time is never perceived and recognition has a necessary reference to the past and the present. It can- not again be maintained that the past time, day, month or a year was perceived in the past and is now recalled in recogni- tion, since perception is always of the present moment and not of a large volume of time. The objection is met by the

1. Tattvamuktākalāpa-p. 631. Yadi nitya ekah kālaḥ. Yādavaprakāsairabhyupagato'yam pakșaḥ.

142 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

argument that time is perceived along with an adjunct. When recognition takes place, it necessarily takes cognizance of the past time associated with the number of solar movements. We have to accept it on the testimony of our experience that time is perceived along with an object associated with it. The contention of Venkațācārya is that it is not only the movement of external objects but also time itself are perceived together. The Vaiseşika's argument that time is inferred from solar motion and the like is a case of pure non-sequitur. If time is not perceived at all, how can there possibly be the know- ledge of the necessary relation of solar revolutions with time ? In all inference, the knowledge of universal and necessary concomitance between the probans ( middle term ) and the probandum ( major term ) is a necessary condition. Time cannot be known by inference either as a specific entity or as an unspecified cause. An objection has been raised by the Buddhists 1 that the contention, that time is perceived, is untenable. It is argued that perception other than recognition takes note of the present. But the present cannot be disentangled from the past and the future as has been urged by the Mädhyamika. That present act is indiscernible. For instance, the proposition, 'A man is going' is unmeaning. The ground that has been traversed is not the object of the present act of going and that which has not been traversed is also not its object and in between the area traver- sed and the area untraversed, there is no intervening point on which the present act can take place. 2 So the present is only an unfounded superstition. With the collapse of the present, the past and the future also disappear. Time thus transpires to be a pleasant illusion of the uninformed mind.

1. Tattvamuktā Kalāpa. p. 625. Ataļ katham kālapratyakşatvam ? 2. Gatan na gamyate tāvat agatam naiva gamyate / Gatāgatavinir muktam gamyamāno na vidyate // Mādhyamika Kārika (Gatāgata Parikșā).

CHAPTER VIII 143

Venkața asks this question-"Who repudiates the percep- tion of the present ? If the Mādhyamika does it, we may not be concerned over it since he denies the existence of everything." The doctrine of voidity is, inspite of its inge- nuity, an unacceptable position in that it cannot be proved. The Mädhyamika does not believe in the validity of logical proofs and so he cannot be supposed to adduce any evidence in support of his thesis. Nāgārjuna, however, admits only one criterion for determining the question whether the state- ment is to be believed, namely that it is not self-contradictory. He posits non-contradiction, a negative yardstick, as the ground of acceptance and contradiction as that of rejection of the proposition. He uses the yardstick for evaluation of state- ments and propositions endorsed by his opponents. But what is sauce for the gander should also be sauce for the goose. If Nāgārjuna is sincere, he must also make the criterion of self-contradiction as the disproof of his own conclusion also. Taken by itself as an objective proposition, the statement "there is nothing existent in its own right" may not be guilty of self-contradiction. But the very assertion of it, exposes the hollowness of the proposition. The sceptic must be con- fronted with the question-Do you assert this conclusion from your own conviction ? If he answers in the affirmative, he must admit that his conviction is true and valid and it is not airy nothing. If the answer be in the negative, the statement unbacked by evidence will have no validity. So the doctrine of absolute nothingness need not cause much concern to a serious thinker.

To return to the point at issue, the intuition of time is denied on the ground that there is no present moment and even if its existence be conceded for the sake of argument, it cannot be an object of intuition because the present is conti- nually receding into the past and it is humanly impossible to lay one's finger upon it. But this objection seems to be naive. How can you deny the present without the knowledge of it ?

144 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Have you awareness of present or not ? or Do you think that this awareness though a fact, has no referent, or the referent is an imaginary construction ? The first alternative is unte- nable. 'I see this' is a meaningful statement. This evidently stands for the present. It is sheer dogmatism or ineptitude to dismiss these assertions as meaningless. The second alterna- tive too is equally unacceptable. A cognition or an assertion without an object is an impossibility. The third alternative seems plausible, it does not deny the experience or its referent but regards it as an illusion. An illusion or error is not con- versant with an absolute fiction which has never been felt. Error consists in ascribing a predicate to a wrong subject i.e. to say to one, to which it does not belong. But the predicate must have been the datum of a whilom experience. So, on none of these alternatives, the reality of time can be repudiated. Ontologically considered, time must be believed to be one, eternal principle, of which predication of origination or des- truction spells self-contradiction. 'Time was not in the past' is a non-sensical statement. It means there was a time when time was not. Similarly with regard to future assertions of non-existence of time e.g. there will be a time in which time will cease to be is a statement on which contradiction is writ large. Time on pain of self-contradiction must be affirmed to be a unitary principle. Of course, time has been made out as a subjective idea and the mode of intuition by Kant. With due deference to Kant, the implication of subjective time is disastrous since it divests all our experience of objective validity and truth. If it is pursued to its logical end, it will inevitably land us in the morass of scepticism.

It may, however, be argued, "well, let time be a reality." But one monolithic time has no practical use. Our ideas of time are expressed in tenses, but a unitary monolithic time cannot account for this usage. Ordinary people are absolutely unconcerned with a metaphysical time which is alleged to be a self-identical principle and as such is unsusceptible to change.

CHAPTER VIII 145

It is, however, the concept of change which makes admission of time inevitable. Unchanging time is only a metaphysical figment which does not avail a common man in interpretation of his experience or in the formation of a plan of action. It is as good as a fiction so far as the common man is concerned. This problem has been sought to be explained by the pos- tulation of external adjuncts i.e. actions. Actions vary and this variation of actions is a ground of attribution of variation to time. Time is divided into moments, hours, days, months,. years and so on and so forth. This is made possible by the association of solar movements with time. But this does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation. The external conditions. may differ and they may also stand in relation to time. But time without intrinsic divisions and differences cannot be supposed to be made different by external conditions. Our notions of past, present and future demand an explanation and the change of anything external cannot have any bearing on time unless it were itself possessed of these distinctions. Exter- nal conditions might only help us to spell out the divisions of time only if they were intrinsic states of the latter. Venkatā- cärya, in conformity with the position of the school to which he belongs, accordingly concludes that time is one principle but it is dynamic. It is one entity which is constantly under- going change. In this context, Venkațācārya refers to the Jaina theory of atomic time. According to the Jainas, time is not one entity but a series of atoms. 1 The greatness or smallness of time are accounted for by the number of motions, greater or smaller, which relate to the greater or smaller number of time-atoms. Time, in this view, is not one but an infinite plurality. But Venkața urges that it is not necessary to postulate the relation of motion to time-atoms to account for the temporal magnitude

1. Tattvamuktākalāpa, p. 633. Spandasantatisiddhyarıham Kāla- syāņutvakalpanam, 10 A. T.

146 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

of facts. 1 One time changing every moment can explain the span of life, greater or smaller, of things. Priority and pos- teriority are nothing but relation of things to a larger or smaller numer of changes occurring in time. This relation is not physical conjunction but one of container and the con- tained. Time is the receptacle of all things and their changes. It may be supposed that this sort of relation is possible also between time-atoms and changing things. Why should we then reject outright this theory of time-atoms ? The answer is that the postulation of an infinite number of time-atoms suffers from unnecessary multiplication of assumptions. It is simpler and more economical to suppose that one time with its infinite variations and changes accounts for all temporal determinations. It satisfies the Law of Parsimony ( Lāghava ). As regards the contention that time is not one but many and consists of moments which come into being and perish in- variably, which is a position of the Buddhists, it will suffice to say that the concept of perishable time involves the admission of another time in which it perishes. The logical difficulty alleged in the concept of one time accounting for the infinite temporal determination of events, suffers from the logical fallacy inherent in the combination of one and many. If time is one, it cannot be many; if it is many, it cannot possibly be one. But this contention is based upon abstract logical considerations. The very fact of change presupposes not only variation but also the unity of the entity that undergoes change. The Buddhist fluxist who equates change with destruction and denies the possibility of partial modification, is guilty of denial of change. If each fact comes into being and períshes and is succeeded by another fact which is also subject to the same fate, the offshoot will be that there are so many static events and change will be only an illusion. We do not make any gain by postulating an infinite number of time in lieu of one.

1. Ibid-p. 634.

CHAPTER VIII 147

Time accordingly is an eternal unitary principle according to Venkațācārya. But does not the concept of eternity entail a vicious circle or an infinite series ? What is eternity ? It means existence for all time. An eternal fact is, what exists in all the conceivable divisions of time without lapse. To predicate this attribute in respect of time presupposes the ex- istence of another time in which the time can exist. The second time also, being eternal, will also necessitate the pos- tulation of another eternal time and this constitutes its refutation. But all these consequences are only figments of misunderstanding. Eternity does not presuppose a different temporal background. It only means that it does not cease to exist that is to say, it does not meet with extinction. Time eternal, therefore, means that time is never extinct. There is thus no logical repugnance in the assertion of eternal time. Time is not only eternal but pervades the whole gamut of existence. Time is again the condition of all change. It is the efficient cause of all external changes and the material cause of its intrinsic change. There is again no incompatibi- lity in time being all-pervasive like God.1 God and time are coeternal and coubiquitous. God exists wherever time exists and time exists wherever God exists. Venkata does not think that two eternal and ubiquitous facts cannot stand in relation of mutual contact as the Vaiseşikas suppose. The Vaiśeşika thinks that conjunction is always a resultant of motion and so he denies unconditioned conjunction. But Venkața, like the Mimämsists, does not regard this as universally valid. Conjunction is conditioned only when things exist apart from one another and are conjoined by motion of one or both. As regards eternal and all-pervasive entities, they do not depend on an occasional movement for being brought into mutual conjunction.

1. Tattvamuktākalāpa, pp. 636-37. Ato yatra kālastatra sarvatra paramātmāstīti tasya kālavyāpakatvam.

148 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

It has been urged that if time be eternal and all-pervasive, it cannot be regarded as the cause of change. 1 Change is an event and as such must have a cause. The relation of causa- lity can be understood only by the application of Joint Method. But time being eternal cannot be occasional cause of an event. The method of difference is not capable of being applied to time; we cannot say that there is no time, there is no change. Mere concomitance in agreement is of no help in ascertain- ing the causal relation because the antecedence of time to the effect is eternally present. The answer is that the method of difference ( Vyatireka ) does not presuppose the bodily non- existence of the cause, a determining factor. It may be ascer- tained by reference to another fact. An event takes place in time. It is easily understandable that an event cannot come into being, though there may be other antecedent events. The impossibility of conceiving the occurrence of an event without reference to time is the proof of the causality of time in relation to that event. To sum up : Time according to Venkața, is one, eternal, all-pervasive principle, which is the condition of all changes- internal and external. It is an objective fact and has relation to all other facts-eternal and occasional.

Lokācārya holds that time is devoid of Sattva. It is the cause of the transformation of Prakrti and its different evolutes. It is eternal. It constitutes the body of Iśvara. It assists God in his sport. Time is divided into moments etc. due to its limiting adjuncts. 2 It is the general cause of all effects. Further it is contended that time is eternal in the abode of God but is non-eternal in the world. 3

The YatIndramatadIpikā, written by Śrīnivāsadāsa, explains in short the tenets of Visistādvaita school. According to

1. Ibid-p. 637. 2. Tattvatraya-p. 74. 3. Ibid. p. 79.

CHAPTER VIII 149

Śrinivāsa, time is a non-sentient (jada) substance. It is devoid of sattva, rajas and tamas. Thus Śrinivāsa differs with the view of Lokācārya who maintains that time lacks sattva element only. It is eternal and ubiquitous. But time as effect, which is experienced in our daily life, is noneternal and changing, It is divided into past, present and future. It is the substratum of such notions as simultaneity, immediacy, quickness, slowness etc. It is the cause of 'nimişa', 'Kāșțhā', 'Kalā', 'muhūrta', 'day', 'fortnight', 'month', season', 'solstice', 'year', and other higher computations. One month of human standard is equal to a day of the manes. One year of human standard is a day of the Devas; their daytime is the summer solstice and their night time is the winter solstice. The four Yugas together comprise twelve thousand years. It further speaks about the Manus. According to this text, Pralayas also depend on time. Time is the material cause of satya, naimittika and prākrta pralayas. Thus this text has followed the paurānic orders for the computation of the Yugas, the manvantaras and the pralayas etc.

Time plays an important role in the cosmic sport ( lilä- vibhūti ) of Īśvara. Īsvara is dependent on time at this stage. In eternal manifestation ( nityavibhūti ), though time is present, it does not enjoy independent status. It is subservient to Iśvara. According to this text, time is perceived through six sense organs. Thus the view, that holds time as inferable, is refuted.1 Madhva, the founder of Dvaitavāda, maintains that time is coexistent with all-pervading space. It is directly produced from prakrti. All other substances abide in it. It is said to be the generic cause of the production of all objects. 2 An objection is raised : if time is directly produced from Prakrti, wherefrom Mahat etc. would evolve. But this objection is not valid, for it is only from some parts of Prakrti time is

. Yatīndramatadīpikā-pp. 75-78. 2. Nyāya Sudha-II. 1. 6.

150 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPA CE AND TIME

evolved, while the other evolutes follow from other parts of Prakrti. 1 Madhva further maintains that matter, karma, time and nature and souls exist by the sufferance of God and can- not exist independently of Him. 2 He comments-"Time was, souls were, and God was, whatever there was, was there enveloped by God in whose power it was; hence it was ( as good as ) non-existent." 3

Vallabha, the propounder of Šuddhādvaita, maintains that real time comprehends existence (Sat) consciousness (cit ) and bliss ( ānanda ). But empirical time is a partial mani- festation of existence ( sat). Time disturbs the equilibrium of sattva, rajas and tamas. Karma ( activity ) and Svabhāva ( nature ) are the parts of time. 4

Śamkara has dealt with the problem of space in a more elaborate way than its twin principle time. He says ākāśa is the first entity in the scheme of creation. The power of God ( Māyā ) is transformed into ākāśa under His direction. Thus subtle ākāśa is conceived in association with the material bodies. Ākāśa becomes incomprehensible if material bodies are divested of it. Modern physicist like Einstein is of the opinion that we get at the concept of space through the con- cept of solid bodies. Thus Advaita Vedānta maintains that the creation of world of names and forms presupposes the existence of space as its substratum. In other words, Advaita Vedānta holds that space has a beginning, for it is the first

1. Madhva-Siddhānta Sāra-p. 64. Sarvatra vyāptānām katipaya-prakrti-sukșmānām kālopādāna- tvam, katipayānām mabad-ādy-upādānatvam katipayānām ca mūla-rūpeņa avasthānām, 2. Bhāgavata-Tātparya-II. 10. 12. Dravyam karma ca kālaśca svabhāvo jīva eva ca yadanugrahatah santi yadupekşayā. 3. Madhva, Brahma-Sutra-Bhaşya-II. 1. 17. 4. Commentary on Anubhāsya-p. 165.

CHAPTER VIII 151

entity of creation. Space makes possible the existence of other beings of the world. Thus space is the cause of creation. According to this text, space is imponderable, all-pervasive and subtle. 1 Further it is said that origination signifies dependence, finiteness and relative existence in relation to the originating principle ( Māyika Iśvara ). Space appears as in- finite but in reality it is limited. Thus space is finite, dependent and relative. According :to this text, a created entity cannot be absolutely independent. It must depend on some greater, higher and stable reality for being reals. Vivekānanda says that a relative entity cannot claim absolute independence. 2 We have seen that the Upanisads uphold the absolute reality of Brahman but some of the Upanisads vaguely exalt the in- finitude of space and equates this principle with the Brahman. But it should be borne in mind that such text simply point out the immense vastness of space. Besides, to uphold the eternity of Brahman, they compare Brahman with space etc. These texts repeatedly emphasise that Brahman alone is real and infinite and other elements are inter-dependent, finite and relative. 3

Śamkara clearly states that space has also an origination like other created objects. Created objects are divisible, likewise space can be differentiated from earth etc. The divisibility of space proves that it has an origination and it undergoes transformations. Śamkara says "The entire universe springs from Isvara-space being the first and later on the elements in due succession." 4 Śamkara always emphasises that space is associated with the material bodies, for he proves its divisi- bility on the basis of the presence of material bodies in it. Like other systems, Advaita Vedānta does not consider space

1. ŚBS-I. 1. 22.

2. The Complete Works-Vol. II. p. 132.

3. S. U .- 4. 8; Ch. U .- 4. 10. 4. 4. ŚBS-2. 3. 7.

152 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

to be eternal for it has qualities which undergo change and decay. Such a substance can never be an eternal one. This system clearly maintains that Brahman alone is infinite and eternal and other created objects including space are dependent and finite in relation to Him. Śamkara says-"The division of space is, however, shown by the earth etc .; therefore space also must be a transformation." 1

Śamkara has tried his best to refute the position of the nihilistic Buddhist that Ākāsa or space is a negative entity. According to him, ākāśa is a positive entity. This view is quite consistent with his theory of creation which holds that the creation of the entire universe follows from the primordial space. Śamkara very sensibly refutes the Buddhist standpoint that ākāśa is simply absence of obstruction. 2 According to Advaita Vedānta, space makes possible the emergence of a material world. It is in a way holdall of all created objects. It is not only a passive container but also an active cause of their origination. The entire universe has come out of it and ultimately merges into it. According to Rāmānuja, space is identified with ākāśa which is an evolute of prakrti. Venkața holds that ākāśa ( space ) is perceived by the visual organ. His argument is based on facts of experience in per- ceiving a blue sky or a reddish sky in the evening. He repu- diates the argument that the akāsa is only inferred through movement on the ground that the ākāsa exists even in thick walls where no movement is possible. He also disparages the contention of the Buddhists who hold that the Ākāsa is pure negation ( āvaraņābhāva ). It is this pure negation which according to Buddhists sometimes produces an illusion of positive entity. It is a fact of experience that negation of pain is taken as pleasure and negation of light as blue darkness.

1. Ibid. 2. Ibid. I !. 2. 24.

CHAPTER ViI I 153

Thus ākāśa is never a positive entity according to Buddhists. But Venkata does not accept the position of Buddhist and adduces powerful arguments in support of his contention that the ākāśa ( space ) is a positive entity. Negation itself pos- sesses a sort of positivity. 1 It does not basically differ from positivity. A negation is said to be absence of positive entity of which the negation is affirmed. That Ākāsa is a positive entity is proved by its positive experience. The contention that there is no ākāśa in occupied space is misleading, for ākāśa is perceived when the occupation is partially removed by cutting apart the occupying object. The negation of occu- pation is the predicate which is affirmed of the positive entity, ākāśa. Venkața further argues that if the above position is not accepted by the opponent, then such perceptions as 'Here is an object' will become altogether unintelligble, for the word 'here' will have no meaning if it is mere absence of negation. If again, there is an absence of ākāśa in an occupying object, it is implausible to define ākāśa as the absence of such an object, for in that case everything will negate itself, which is an absurd position. 2 It is contended even by the opponents that ākāśa appears as a surface. This points to the fact that ākāśa is a positive entity on which certain qualities are illusorily imposed. Had it been a pure negation, no quality would have been im- posed on it. The contention of the Buddhists that negation of pain is falsely taken as pleasure, does not weaken the posi- tion of Venkata, as negation itself is a sort of positivity. 3 1. Tattvamuktākalāpa-p. 511. nābhāvasya nissvabhāvatā abhāva svabhāvatayaiva tat siddheņ svanyasvabhāvatayā siddhistu na kasyāpi; na ca svena svabhāvena siddhasya parasvabhāvavira- hādasattvam ! atiprasangāt. 2. Tattvamuktākalāpa-p. 515. natvākaśamātram āvaraņeșva avidyamānatayā tadabhāva ākāśa iti cā'yuktam; sarveșām svas- minnavidyamānatayā svabhāvatvaprasańgāt. 3. Tattvamuktākalāpa -p. 516. Satyeva duņkhābhāve sukhāropāt. Abbāvasya bhāvānyatvamātram eva hyasattvam siddham ! tena ca svarūpasannevāsau.

154 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Venkața further argues that when it is said that there is no occupation here, the locus must be shown where the occupation is denied. The locus of such negation of occupation is ākāśa ( space ) itself. He concludes that ākāśa, which is neither eternal nor all-pervasive, is a positive entity. Dik or directions such as north, south etc., are not different from ākāśa which offers room for moving objects. It is ākāśa which appears as different dik ( directions ).

ŚrInivāsa says that Ākāśa arises from Šabdatanmātra. kāśa is that which is the locus of particular sound and which does not possess touch. It also gives satisfaction to the sense of hearing. Ākāśa is perceptible. Its specific attribute is sounđ and it is the cause of dik ( direction ). It is perceived thus : 'The sky is blue'. It possesses colour through the quintupli- cative process ( pañcikaraņa ). There is no separate substance like Dik ( direction ); for ākāśa ( space ) itself is taken as east, west etc. due to the movement of sun. 1

Madhva holds that ākāśa ( space ) is grasped by sākșī or antaḥkaraņa (consciousness ). To illustrate it, he has examined the views of other philosophers. Kumārila maintains that ākāśa ( space ) is grasped by the eye. But he is not correct as the eye can grasp only those things which have colour. Ākāśa ( space ) has no colour and hence it cannot be grasped by the eye.

The Nyāya-Vaiseşika holds that ākāśa is the substratum of the quality of sabda or sound. If it is a fact then a man born deaf should have no idea of ākāśa ( space). Due to his defective sense-organ, he cannot have the perceptual knowledge of śabda. Thus he should not have the knowledge of ākāśa also. But we do find that such deaf person has the idea of ākāśa ( space ) because like others he also says 'It is here'. This

1. Yatīndra-pp. 59-60.

CHAPTER VIII 155

statement points out that he also possesses the idea of ākāśa. Further this statement corroborates the fact that ākāśa is grasped by sākșī. Besides, there are two kinds of śabda ( sound ), articulate. and inarticulate. An articulate sound is never a quality. It is said to be beginningless and endless. It is changeless hence it is independent of the thing that makes it manifest. It is admitted that inarticulate sound is a quality. But there is no evidence to show that it is a quality of ākāśa ( space ). Madhva distinguishes between Avyākrtākāśa ( unmanifested space ) and bhūtākāśa (element space ). Avyākrtākāśa is eternal vacuity. It gives room to all things. Bhutākāśa is a manifestation of prakrti. It is one of the bhūtas ( substances ). Prakrti itself is in avyākrtākāśa hence it is the presuppositon of bhūtākāśa. Thus avyākrtākāśa ( unmanifest space ) makes possible the existence of all things. The Buddhists hold that ākāśa is the absence of a moving entity. A moving entity exists in a point of space. So its absence also exists in a point of space. Thus the absence of moving entities itself presup- poses the existence of äkāśa ( space ). Avyāktākāśa is eternal but because of the things in it, it is divided into parts such as ākāśa ( space ) contained in a jar and so on. If the things are removed, the divisions will be obliterated. Thus because of its divisions, it is non-eternal. It is known as eternal-non-eternal ( nityānitya ). 1 Vallabha, while interpreting Brahma-Sūtra, comments that from Brahman ākāśa has been produced. 2 Ākāśa can not be perceived through the visual organ. It is known through its specific quality, sabda or sound. Dik is not a separate entity from Ākāśa. 3

1. Nyaya Sudha-II. 3. 1. . Aņubhāsya-p. 61. Janmādyasya akāsasya yatah. 3. PRK-p. 209.

CHAPTER IX

A brief survey of the views of modern Scientific Philosophers-Newton, Einstein, Sir James Jeans, Sir Eddington and Alexander.

In the Newtonian scheme, the concepts of space and time are fundamental. But Newtonian concept seems to be more a concept of commonsense than a scientific one. According to him, space has a being of its own and it is completely empty. It is expanded and material bodies exist in it. Space is imagi- ned to be existing prior to the appearance of material universe and is thought to exist even after the disappearance of the material universe. Time is measured by succession of events. But time, in its own nature, seems to be quite independent of events. Time is said to be marching on, even if no event happens in an empty universe. But can we think time to be existing in absence of all world and living beings ? This is not easily answered. But this gives us an inkling that space and time are, in some way, interconnected. Before the appearance of the theory of relativity of Ein- stein, it was held that space and time were independent and fundamental realities. Relativity theory changed this notion of space and time and made space and time derivatives of more fundamental reality and also made them relative. Einstein asserted that our measures of length änd of time vary with our motion. A stationary observer, as we moved past him with our measuring rods, would remark that our measuring rods had contracted and our clocks were running slow. We would also pass similar remarks regarding their measuring rods and clocks. These strange phenomena were never before observed or it was very difficult to observe as it can be observed only at the fastest speed, speed comparable with the velocity of light itself.

CHAPTER IX 157

It should be borne in mind that the theory of Einstein is based on observed facts and the previously established theory of the velocity of light. This theory states that the velocity of light remains constant whether observed from a stationary system or from a dynamic one. In other words, the speed of a ray of light measured by various observers, will remain the same, namely, 186,000 miles per second. The motion of an observer does not affect the measurement. If the abovemen- tioned theory is true, it will also be true that space and time are relative. They vary with the motion of the observer. Two events which are simultaneous for one observer, are not simultaneous for another one who is moving with a different speed. Thus different individuals make different estimates of space and time. In the words of Einstein-"It became clear that to speak of the simultaneity of two events had no meaning except in relation to a given co-ordinate system, and that the shape of measuring devices and the speed at which clocks move depend on their state of motion with respect to the co- ordinate system." 1 The theory of relativity assumes that space is finite but unbounded. It is based on the laws of Reimann's geometry. Modern scientists now unanimously hold that our space is not governed by the laws of Euclid's geometry, but by the laws of Reimann's geometry. It is -interesting to enquire into the distinction between the two geometries. It is illustrated by a fact of common experience. Everybody knows that a volume has three dimensions, length, breadth and thickness, whereas surface has only two, namely, length and breadth. Suppose a creature lives only in two dimensions. He is con- scious only of length and breadth, he has no idea of up or down. Now if this creature lives on a flat surface, like the surface of a table, he will find that his space ( the surface of table ) can never be unbounded unless it is infinite. He can

1. Einstein-Essays in Science-p. 56.

158 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME only go in a straight line and he will reach the edges of the table and will find that it is bounded unless the length or breadth of the table is infinite. But on the surface of a sphere such difficulty does not arise. A creature goes on and on both in length and breadth but it never reaches the boundaries of a spherical surface. Thus spherical space is unbounded though its area (the surface of the sphere) is finite. It seems quite plausible to hold that space is finite but unbounded. It should be borne in mind that the geometry of a flat surface is Euclidean whereas the geometry of spherical surface is non- Euclidean. According to Euclidean geometry, the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles. It is true only when triangles are drawn on a flat surface. But it is not true, when triangles are drawn on a spherical surface. Thus Eucli- dean geometry yielded place to Reimann's geometry which has been adopted by Einstein with immense success. This geometry shows that two-dimensional spherical space possesses as many properties as are possessed by three-dimensional space, that is, space is finite but unbounded. In this spherical space if we march on and on, we do not stumble on any boundary which may hamper our forward march. But it is significant to note that in such space, we return back to our starting place. It shows that the area is finite. The theory of relativity gave us a new concept of space, in which space lost its former rigidity and it could possibly take part in physical events. It no more remained a passive container. According to the special theory of relativity, space and time were shown to be inseparable. Einstein says-"Hitherto it had been silently assumed that the four-dimensional conti- nuum of events could be split up into time and space in an objective manner-i.e. that an absolute significance attached to the "now" in the world of events. With the discovery of the relativity of simultaneity, space and time merged in a single continuum in the same way as the three dimensions of

CHAPTER IX 159 space had been before. Physical space was thus increased to a four-dimensional space which also included the dimension of time. The four-dimensional space of the special theory of relativity is just as rigid and absolute as Newton's space." 1 Minkowski holds that the theory of relativity of space and time will look all the more plausible if we regard time and space as being the aspects of a more fundamental reality-the four-dimensional space-time continuum. According to him, space has three dimensions whereas time has only one. This one dimension of time is like the one dimension of length. He illustrates it thus : whenever anybody asks about the time a man's life has covered, he simply means its length divested of breadth and thickness. The three dimensions of space and one dimension of time weld together to form the four-dimen- sional space-time continuum. Minkowski asserts-"Hence- forth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." 2 Sir James Jeans remarks-"until this time, we had thought of space as some- thing that flowed past us or even through us. The two seemed to be in every way different. We can retrace our steps in space, but never in time, we can move quickly, or slowly, or not at all, in space as we choose, but no one can regulate the rate of flow of time-it rolls at the same even uncontrollable rate for all of us." 3 But Minkowski holds that the distinctions and diversification made in space and time are unknown to nature. Sir James Jeans says-"In other words the continuum is one in which space and time are so completely welded to- gether, so perfectly merged into one, that the laws of nature make no distinction between time, just as, on the cricket field, 1. Essays in Science-Einstein-p. 68. 2. 1 Minkowski's famous lecture to the Eightieth Meeting of the German Scientists and Doctors in 1908. 3. The Mysterious Universe-p. 86.

160 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

length and breadth are so perfectly merged into one that the flying cricket ball makes no distinction between them, treating field merely as an area in which length and breadth separately have lost all meaning." 1 As nature knows nothing about these distinctions and diver- sifications made in space and time, it is purely psychological. Theory of relativity points out that different observers make different measurements of space and time. There is nothing like absolute space and absolute time. But all agree that there is a certain relation, namely, interval, which directly refers to four-dimensional continuum. It is universally admitted to be spatio-temporal relation and is derived by each observer by combining his space and time measurements in a particular way. Observers widely differ on the measurements of space and time separating two events but they fully agree on the interval between these events. Minkowski points out that this interval is analogous to the mathematical interval for a length. But this length is in four-dimensional continuum. Observers. are unanimous on the measurements which directly refer to this four-dimensional continuum.

Science has used the words space and time in more than one senses. Space is interpreted as follows --

Conceptual space is chiefly the space of abstract geometry. It does not exist outside the mind of the man. It assumes different dimensions according as the human mind conceives. Perceptual space is chiefly the space of a conscious being who is experimenting and recording sensations. Man imagines all objects arranged in a threefold ordered aggregate which we call space. This is created by a man experiencing sensations, and it ceases to exist with the cessation of the sensations. Sir James Jeans says-"For a one eyed man or one viewing objects so remote that his binocular vision conveys no idea.

1. Ibid-p. 89.

CHAPTER IX 161 of distance perceptual space is two-dimensional at least so long as no sense other than seeing is involved. Thus ancients located the fixed stars on the two-dimensional surface of a sphere. As soon as near objects are viewed by a normal man, so that binocular is employed, or as soon as objects are seen to move one behind another, or as soon as senses other than seeing are employed, a third dimension of perceptual1 space instantly springs into being." Thus the dimension of per- ceptual space depends on the percipient. Physical space is the space of physics and astronomy. B oth conceptual space and perceptual space are said to be private, the one being private to the thinking mind and the other to the percipient. Some scientists contend that objects are per- manently arranged in space where they live, move and have their being. This may be named public space. Thus physical space is the public space. This concept has been modified by the theory of relativity. Absolute space is also a physical space which was intro- duced by Newton. According to Newton, measurements made in absolute space remains 'similar and unmovable.' He has distinguished it from perceptual space which he calls relative space. Likewise time also admits of four different meanings. Conceptual time is such time as exists only in the mind of the man. Such time is usually one dimensional but it may be multi-dimensional according as the thinking mind assigns. The existence of perceptual time depends on the conscious- ness of the individual and it thrives so long as the individual consciousness remains. Experience of the percipient comes one after another hence perceptual time is mono-dimensional. Physical time is the time of physics and astronomy. Un- like perceptual time and conceptual time, which are private, 1. Physics & Philosophy-pp. 55-57. 11 A. T.

162 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

it is said to be public. Some scientists hold that events can be arranged one after another. Thus it admits of different measurements of time. But this concept has received certain changes after the appearance of the theory of relativity.

Absolute time is just the counterpart of absolute space of Newton. He holds that absolute measures of time are possible as measures of time remain unaffected by speed of light etc.

Sir James Jeans has examined the various concepts of space and time and has held that in the theory of relativity it is no longer permissible to consider space and time as completely independent, rather there is intimate connection between the two. The theory of relativity clearly explains this connection. Sir James Jeans comments-"Newton supposed that all objects could be located in his absolute space, and that all events, wherever they occurred could be assigned positions uniquely and objectively on an ever flowing stream of absolute time." 1 According to him, this concept does not hold good in the light of subsequent investigation, which has clearly shown that the Newtonian theory does not adequately explain the passage of light and the behaviour of objects moving at a speed comparable with that of light. The theory of relativity shows that physical space and physical time do not enjoy in- dependent status; they seem to be abstractions from space-time continuum which comprehends both.

Before the advent of the theory of relativity, no one could observe the welding together of space and time. Apparently space and time do not appear to be of similar nature. But theory of relativity has welded space and time into one space- time continuum, which is of great philosophical and scientific significance. But it must be borne in mind that the theory of relativity does not identify time and space. But by their

1. Physics & Philosophy-y. 63.

CHAPTER IX 163

very nature space and time are heterogeneous and their hetero- geneity has been pointed out in clear terms by Minkowski, who holds that time does not play the same role as space.

According to Sir James Jeans, each observer carves out, in a certain fashion, his space and his time from space-time continuum, the mode of division depending on his speed of motion. Thus space and time separately are private but the fusion of the two is public.

After a close examination of the basic assumptions of the theory of relativity, Sir James Jeans arrives at the following conclusions :-

It seems extremely difficult to separate space from time but atomic physics or astronomy "may have a different story to tell." Sir James Jeans comments-"The hypothesis that absolute time and space do not exist brings order into man- sized physics, but seems so far to have brought something very like chaos into astronomy. Thus there is some chance that hypothesis may not be true." 1 The Newtonian concept of absolute space and time receives support from nebular astronomy. If nebular astronomy can find out a way of determining an absolute time, then space- time unity will be divided into space and time by nature itself. He further holds that the theory of relativity deals with the measures of space and time and it does not clearly tell about the nature of space and time. However, this theory shows that space and time are blended together hence in a way it speaks about the nature of space and time also in a general way. Conclusively he remarks-"We find there is something in reality which does not permit of representation in space and time. Thus space and time cannot contain the whole of reality, but only the messengers from reality to our senses." 2

1. Physics & Philosophy-p. 67. 2. Ibid. p. 69.

164 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

It seems Sir James Jeans was a protagonist of the New- tonian mechanics. He has accepted very reluctantly the principles of the theory of relativity. Sir Eddington has made a brilliant exposition of the theory of relativity. He has an ability of mind to grasp the profound implications involved in this new theory. Eddington has not made any major contribution to the fundamental theory. He has just added two or three considerable applications.

In his famous address to Royal Institution, on February 1st, 1918, he introduces relativity thus -- "There were many difficulties in entering the room just now. To begin with, we had to bear the crushing load of the atmosphere, amounting to 14 1b. on every square inch. At each step forwards it was necessary to tread gingerly on a piece of ground moving at the rate of twenty miles a second on its way round the sun. We were poised precariously on a globe, apparently hanging by our feet, head outwards into space. And this acrobatic feat was performed in the face of a tremendous wind of aether, blowing at I do not know how many miles a second through us. We do not claim much credit for overcoming these diffi- culties-because we never noticed them. But I venture to remind you of them, because I am about to speak of some other extraordinary things that may be happening to us of which we are quite unconscious." 1 In this way, he points towards Fitzerald-Lorentz contraction ( of space and time) which we ourselves are performing but we are not aware of it. Eddington holds that suggestion of Fitzerald-Lorentz finds expression in Minkowski's space-time unity. This space-time unity has made possible the idea of different appearances from different points of view. He says-"We cut Minkowski's space-time world in a direction so as to give us separately space and time as they appear to us. We have been imagining that there exists some direction which would separate it into 1. As quoted in British Scientists of the Twentieth Century. p. 166.

CHAPTER IX 165

a real and absolute space and time. But why should there be ? We do not attempt to cut the space-world in a parti- cular direction so as to give us the real horizontal and vertical. The words 'horizontal' and 'vertical' have no meaning except in reference to a particular spot on the earth. So far a parti- cular observer the space-time world falls apart into its four components, up-and-down, right-and-left, backwards and for- wards, sooner-and-later, but no observer can say that this division is the one and only real one." 1 Thus he has tried to dispel the ageold beliefs in absolute space and absolute time. In his book, Space, Time and Gravitation, he has made an exposition of the theory of relativity with the help of a pro- logue between an Experimental Physicist, a Mathematician and a Relativist. The Relativist speaks with the voice of Eddington himself. After discussing the different implications involved in the theory of relativity, he arrives at the con- clusion that 'space without time is as incomplete as a surface without thickness.' He further holds that we believed in Euclidean space for 2,000 years because measurements favoured it. But now there should be no hesitation in changing our old concept. When- ever he speaks of space, he simply means 'the space revealed by measurement, whatever its geometry.' He further observes- "The proposal which is made quite unblushingly, is that since measured lengths do not obey Euclidean geometry we must apply corrections to them-cook them till they do. A closely related view often advocated is that space is neither Euclidean nor non-Euclidean; it is all a matter of convention and we are free to adopt any geometry." 2

Eddington has shown to the belief of the conservative physicists in a pre-existing space, which does not admit of

1. Ibid. 2. The Nature of Physical World-p. 160.

166 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

any experiment, leads them to the field of Metaphysics. Whereas the relativists are staunch realists as they difine space by measuring it. After the prologue above-mentioned, he has given a clear account of Fitzerald contraction and now its explanation leads to the principle of relativity. He has described the appearance of an aviator flying past at 1,61,000 miles a second. If he was flying flat in his machine, in the line of flight. "We would see a figure about three feet height, but with the breadth and girth of a normal human being. And the strange thing is that he would be sublimely unconscious of his own undignified appearance. If he looks in a mirror in his conveyance, he sees his usual proportions ... But when he looks down on us he sees a strange race of men who have apparently gone through some flattening out process. If the reader has watched a cricket match through a pair of prismatic binoculars, he will have seen this effect exactly." 1 Thus he has tried to show that Fitzerald contraction is a fact though it is not readily believed by many people as they are quite unconscious of it. Einstein has unravelled this tacit truth, not easily comprehensible to many. He maintains that "The most dangerous hypothesis are those which are tacit and unconscious." He has shown that these hypotheses have all along stood in the way of conceiving space and time in simple from. "Sometimes by instinctive habit, sometimes by design, we attempt to eliminate our own share in the observation, and so form a general picture of the world outside us, which shall be common to all observers. A small speck on the horizon of the sea is interpreted as a giant steamer. From the window of our railway carriage we see a cow glide past at fifty miles an hour, and remark that the creature is enjoying a rest. We

1. The Nature of Physical World-p. 169.

CHAPTER IX 167

see the starry heavens revolve around the earth, but decide that it is really the earth that is revolving." 1 Einstein's theory of relativity has given meaning and con- sistency to these varied appearances which looked quite in- consistent. Minkowski has given them form in his famous lecture to the Eightieth Meeting of the German Scientists and Doctors, in 1908. 'The views of time and space, which I have set forth, have their foundation in experimental physics. There- in is their strength. Their tendency is revolutionary. From henceforth space and time each separately vanish as shadows and only a union of the two preserves reality.' Eddington comments on Minkowski's conception-'the four-dimensional world is fibrous, with the threads all running along time-like tracks, it is a tangled warp without a woof.' Eddington discusses the geometrical character of space. He begins by quoting W. K. Clifford, "that the hypothesis that space is not flat, and again that its geometrical character may change with time may or may not be destined to play a great part in the physics of the future; yet we cannot refuse to consider them as possible explanations of physical phenomena, because they may be opposed to the popular dogmatic belief in the universality of certain geometrical axioms-a belief which has arisen from centuries of indiscri- minating worship of the genius of Euclid." 2 Eddington conclusively remarks that 'there is no shape inherent in the absolute world.' He further maintains "Think of matter and energy, not as agents causing degrees of cur- vature of the world, but as parts of our perceptions of the existence of the curvature." To explain curvature in space-time, Eddington takes the help of a fable. A race of flat fish once lived in on ocean in which there were only two dimensions. It was noticed that

1. Ibid. 2. Space Time and Gravitation-p. 77.

168 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME in general fishes swarm in straight lines, unless there was some- thing obviously interfering with their free courses. This seemed a very natural behaviour. But there was a certain place where all the fish seemed to be bewitched, some passed through the region but changed the direction of their swim, others swarm round and round indefinitely. One fish invented the theory of vortices, and said that there were whirlpools in that region which carried everything round in curves. By and by a far better theory was proposed, it was said that the fishes were all attracted to a particularly large fish a Sun-fish-which was lying asleep in the middle of the region; and that was what caused the deviation of their paths. The theory might not have sounded particularly plausible at first, but it was confirmed with marvellous exactitude by all sorts of experi- mental tests. All fishes were found to possess this attractive power in proportion to their sizes; the law of attraction was extremely simple, and yet it was found to explain all the motions with an accuracy never approached before in any scientific investigations. Some fish grumbled that they did not see how there could be such an influence at a distance, but it was generally agreed that the influence was communi- cated through the ocean, and might be better understood when more was known about the nature of water. Accordingly, nearly every fish who wanted to explain the attraction started by proposing some kind of mechanism for transmitting it through water. But there was one fish who thought of quite another plan. He was impressed by the fact that whether the fish were big or little they always took the same course, although it would naturally take a bigger force to deflect the bigger fish. He therefore concentrated attention on the course, rather than on the forces. And then he arrived at a striking explanation of the whole thing. There was mound in the world round about where the sun-fish lay. Flat fish would not appreciate it directly because they were two-dimensional; whenever a fish went swimming over the slopes of the mound,

CHAPTER IX 169

although he did his best to swim straight on, he got turned round a bit. ( If a traveller goes over the left slope of a mountain, he must consciously keep bearing away to the left if he wishes to keep to his original direction relative to the points of compass ). This was the secret of the mysterious attraction or the bending of paths, which was experienced in the region." Eddington says that Action is the curvature of the world. Action is equal to Mass or energy multiplied by time. Eddington has introduced the idea of entropy, which may be described as a measure of degree of 'randomness' in a physical state, by considering the shuffling of cards. He says- "The subject is relevant at this stage because it has a bearing on the deeper aspects of the problem of Time ...... " 1 He further explains that if a pack of new cards, arranged orderly by the maker, is shuffled for a few minutes, the previous order vanishes altogether and "will never come back, however long you shuffle. Something has been done, which cannot be undone, namely, the introduction of a random element in place of arrangement." The original arrangement of cards may return back after a long shuffling but that depends entirely on chance, which he terms as 'ghost of a chance.' This is due partly to the comparatively small number of cards in a pack. But when a huge number of atoms are shuffled, the chances are quite remote, as the numbers of atoms are infinitely large. Eddington has related the idea of time to the increase of entropy or randomness of the shuffling of the atoms in the world. The space-time map does not indicate the direction of its change from 'past to future or from future to past.' He comments-"It is absurd to pretend that we have no justifiable conception of 'becoming' in the external world. That dynamic quality-that significance which makes a development from 1. The Nature of the Physical World-p. 63.

170 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME past to future reasonable and a development from future to past farcical-has to do much more than pull the trigger of a nerve. It is so welded into our consciousness that a moving on of time is a condition of consciousness. We have a direct in- sight in 'becoming' which sweeps aside all symbolic knowledge as on an inferior plane. If I grasp the notion of existence because I myself exist, I grasp the notion of becoming because I myself 'become.' It is the innermost Ego of all which is and becomes. 1

It seems Eddington has not identified 'becomingness' with entropy, but considers the latter as the physical criterion of the former. Hence man's insight into becoming and time is 'derived from a reading from entropy-clock in the brain.'

Braithwate is of the opinion that entropy cannot account for the passage of time ( as shown by Eddington ), because entropy does not always increase. He further maintains that the sense of time need not be found in physical theories, but may "quite well arise out of our consciousness of the physical world." 2

The doctrine of entropy states that the universe is gradually running down. The organised universe is constantly decaying. It also presupposes that universe of yesterday was more orga- nised than it is today. Thus proceeding backwards, we find more and more organised universe. But this backward process in time cannot be pursued ad infinitum. There is a definite limit to increasing organisation. Thus the doctrine of entropy leads us to the point that the universe has a beginning in time. On this basis, we are to suppose that a perfectly organised universe suddenly came into being at a particular instant in past and since then it is undergoing a gradual process of 1. The Nature of the Physical World-p. 97. 2. 'Professor Eddington's Crifford lectures'. R. B. Braithwate, Mind N. S. 38 ( 1929 ).

CHAPTER IX 171

decay. This decaying process of universe leads us back to an actual beginning of time.

J. W. N. Sullivan comments-"It is still more startling, almost incredible, when we reflect that this amazing panorama sprang suddenly into existence a finite time ago. It emerged full-armed, as it were, out of nothing, apparently for the sole purpose of blazing its way to an eternal death. This is the scientific account. It seems to be true as far as it goes, but we cannot believe that it is the whole truth." 1 Eddington examines the question of infinity of space and time. Like Einstein he holds that space is finite but unbound- ed. Thus the question of infinity of space is set at rest. But the question of infinity of time still remains as it is said that 'world is closed in its space dimensions like a sphere but it is open at both ends in time dimension.' Eddington says- "I cannot feel the difficulty of an infinite future time very seriously. The difficulty about A. D. will not happen until we reach A. D. and presumably in order to reach A. D. the difficulty must first have been solved."2 Besides, the second law of thermodynamics states that 'the whole universe will reach thermodynamical equilibrium at a not infinitely remote date in the future.' In this state of equilibrium, the onward march of 'Time's arrow' will cease altogether. Now the difficulty of infinite past remains. It seems inconceivable to hold that there was a moment with no moment preceding it. This difficulty is also overcome by the doctrine of entropy which suggests an actual beginning of time. Thus Eddington concludes that space and time are finite.

He has also discussed about the volume of this space. According to him, space has no definite volume, as it is conti- nually expanding. He says-"If the system of the galaxies

1. Sullivan-Limitations of Science-p. 32. 2. The Nature of Physical World-p. 83.

172 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

extends throughout closed finite space, it can only expand if the space itself expands. That is how we are led to contem- plate expanding space as well as an expanding material system." 1 The concept of space-time unity gets a very prominent place in the philosophy of Alexander for he considers it to be the prius out of which all things of the world have emerged. According to him, pure space-time is the most simple stuff and out of this matter, life, consciousness and deity have evolved by gradually rising higher and higher. It seems he has greatly been influenced by the recent trends of modern science but his metaphysical concept of 'space-time' is quite original. Thus he borrows the idea of interdependence and interconnectedness of space and time from Minkowski, Einstein and others but he interprets it in a new and original way. It is an accepted view that matter etc. occupy space but Alexander maintains that space-time does not possess such contents but at the same time, it is held as capable of producing such elements by its essential nature of motion. Unlike modern physicists, Alexander maintains that time is not just a fourth dimension added on to the three of space, but each dimension of space is dependent on an analogous part of time. Unlike Bergson, Alexander has spatialised time in order to bestow continuity on it. He holds that time and space interpenetrates. Ordinarily, people regard space and time as separate but it is a result of abstraction. In the words of Alexander-"A little reflective consideration is sufficient to show that they are interdependent, so that there neither is Space without Time nor Time without Space; that space is in its very nature tem- poral and Time spatial." 2 He adduces the argument that time by itself and without space is a mere succession of dis- crete moments and there is nothing to hold them together

1. New Pathways in Science-p. 218. 2. Space, Time and Deity-Vol. I. p. 44.

CHAPTER IX 173

into a continuous whole. Continuity is the result of space penetrating into time. "Thus mere temporality of Time, its successiveness leaves no place for its continuity or together- ness ...... yet the two are found together in time as we experience it. If, therefore, the past instant is not to be lost as it other- wise would be, or rather since this is not the case in fact, there needs must be some continuum other than Time which can secure and sustain the togetherness of past and present, of earlier and later. This other form of being is space; that is, space supplies us with the second continuum needed to save Time from being a mere 'now'.1 Similarly, time interpene- trating into space produces multiplicity and diversity. Space by itself and without time will remain mere blank extension with no distinction and diversification. Alexander contends- "As time in so far as it was temporal became a mere 'now', so space in so far as merely spatial becomes blank. It would be without distinguishable elements. But a continuum without elements is no continuum at all ...... That distinctness is not supplied by the characteristic altogetherness of space. There must therefore be some form of existence, some entity not itself spatial which distinguishes and separates the parts of Space. This other form of existence is Time." 2 Thus space and Time depend upon each other, though on different grounds. Alexander's contention is-"Without Space there would be no connection in time. Without Time there would be no points to connect." 1 Alexander asserts that there is 'no instant of time without a position in space and no point of space without an instant of time. A point occurs at an instant and an instant occupies a point.' 2 It is not possible to think of the existence of a

1. Space, Time and Deity-Vol, I. p. 46. 2. Ibid. p. 47. 3. Space, Time and Deity-Vol. I. p. 48. 4. Ibid.

174 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

portion of space without thinking of it as existing at a parti- cular date or time, and likewise a particular time cannot be thought without thinking of it as the time of objects existing in space. Thus the reality is a continuum of points-instants. In other words, Space-Time is the stuff out of which the whole universe has evolved. Alexander has tried to present before us a picture of conti- nuous evolution with no gaps or hiatus. He shows that parti- cular notions evolve out of space-time or pure motion. Next to emerge in course of evolution is life. He emphatically asserts that life emerges out of matter, and yet is continuous with matter. Alexander does not assign any unique position to mind also in the scheme of evolution. According to him, Mind is also endowed with spatio-temporal qualities. He illustrates it as follows. In the mental act of remembering, we remember a particular incident with reference to particular place and time. Thus mental acts or mind are also found in space and time. Thus it seems plausible to hold that mind is also made of the stuff of Space-Time. Alexander has shown that values are the next emergents. But though a staunch realist, Alexander has not been able to objectify them completely. It may be borne in mind that Alexander maintains that the empirical emergents, finite motion, matter, life, mind etc. are qualities of reality. They do not depend on mind or consciousness for their exis- tences. Both primary and secondary qualities are objective. They exist by themselves. But values exist only in relation to cognizing mind. This the dependence of values on mind, in a way, take away the reality of values and land the philo- sophy of Alexander to utter subjectivism. Alexander has tried to save the reality of values by saying that they depend more upon collective consciousness than on individual mind. Thus they are real though they are not the qualities of reality. They are also the emergents of Space-Time as other empirical emergents are.

CHAPTER IX 175

The last and the highest emergent of Space-Time matrix is Deity or God. To maintain the continuity of evolution, Alexander seems to take great pains to show that God has also emerged out of the stuff of Space-Time as ordinary creatures have evolved. He does not accord any elevated position to God. For him, God is not a creator of this world. God, like other creatures, is incomplete and imperfect. Alexander says-"God then, like all things in the universe-for Space- Time itself is not in the universe, is in it-is in the strictest sense not a creator but a creature." 1 In the scale of evolu- tion, he assigns God an elevated position but it cannot satisfy religious consciousness. Alexander contends-"God is the whole universe engaged in process towards the emergence of this new quality, and religion is the sentiment in us that we are drawn towards him, and caught in the movement of the world to a higher level of existence. 2 The role of deity in emergent evolution, as pointed out by Alexander, seems to be preposterous and untenable. In the scheme of evolution, he points out that deity is the last emergent but at the same time, he maintains that it is the nisus of world process. In the words of Alexander -- There is a nisus in Space-Time which, as it has borne its creatures for- ward through matter and life to mind, will bear them forward to some higher level of existence."3 Thus Deity pulls the course of evolution forward. Space-Time cannot be said to be a goal in itself rather Deity is the ultimate goal of evolution.

1. Op. Cit. Vol. II. p. 398. 2. Ibid. p. 429. 3. Ibid. p. 346.

CHAPTER X

A critical survey of the result attained.

In the Atharvaveda, 1 Kāla (time ) is regarded as the creator, sustainer and destroyer of all objects. Time is the god of all. This 'Time' is the source of determinate times designated as past, present and future; but it is in itself not a duration "rather the Timeless, Eternity, to which all movable time is ever present." In this very sense, the Śvetāśvatara Upanisad speaks about two aspects of Brahman-Time and the Timeless ( Kālaś-cā-Kālaśca ). This timeless time is identi- fied with God or Brahman. Brahman transcends all temporal determinations and is eternal. Ākāśa or space is sometimes equated with Brahman. But it is done only to show the immense vastness of Brahman which is not easily comprehen- sible to ordinary person. In fact, Brahman transcends all determinations whether temporal or spatial.

The Epics and the Purānas exalt Kāla (time ) as the ultimate cause of universe. Sometimes it is considered superior even to Parameśvara. Brahmā is also consumed by Kāla. Kāla survives even after dissolution. It is the prime mover of Avyakta. In some of the Puränas, it is treated as the power of God which comes into operation by the will of God. Thus it is the efficient cause. In the Puranas, the eternity, infinity and dynamism of time are explictly emphasised.

The Purānas and the Epics conceive Kāla as Daiva or Fate. Fate leads the willing but compels or literally drags the unwilling. It is immanent necessity and it may not be taken as external compulsion. Fate has been treated as a powerful force in texts of the western religion and philosophy also. Atomists make a frank confession in these w ords-

1. Atharva-Veda-XIX. 53-54.

CHAPTER X 177

"Everything arises from a specific ground and is driven by necessity." The famous dictum of Socrates "no one can choose evil knowing good," suggests that man cannot be held responsible for the acts done. Plato in his Republic and Laws assrerts human freedom but in the same book he says that man is made to be "the plaything of God."1 While depicting the courses of Nature he points out that its eternal duration is modified by chance and human will. 2 Virgil, the Roman poet, supports the Homeric doctrine of man's destiny. 3 Even Gods are subjected to the decrees of fate. The earlier Greek Philosophers were the champions of fate, whereas the latter ones exhorted freewill. Spinoza is a stout champion of the doctrine of fate. He says, "the Boasted freedom of the will is only a consciousness of necessity. 4 Likewise Liebnitz in his treatise on the origin of evil, treats all notions of liberty "as chimeras pure and simple." He further holds that our actions are determined by inscrutable destiny. Hobbes, Locke and Hume also support the contention of Spinoza and Liebinitz. Hegel is the greatest champion of predeterminism where he pleads for preestabli- shed harmony in the philosophy of Right. This doctrine of fate is based on long and sad experience. History says that many fighters, with undaunted zeal and courage, have failed times without number. Chivalrous heroes have fought against the rising tides of time which have swept all away, while men of comparatively little valour, endowed with the blessings of fortune have attained the rank of heroes. The hero rides the wave. Even his weakness and deficiencies turn to his advan- tage. He attains unhindered success. His enemies well equipped with valour and resources make unsuccessful efforts

1. Republic-VII. 185. 2. Metaphysics-VIII. 8. 3. Æneid. 4. Ethics-II. 49.

12 A. T.

178 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

to halt his triumphant march. Kāla or Daiva favours him- that is all.

The charge of a naive fatalism is levelled against the Purāņas and the Epics.

The Pauränic and the Epic writers are aware of the fact that the doctrine of fatalism is against heroic characters. Hence they hold that Purusakāra (human exertion ) is a superior force and even Daiva can be overcome by it. It is apparent that the champions of the two sides-those who up- hold the decrees of fate ( Daiva ) and those who plead for the effectuality of Puruşakāra-have not arrived at any decision. This state of indecision regarding the superiority of these two forces prevails in other scriptural texts as well. In one of the most important sections of the Gäthā literature, Zoroaster says, "In the beginning there was a pair of twins, two spirits, each of a particular activity, these are the good and the base, in thought, word and deed. Choose one of these spirits. Be good and not base." 1 Buddhism has explicitly upheld that man has the capacity and freedom to act as he wills. In the commandments of Jewish sects, man's freewill is emphasised. But the Jewish sects never agreed on the point. The sadducees advocated freewill but the Pharisees, who followed the dictates of Solomon, differed and identified God with fate and exalted it as the supreme force. New testament of christianity is full of commands and promises which clearly imply that man is endowed with freedom of will. In Islamic scripture, the Koran, the vein of predestination runs all through. It says, "the matter belongeth wholly into God; for God knoweth the innermost parts of the breasts of men. No soul can die unless by the permission of God, according to what is written in the Book containing determination of things." The Sunnite believes in the decrees of fate while Shias uphold man's free- dom and responsibility.

1. Yasna-XXX. 3.

CHAPTER X 179 Descartes admits that intellect is under the law of necessity but at the same time advocates freedom of will also. A reconciliation has been attempted in Hitopadesa where these two forces have been treated as component forces : yathā hyekena cakreņa na rathasya gatirbhavet. Evam pusușa- kāreņa vinā daivam na sidhyate. The famous philosopher Yājñavalkya also supports the above contention of Hitopadeśa: Daive puruşakāre ca karmasiddhir vyavasthitā Tatra daivam- abhivyaktam puruşam paurvadehikam. Kant holds that nature and freedom of will can co-exist. Thus he establishes com- promise between fate and human exertion. The two forces are treated as complementary, to each other. A clear distinction has been made between the absolute time and the conditioned time. No doubt, this distinction is seen even in the vedic concept of time; but an explicit dis- tinction has been shown in the Puranas and the Epics. Absolute time is indivisible, infinite and eternal whereas the conditioned time is divisible, finite and destructible. The computation of yugas, Manvantaras and Kalpas manifests the infinite divisibility of Kāla. This aspect of Kāla is com- patible with the Stoic concept of time where also infinite divisibility is emphasised. Time is also conceived as the artful artificer who directs the cycle of creation and dissolution sportively. This aspect of Kāla is platonic in character. Relativity of time and space is visualised in the Epics and the Puränas. The assignment of the yugas, Kalpas and Pralayas clearly shows that they are not absolute but relative entities. A fully developed concept of relativity of time and space is found in the Yogavāsiștha and the Bhagavad-gitā. Modern Physics and modern thought support the relativity of time and space. Paul Brunton observes : "Suffering leng- thens the hours for us, where as joy renders them too brief. A painful illness drags its weary way with slow, tormenting

180 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

feet through our lives, but ecstatic days pass as the whirlwind. Two ardent lovers who find themselves separated only for a week feel that at least a month has passed. Hence, we get only the feeling of time's swiftness or slowness, and not its mathematical measurement, because we get it entirely as some- thing subjective, i.e .. inside the perceiving mind and relative to it." 1 He further says-"Time itself is a purely mental condition."2 Osborn comments-"There is also evidence that consci- ousness can extend to embrace wider and wider fields of perception. Events in each of these fields may pass at different rates in relation to our time sense, so that a 'year' in one field may be a moment in another." 3 Eddington says-"Einstein has now shown that in Physics time and space are purely relative to the observer and the physical is now recognised as something definitely dependent upon the limitations of our sense perceptions of matter. Mathe- matically many different kinds of spaces are conceivable." 4 James Cleark says-"All our knowledge, both of time and place, is essentially relative. We cannot describe the time of an event except by reference to some other event." 5 Käla is also presupposed as fully real individual who is the prius of becoming or change. This aspect of Kāla is Aristotelian in character. The dynamism of Käla is emphasised everywhere in the Epics, the Purānas and the Upapurānas. It is descernible both in the conception of absolute time and that of conditioned time.

1. The Quest of the Over-Self-p. 116. 2. Ibid .- p. 117. 3. The Super-Physical-p. 137. 4. Time, Space and Gravitation-p. 43, 5. Matter and Motion-p. 163.

CHAPTER X 181

The concept of space and time in Buddhist Philosophy may safely be categorised under the following heads- ( a ) Space and time are conceived as independent entities. (b) Space and time are the evolved products of thinking

mind. In other words, they are purely subjective. (c) Space and time are considered as the ultimate units and these units are dynamic in their character.

The first view has been advocated by the Sarvastivādins, who hold that "Everything exists" or Sarvam asti. They asserted that "the past exists, the future exists, the present exists." They have also emphasised the existence of past, present and future as real thing ( Dravyatā ). They consider space and time to be as real as the Nirvāna itself. ( It is in- dicated in Kathāvatthu ). This view is supported by Jaina and Nyāya Philosophies of the East and by Newton and Prof. James in the West. According to Jaina Philosophy, space and time are inde- pendent existences and they are named as Dravya. Nyāya- Vaiseșika Philosophies consider space and time as individuals and not as universals. In the words of Sir James Jeans- "Newton supposed that all objects could be located in his absolute space and that all events, wherever they occurred could be assigned positions uniquely and objectively on an everflowing stream of absolute time." Prof. James maintains that the idea of extensity in each and every sensation is the original sensation of space out of which the exact knowledge of space has been carved out by different process.

This theory of space and time fits in well with the scientific knowledge of the seventeenth century. But modern investi- gations have proved that space and time are "abstractions and selections from something complex, namely, a blend of space and time which comprises both."

182 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

The second view is chiefly held by Buddhaghosa, Vijñāna- vādins, Sautrāntikas and Mādhyamikas.

An eminent thinker like Buddhaghosa is of the opinion that the idea of space and time is apriori, evolved by the thinking mind from within. They are not independent exis- tences rather they are the subjective 'forms' under which the thinking mind conceives things. Thus space and time have no objective existence outside our minds. Candrakirti says that space and time are devoid of reality.

Vijñānavādins go so far as to maintain that space and time are nothing more than mere consciousness. They are unavoidable illusions of our finite consciousness. They are like small waves in the vast ocean of consciousness.

Sauträntikas also agree to admit that space and time are nothing more than illusions of finite minds. They are not at all independent reals. In the words of M. Hiriyana, "Time and space are equally mental devices and no Sva-Lakșaņa in itself has either extension or duration, but they are not reckoned separately because their conception is relational." 1

Liebnitz supports this view and says that space and time are the products of confused perceptions.

The above theory is partially correct but they have gone too far to maintain that they ( space and time ) are only sub- jective illusions. Finite things must exist in space and time. In other words, they make the simultaneous existence and reality of finite things possible. Thus we may come to the conclusion that space and time may originate from the thinking mind but they are objectively real also. The third view is chiefly held by the Sūnyavādins and by those who assert the theory of momentariness.

According to Šūnyavādins, Šūnya or Ākāśa is the ultimate reality. The concept of Ākāśa has been elaborately discussed

1. Outlines of Indian Philosophy-p. 216.

CHAPTER X 183

by the Buddhist philosophers. Ākāśa is considered parallel to Nirvāna and it is also taken as beginningless and endless. But this dualism of Ākāśa and Nirvāņa is not tenable. So the Śūnyavādins have ultimately established the unity of 'Ākāśa', 'Samsāra' and 'Nirvāņa'. They prove that 'Šūnya' and 'Nirvāna' are one and the same reality as in the state of Nirvāņa there is cessation (Śūnyatā ) of suffering. This Samsāra is also Śūnya because it evolved out of space and time by their peculiar mixture in different proportions. The doctrine of momentariness maintains that 'Momentari- ness' is the ultimate truth. Thus time has been reduced to atomic moments and the only real time is the present moment. Every thing of the world is changing from moment to moment but momentariness itself is not momentary. These moments are considered as dynamic units. This concept of momen- tariness is akin to the concept of 'Duree' of Bergson. This doctrine also holds that 'Dhamma' and 'Kana' are the one and the same reality. Whitehead also subscribes to this view. He conceives space and time as 'a fluent stream analysable into both space order and time order.' He further says that they are "drops of Experience." The above doctrine is no doubt an important one but it reduces mind or consciousness to non-entity, hence it is not tenable. Mind or consciousness is the ultimate reality. Space and time depend on it (mind ) for their existence. They are merely the two forms of mind or consciousness. Time and space may be taken to be an 'inter-related system' which is 'dynamic in its character.' Jaina thinkers assert the reality of kāla ( time ) and Ākāśa ( space ). These two substances are the substratum of the universe. Nyāya and Vaiseșika philosophies also support Jaina thought. But Vaiśeșika Philosophy is confined to empi- rical time ( Vyavahārakāla ) alone. Jaina concept of time and space stands in fair comparison with the modern scientific concepts.

184 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Like Jaina thinkers, there is a tendency in modern science to posit time as a reality, though it has not yet been adopted as a doctrine. Eddington says-"Time is more physical reality than matter."

According to Jaina Philosophy, reality is that which has origination, decay and permanence. Laws of conservation of matter and energy clearly point out that even destructible elements possess permanence. Democritus says-"Nothing can never become something, something can never become nothing."

This philosophy has made a clear distinction between empirical time ( Vyavahāra-kāla ) and transcendental time ( Niścaya-kāla ). Modern sciences support the above distinc- tion. Eddington says-"whatever may 'be time de jure, the Astronomer Royal's time is time de facto." 1 Kāla possesses only one Pradeśa hence it has continuance ( Vartanā ). Continuity ( Vartanā ) is the very characteristic of kāla. Bergson says, "the continuity of time is due to the spatialisation or absence of magnitude." Like Einstein, Jaina philosophy maintains that 'kāla' is monodimensional. This thought further holds that 'Käla' is destitute of magni- tude. This idea is supported by Eddington in these words- "I shall use the phrase 'time's arrow' to express this one-way property of time which has no analogue in space." 2 Infinity of kāla or time is accepted by Einstein : "The world is closed in space-dimensions but it is open at both ends to time dimensions.

'Kālāņus' of Jaina thought is akin to the 'worldwide instants' of modern science.

Jaina thought holds that ākāsa or space is infinite. It compares favourably with the orthodox view prior to the theory

1. The Nature of Physical World-p. 36. 2. The Nature of Physical World-p. 69.

CHAPTER X 185

of relativity which held that space was infinite. Eddington comments-"Space is finite but it has no end." 1

Einstein says that space is "finite but unbounded." Accor- ding to him, the finitude of space is due to matter. In absence of matter, space is infinite.

The Nyāya-Vaiseșika holds space and time as ultimate and objective realities. They are as real as earth, water, fire etc. are. Nyāya-Vaiseșika realism is a commonsense realism. This realism regards the world in space and in time. According to this standpoint, space and time are more fundamental and more real than anything else. The Nyāya-Vaiśeşika regards space and time as substances but it also holds that other subs- tances exist in space and time, According to it, the soul does not exist in space but it also exists in time. Thus the Nyāya- Vaiśeșika maintains like common sense realism that the world constitutes a spatio-temporal series. The Nyāya-Vaiśeșika considers space and time as empty containers. This view is much like the Newtonian concept of space and time. Matter cannot be conceived away from its space quality or extendedness. Space as empty container is an abstraction. Likewise time as an empty possibility of succession is an abstraction.

In Western Philosophy, Kant had to face similar difficulty as he held space and time as objectively real and at the same time different from the contents of the world. He reconciled the contradiction by reducing space and time to subjective ways of intuition. According to him, space and time were forms of perception-which mind supplied from within.

Bergson and Alexander do not approve of the position of the Nvāya-Vaiseika. They do not regard space and time as empty containers which are filled by the contents from outside. They do not also hold that space and time are forms of

1. Ibid,-p. 80.

186 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

perception. According to Bergson, time is such force as creates and transforms. Bergson contends-"The flux of time is reality itself, and the things which are steady are the things which flow." 1 About space he says-"the mind finds space in things, but could have got it without them if it had imagination strong enough to push the inversion of its own natural movement to the end." 2 In a way, Bergson accepts the Kantain view regarding space with slight modification. Bergson does not consider space to be as fundamental as time. Alexander does not regard space and time as separable entities. He is an ardent advocate of space-time unity. He comments- "Space and Time are not two things but one and there is no space without time nor time without space."3 He further says-"This space-time is the stuff of which all existents are composed." 4 Both Bergson and Alexander regard time as the fundamental reality but they differ as far as space is concerned.

In the Nyāya-Vaiseșika system, time has been conceived as an ever-present element. The past and the future are interrelated with the present. The cessation of action ( the past ) and the prenon-exis- tence of action (the future ) are the facts of the present. Ordinarily we consider an event to be present or future only when the particular event has lost its presentness. But a searching analysis will show that it is related to the present i.e. to the time, if it is comprehended as something which is or was or will be. The Nyāya-Vaisesika emphatically holds that the very existence of a thing presupposes its relation with time. The Nyāya-Vaiseșikas, resemble to a fair degree with the modern realist like Alexander, when they conceive time as an

1. Creative Evolution-p. 363. 2. Ibid .- p. 213. 3. Space, Time & Deity-Vol. II. p. 29. 4. Ibid .- p. 428.

CHAPTER X 187

eternal entity and as a producer of all produced. Alexander also conceives time (combined with space ) as an ultimate entity out of which everything has evolved. 1 Further, Alex- ander also holds that time is not apprehended 'by senses', though "Our experience of space and time is provoked through senses." 2 But it should be borne in mind that according to Alexander, we have intuition of space and time prior to sen- sations; and it is only on the basis of intuition that they are "immediately apprehended."

The Naiyäyikas do not admit either the intuition or the sensation of time.

But the Naiyäyika position in denying the immediate know- ledge of even finite times or durations viz. 'now', 'then', 'present' etc. does not seem to be plausible. If we have no knowledge of 'near' and 'distant' in time, we cannot reasonably infer time at all. The inference of a universal time presup- poses the direct experience of finite times. Thus the Vedāntins and the Mimāmsakas are quite consistent in holding that time can be directly perceived. The Naiyäyikas uphold the Kantian doctrine of time when they say that time is the cause of speech (Vyavahära) or thought (Dhi). 3 It roughly corresponds with the Kantian doctrine that time is given apriori. Further we propose to examine whether time is compre- hended as atomic point or as an extended span. It has been fully discussed by James in western philosophy.

Indian Philosophy has not made a searching analysis though it has discussed this aspect. In Tattvacintāmani of Gangeśa, it is said-"Since Kșaņāh ( atomic points ) are im- perceptible, the present ( Vartamāna ) is known through a

1. Space, Time and Deity. 2. Ibid .- Vol. II. pp. 144-48. 3. Bhã, P .- 45. ( quoted above ).

188 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME finite or a measurable ( Sthūla ) limiting condition ( Upādhi )."1 In Nyāyatātparyațīkā, it is stated : "because the atomic points of time are never perceived by us who have the eyes of flesh." The above remarks show that Indian thinkers were aware of the difficulty when the atomic points of time are thought to be objects of perception. In Säkmhya texts, the problem of time and space has not been seriously dealt with, though some of the texts touch the problem. Time is reduced to the movement of the guņas. In the state of equipoise, the movement of guņas remains in the state of arrest. This aspect of time may be treated as duration. Thus time vanishes but still its reality remains as it is indistinguishable from the gunas themselves. This con- cept of time is akin to the concept of time of Bergson. Accor- ding to Bergson, time is duration which is of the nature of real change itself. 2 According to the Sämkhya-yoga system, Time is not con- sidered as eternal substance which is apart from Ksana. This view is very akin to that of the Buddhist Sauträntika school which holds that time consists of Ksanas. Reduction of time to Kșaņas or moments gives us an idea that this doctrine is like the Buddhist theory of momentari- ness. But there is a basic difference between the two systems. In Sāmkhya-yoga, time alone is momentary but the things are permanent, whereas Buddhist doctrine treats both time and things as momentary rather as one; without a content being a mere idea. The Sämkhya-yoga clearly maintains that the notions of time and space do not represent any reality beyond us. These two

1. Pratyakșa-Cintāmaņi, p. 380- " ...... Kşaņānām atīndriyatvāt, sthūlopādhim ādāya vartamānatva-grahāt." 2. Creative Evolution-p. 5.

CHAPTER X 189

are the schema of human understanding. 1 But the Nyāya- Vaiseşikas treat them as eternal substances. The Sāmkhya-yoga contends that ideas conveyed by words are those that do not claim to represent experience, hence they cannot be termed either as false or true. Such terms are infinity, eternity and the like. It can be better expressed in the words of Mr. Ghosh-"Such are many terms with a negative implication like infinity, eternity and absolute want. And such is also time as well as space, for in time succession and the facts that succeed one another, duration and the objects that endure are mentally separated. But the artificiality of the conception comes to be lost sight of when with the morbid growth of abstract thought, men acquire the habit of taking words for things. And then they scout the idea that beyond the facts there is nothing, and since they cannot get to the last of them by boldest sweep forward nor recover the first by glancing back, they conclude that time, their supposed container, must be both beginningless and endless." 2 The emphasis of the Sämkhya-yoga on Ksaņa or moment may favourably be compared with the Aristotelian concept of time. Aristotle holds-'Now since time cannot axist and is unthinkable apart from the moment, and the moment is a kind of middle point uniting as it does in itself both a beginning and an end, a beginning of future and an end of past time, it follows that there must always be time ; for the extremity of the last period of time that we take must be found in some moment, since time contains no point of contact for us except the moment." 3 The concept of time and space as conceived in this system clearly manifests the idealistic bias. But realism is established as it maintains that space possesses external reality and time

1. YBha .- III. 52. 2. A Study of Yoga-p. 262. 3. Physib-251, 19-28.

190 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME also has its basis in the spatial motion of atoms. From this point of view its realism may fairly be compared with that of Herbart & Lotze. But the Phenomena or appearances in the Sāmkhya-yoga are not as phenomenal as that of Herbart. A1l determinations possess true reality in the Sämkhya-yoga. Where- as Herbart holds that phenomenal experiences do not represent the true aspect of things. The MImämsakas are staunch realists and they emphatically assert the objective existence of space and time like the Naiyāyikas and the Vaiśeșikas. In the Mımāmsā texts, divergent views have been held regar- ding the direct perceptibility of time. Prabhākara denies the direct perceptibility of Dik, Ākāśa and Kāla as they do not possess colour or magnitude. But Bhātta MImāmsakas main- tain that these entities are perceptible and have taken great pains to prove it. The view of this school resembles that of Kant who holds "only on the pre-supposition of time can we represent to ourselves a number of things existing at one and the same time ( simultaneously ) or at different times ( successively )." The resemblance of the two rests with the fact that both of them agree in holding givenness of time as a necessary element in all experiences. They differ widely on the question of the existence of time. While MImāmsakas maintain the objective existence of time, Kant does not. According to Kant, time is one of the forms of intuition. It is never an element of experience, it is given apriori. Kant, however, maintains the empirical reality of time in relation to all objects that are capable of being presented to our senses. The argument of Kant seems to be inconsistent as he holds that time is pure intuition or non-sensuous but at the same time he makes sensuous perception the test of empirical reality. In fact, pure intuition has no connection with sensuous perception. The MImämsakas have not elaborately discussed the origin of time as they hold that space and time are eternal.

CHAPTER X 1400 191

They deny that time and space take an active part in the process of creation. According to them, God Himself is the creator. This view differs with that of modern physics which considers space as a necessary factor in the creation of the physical universe. 1

The Advaita Vedänta and other Vedānta schools deal with the origination of time and space. According to the Advaita Vedānta, time and space have a beginning and also an end. Time is not a creator of the universe whereas Ākāśa ( space ) assists in the creation of universe. But ākāśa is also created like other created objects. Other Vedanta schools regard time and space as beginningless and endless. They also treat these principles as eternal. Madhva says that space remains un- affected by the process of creation and dissolution.

The Advaita Vedānta speaks about the periodic creation and dissolution, consequently the origination and the end of time and space are also thought of. Modern physics has dealt with the problem of origination of time and space along with the doctaine of entropy. Barnett speaking about the dissolu- tion of the universe says-"Time itself will come to end for entropy points to the direction of time." 2

Modern physicists speak about the finitude of space but they hold that time is infinite. The finitude of space in a way refers to its origination but expressly they do not speak about it. Eddington has discussed the problem of finitude and infinitude of time but he has not arrived at any convincing conclusion,3 though he is of the opinion that time is infinite. Some Visistādvaitins also hold that time is apparently infinite.

1. Āpadeva's remark-Iśvaro gata-kalpīyam vedam asmin kalpe smrtvopadiśati. p. 2. 2. Barnett-The Universe and Dr. Einstein-p. 111. 3. Eddington-The Nature of the Physical World and New Pathways in Science.

192 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

It seems that modern physicists are not sure about the fate of time at the stage of dissolution. Eddington observes- "That does not mean time will cease to exist; it exists and extends but there is no longer any dynamic quality in it. A state of thermodynamic equilibrium is necessarily a state of death." Thus it may be observed that modern physics in a way envisages the end of time. Space plays an important part in the creative process. Rather it is the prerequisite of the creation of the universe. According to the Advaita Vedānta, space alone participates in the creation of the universe. But Śruti is silent over the participation of time in the process of creation. Venkata, however, holds that time is the generic cause of all objects. The view of modern physics is very akin to this Vedäntic view. A. N. Whitehead observes-"You cannot have space without things or things without space." Eddington also holds such view. Sir James Jeans comments-"Science finds, how- ever, that the pattern of events in the outer world is consistent with and can be explained by the supposition that material bodies are permanently located in and move about in space." 1 Sullivan says-"Both time and space are essential for the existence of matter." 2

From the above observation, it is quite clear that the existence of things can be thought of only in spatial and temporal order. In other words, they are arranged in spatial and temporal order. Abstract space can be thought of but things without space are inconceivable. Thus it may be con- tended that time and space are pre-conditions of creation. The Advaita Vedanta contends that space is not only the passive container of created objects but it also plays an

1. Sir James Jeans-Physics and Philosophy p. 56. 2. Sullivan-The Limitations of Science-p. 66.

CHAPTER X 193

active and dynamic role in the creative process. But this text is silent about time. Some texts of the Visișțādvaita speak about the participation of time also in the creative process. Recent discoveries of modern physics support the stand of the Vedänta. The nineteenth century physicists regarded space as a passive container of matter only. Einstein observes-"In the mind of the physicists space remained until the most recent times simply the passive con- tainer of all elements, playing no part in the physical hap- penings itself." 1 Eddington also comments-" .. .......... SO that it is no longer a mere background against which the extension and motion of matter is perceived but it is as much a performer in the world drama as matter .. ....... "' 2

Barnett observes-"Whenever there is matter and motion, the continuum ( space-time ) is disturbed just as a fish swim- ming in the sea agitates the water around it, so also a star, a comet or a galaxy distorts, the geometry of space-time through which it moves." 3

Thus Vedänta rightly holds that space and time are active participants in the creative process.

According to Advaita Vedānta, space is finite in volume. The Visișțādvaita maintains that space appears as infinite but it is finite in relation to Māyika Īśvara. New discoveries of physics establish that entire space including the universe in it is finite. Sullivan comments-"The great change that has now occur- red in our way of thinking since the days of Copernicus is that the modern conception of universe as finite. This does not mean merely that there is finite amount of matter in space, but space itself is finite." 4

1. Einstein-The world as I see it. 2. Eddington-New Pathways in Science-p. 40. 3. Barnett-The Universe and Dr. Einstein-p. 92. 4. Sullivan-The Limitations of Science-p. 23. 13 A.T.

194 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Einstein is of the opinion that space including the universe in it is finite. He adduces two reasons for believing this theory. His first reason was not acceptable to many and he seemed to be influenced by Mach. Mach maintained that inertia of a body increases when the other bodies in the universe are brought nearer to it. Einstein contended that this could be possible only in the finite universe.

The other argument seems to be more plausible to the scientists. If the celestial bodies were subject to the gravi- tational influence alone then the mean velocities of the stars of a cluster would be, as it has been found out, much greater than what they actually are. This shows that there is an all- pervading field of force which diminishes the influence of gravi- tation. Now it is the property of a finite static universe to have such a field. Consequently Einstein maintains that space is finite and unbounded.

Let us now consider the implications involved in characteri- sing space as finite and unbounded. Space can be at once finite and unbounded just as a circle can be said to be so because its length is finite while it has no beginning or an end i.e., no boundness, for space is spherical. It is no longer a flat surface. Einstein considers space-time as curved. Edding- ton observes-"This closing up of space so that its volume is finite and distances cannot exceed a finite limit also results from the curvature." 1

The contention of the Vedanta that space is relatively infinite compares favourably with the concept of space as finite and unbounded. Vedānta conceives the universe as elliptical, which we know from the term Brahmända for universe. In a way, it gives the idea of a curved space. The Advaita Vedānta regards time and space as relative and interdependent entities for they depend on something else for

1 Eddington-New Pathways in Science-p. 217.

CHAPTER X 195

their realities. Time and space are not absolutely independent. Vallabha, the exponent of the Śuddhädvaita, contends that real time shares the nature of Brahman who is the ultimate reality. Thus he admits independence of time but at the same time, he also maintains that empirical time does not enjoy such status. It may be remarked that he also gives only relative independence to time. Time and space depend on external objects and occurring events. If time and space were divested of external objects and ocurring events, they would be reduced to non-entity. Thus their association with external objects and events takes away their independence and absoluteness. Newton regarded time and space as independent and absolute entities. Jeans comments-"Newton described space in which measure- ments were from them as absolute ...... Newton assumed that a universal time-'flows equably and without regard to any- thing external' throughout the universe. This we describe as absolute time." 1 Einstein does not accept the Newtonian concept of time and space. According to Einstein space has reality only as an order of the objects contained in it likewise time can be conceived only by the order of events. His theory of relativity envisages the interdependence of all phenomena of the universe. He further contends that time and space are relative for their variation depends on the observer's motion, He interlinks time and space. He holds that geometrical properties and space vary according to observer's motion. Thus space is linked with time. Further he holds that flow of time changes with the motion of observer which clearly points out that time is related to space. Einstein observes-“ ...... Space is exactly as Reimann gues- sed, no longer absolute." 2 Commenting on the relativity of time and space, Whetham says-"Space and time are now 1. Jeans-Physics and Philosophy-p. 58. 2. Einstein-The World as I see it.

196 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

relative to the observer, and there is no one cosmic space or cosmic time." 1

Sullivan observes-"There is nothing absolute about space or time ...... Different observers make different estimates of the space and of the time, separating two events." 2

Minkowski comments-"Space and time separately have vanished into the merest shadows, and only a sort of combi- nation of the two preserves any reality." 3

The Phenomenal events occur in space-time continuum. Nature itself is related to four-dimensional space-time conti- nuum. Jeans observes-"Nature refuses to break up the four- dimensional space-time into an absolute space and an absolute time for us." 4

We have seen that Vedäntins have taken great pains to refute the position of some Buddhists who regard space as pure negation. The Vedäntins maintain that space and time are positive entities. Matter is scattered and strewn in space hence pure emptiness is a figment of imagination. Jeans and Edding- ton interrelate time with change. Eddington observes-"We discover a signpost for time in the physical world itself." 5

The Advaita Vedänta maintains that time is subjective element. Jeans calls it 'perceptual time.' Such time depends on the estimation of the percipient. Bhagwan Das comments-"The quick or slow passage of time is something subjective, and the real significance of length or shortness of time is also sub- jective, being only the feel of such a length or shortness." 6 Emphasising the subjectivism of time, Paul Brunton speaks-

1. Whetham-A History of Science-p. 470. 2. Sullivan-The Limitations of Science-p. 81. 3. Quoted by Jeans in The Mysterious Universe-p. 127. 4. Jeans-The Growth of Physical Science-p. 296. 5. Eddington-New Path ways in Science-p. 54. 6. Bhagawan Das-Science of Peace-p. 227.

CHAPTER X 197

"There is no such thing as an absolute measure of time, only our mental impressions of it : time is how we think it." 1 He further observes-"The sense of time lies in the mind itself, in the percepts and concepts; which are its product." 2 Prof. Planck, in an interview with Prof. J, W. N. Sullivan, observes-"Men must learn to regard space and time not as objective realities .. They are objective realities in- dependent of consciousness and perhaps none such exist." 3 In the Vedānta texts, space, time and causality form one con- tinuum. They are inseparably related. Swami Vivekānanda observes-"It was Śamkara who first found out the idea of identity of time, space and causation with Māya." 4 Swami Madhvatirtha observes-"Time and space are both Māya in modern physics and also in Philosophy." 5 Space, time and causality are said to represent Māyā of the Advaita Vedānta. The Vedānta concept of space and time favourably compares with the concept of Prof. Alexander who holds that the universe has emerged out of space-time unity. But for the Vedānta, Brahman is the first and the highest reality. He is the beginning and the end of the world. For Prof. Alexander, Deity is the end of the world but not its beginning. For the Vedānta, Brahman alone is the absolute reality, he consumes even space and time. 6

1. Brunton-The Quest of Over-self-p. 110. 2. Ibid-p. 118. 3. The observer-January 25, 1934. 4. Swami Vivekananda-The Complete Works-Vol. II. p. 342. 5. Swami Madhvatirtha-Mayā-p. 1. 6. Space, Time, Deity-Vol. II. p. 364.

BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER I 1. Ahirbudhnya Samhitā-Ed. F.O. Schrader, Adyar Library, 1916. 2. Atharvaveda Samhitā-Arya Sahitya Mandir. 3. Atharvaveda-Ed. R. Roth and W. D. Whitney, Berlin- 1856. 4. Atharvaveda-Translation by W. D. Whitney, Cambridge, U. S. A .- 1905. 5. Atharvaveda-Translation in parts-M. Bloomfield-S.B.E .- Vol. XLII. OXFORD, 1897. 6. Aitareya Brāhmaņa-Anandasrama Sanskrit Series-1896. 7. Aitareya Brāhmaņa-Translation by A.B. Keith-H. O. S .- Cambridge-1920. 8. Jaiminlupanişad-Brāhmaņa-Ed. Bhagwad Dutta. 9. Kashmirian Atharvaveda-Ed. by Bloomfield & R. Garbe 3 Vols .- 1919. 10. Kauşītaki Brāhmaņa-Ed. by E. B. Cowell, Calcutta-1861. 11. Kauşītaki Brāhmaņa-Translation by A. B. Keith-H.O.S .- XXV, Cambridge-1920. 12. Pañcavimśa Brāhmaņa-Ed. by A. Vedantavagisa-Cal- cutta 1869-74. 13. Rg-Veda Samhitā 4 Vols .- Ed. Vaidika Samsodhana Man- dal, Poona-1933. 14. Rgveda-Translation by H. Grassmann-Leipzig 1876-7. 15. Rgveda-Translation by R.T.H. Griffith Benares-1896-97. 16. Rgveda-Translation by H. Oldenberg-S. B. E. Vol. XLVI Oxford-1897. 17. Rgveda-Translation by R. Arrowsmith-Boston-1886. 18. Śatapatha Brāhmaņa-Ed. A. Weber-London-1885. 19. Śatapatha Brāhmaņa 5 Vols .- Translation by J. Eggeling- S. B. E. 1882-1900.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 199

20. Şadvimsa Brāhmaņa-Ed. by Jivananda Vidyasagar-Cal- cutta-1881. 21. Sāmaveda-Ed. with translation by Th. Benfey Leipzig- 1848.

21. Yajurveda Samhitā-Oriental Book Agency-Poona. Standard Works and Translation 1. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition-F. E. Pargiter- London 1922. 2. Original Sanskrit Texts-J. Muir-London. 3. The Arctic Home in the Vedas-B. G. Tilak-1956. 4. The Vedic Age-Ed. R. C. Majumdar-1952. 5. The Philosophy of the Vedas and the Upanisads-A. B. Keith Harvard Oriental Series-1925. 6. The Religion of the Veda-R. V. Bloomfield-New York- 1908. 7. Vaidika Samskrti Aur Sahitya-Ram Govinda Trivedi. 8. Vaidika Sahitya-Pandit B. Upadhyaya-Saccid Grantha- mala 1947. 9. Vedic Index-A. A. Macdonell & A. B. Keith-Two Vols. London-1912. 10. Vedic Index-Fatah Narain Singh. 11. History of Sanskrit Literature-A. A. Macdonell-London 1913.

CHAPTER II

1. Aitareya-Āraņyaka Text ( Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series ) 1898 with a translation by A. B. Keith-Oxford- 1909. 2. Brhad-Āraņyaka Upanișad ( Gita Press Samvat 2007-9 ) 3. Chāndogya Upanișad 4. Iśa Upanișad 5. Jābāla Upanișad Ed. Radhakrishnan

2. Kena Upanișad 7. Kațha Upanișad

200 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

8. Kaușītaki Upanișad Ed. Radhakrishnan 9. Kaivalya Upanișad 10. Maitrī Upanișad 11. Māņdukya Upanișad 12. Muņdaka Upanișad 13. Paingala Upanișad 14. Praśna Upanișad 15. Śvetāśvatara Upanișad 16. Subāla Upanișad 99 17. Taittirlya Upanişad 18. Taittirlya-Aranyaka-Anandasrama edition-1898.

Standard Words and Translation 1. Constructive Survey of Upanisadic Philosophy-R. D. Ranade-1926. 2. Early Greek Philosophy-2nd Ed .- J. Burnet. 3. History of Greek Philosophy-J. B. Bury-1906. 4. Philosophy of the Upanisads-P. Deussen-English Trans- lation by Rev. A. S. Geden-1919. 5. The Principal Upanişads-Dr. S. Radhakrishnan-1959. 6. Thirteen Principal Upanisads-Oxford-1921 R. E. Hume. 7. The Philosophy of the Vedas and the Upanisads-A. B. Keith-Harvard Oriental Series-1925. 8. Time and Eternity-Artibus Asiatic Publishers Ascona ( Switzerland )-A. K. Coomarswamy.

CHAPTER III

Text and Translation

1. Agni Purāņa-Anandasram ( Poona )-1900. 2. Agni Purāna-Eng. Translation-M. N. Dutt ( Calcutta )- 1901. 3. Bhavişya Purāņa-Venketesvara Press ( Bombay ) 1910. . Bhāgavata Purāņa-Gītā Press-Samvat 2008. 5. Bhagvad Gītā-Gitā Press-Samvat 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 201

6. Brahma Vaivartta-Gurumandala ( Cal. )-1956. 7. Brahmānda Purāņa-Venketesvara Press ( Bombay )-1895. 8. Garuda Purāņa-Eng. Translation-M. N. Dutt-Cal. 1908. 9. Garuda Purāņa-Bombay Edition-1906. 10. Harivamśah-Gītā Press-Samvat 2008. 11. Kūrma Purāņa-Ed. N. Mukhopadhyaya, Calcutta. 12. Kauțilya's Arthasāstra-English Translation-Shamshastry 1957. 13. Kāmasūtra-Vātsyāyana-Ed. Damodaralal Gosvami-Chow- khamba Sanskrit Series. 14. Linga Purāņa-Ed. J. Vidyasagar-Bibliotheca Indica- Calcutta-1885. 15. Matsya Purāņa-Gurumandala-1957. 16. Matsya Purāņa-English Translation by Taluqudar of Oudh-Sacred Books Allahabad. 17. Mahābhārata-B. O. R. I .- 1957-59. 18. Mahābhārata-Bombay edition-1929-33. 19. Mārkaņdeya Purāņa-English Translation by F. E. Par- giter-1900. 20. Manusmrti-Ed. and Translation by Pandit Haragovind Sastri-1952. 21. Padma Purāņa-Ed. V. N. Mandlik. 22. Rāmāyaņa-Anandasram-4 Vols. 1893-94. 23. Rāmāyaņa-Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series-1957. 24. Skanda Purāņa-Pancanana-1885. 25. Smriti-Sandarbha-Vols. I-III. Gurumandala ( Cal. ) 1952. 26. Varāha Purāņa-Ed. H. Sastri-Calcutta 1893. 27. Vāyu Purāņa-Ed. R. L. Mitra-Bibliotheca Indica-Cal- 28. Vāyu Purāņa-Anandasrama-1905. 29. Vișņu Purāņa-Gītā Press-Samvat 2008. 30. Vișņu Smrti-Gurumandala-Calcutta 1952. 31. Vișņu Smrti-Critically edited by J. Goll-B. I. 1881. 32. Yogavāsiștha-Bombay Ed, 1918. 33. Yogavāsistha with Hindi Translation-Acyuta Granthamala- Kashi-1955.

202 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Standard Works 1. A History of Indian Philosophy-Vol. II. S. N. Dasgupta- 1952. 2. Das Purāņa Pañcalakşaņa-W. Keirfel-Bonn-1927. 3. Epic Mythology-E. W. Hopkins-Boston. 4. Encyclopaedia of Religions-M. A. Canney-1921. 5. First Principles-H. Spencer-Williams & Nogate-1887. 6. History of Indian Literature-Vol. I-Winternitz-1927. 7. Matsya Purāņa-A Study-V. R. R. Dikshitar-University of Madras-1935. 8. On the Meaning of Mahābhārata-R. Diksitar-1958. 9. Philosophies of India-H. Zimmer-Ed. J. Campbell-Lon- don 1953. 10. Secret Doctrine-Vols. I. & II. M. Blavatsky-1915. 11. Studies in Vișņu Purāņa-Wilson-1913. 12. Studies in Upapurāņas-R. C. Hazara-1958. 13 The Great Epie of India-E. W. Hopkins-Boston. 14 The Pauranic Index-3 Vols .- Diksitar-Madras-1951-52. 15. The Purāņa-K. N. Aiyar-1916. 16. The History of Prebuddhistic Indian Philosophy-Dr. B. M. Barua 1921. 17. The Religions of India-E. W. Hopkins-Boston-1895. 18. The Riddle of the Ramayana-C. V. Vaidya-London- 1906. 19, Yogavāsiștha & Modern Thought-Dr. B. L. Atreya.

CHAPTER IV PART A 1. Abhidharmakośa-Ed. R. Sankrityayana-1957. 2. Āgamsāstra of Gaudapāda-Edited & Translated by Vidu- sekhar Bhattacharya-1943. 3. Brahmasutra with Hindi Translation-Acyuta Granthamala Karyalaya. 4. The Catuhśataka of Äryadeva-Ed. V. Bhattacharya-1931.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 203

5. Kathāvatthu ( Translation-Points of Controversy ) Trans- lation by Shwe Zan Aung & Mrs. Rhys Davids. 6. Lankāvatāra Sūtras-Translation by D. T. Suzuki-1930. 7. Mādhyamika Kārikā of Nāgrājuna-Lous de la vallie Poussin. 8. Mädhyamaka Vrtti of Chandrakirtti-Calcutta Edition- 1894. 9. Mijjhima-Nikāya-Translation by Mrs. Rhys Davids- 1954. 10. Milindapañho-Ed. Treckner-1928. 11. Samyutta-Nikāya-Translation I. B. Horner-1954. 12. Sphuțārtha of Yasomitra-Ed by N. N. Law-Vols. I-III 1949. 13. Tattvasamgraha of Śāntarakșita-English Translation by Ganganath Jha-Gaekwad's Oriental Series. 14. Tattvasamgraha Pañjika of Kamalaśila-English Trans- lation by Ganganatha Jha-G. O. S. 15. The Digha-Nikaya-Translation by Prof. T. W. Rhys Davids and Prof. D. Estlin Carpenter-1954. Standard Works 1. A History of Indian Philosophy-Vol. I-S. N. Das Gupta 1952. 2. Asvaghosa-B. C. Law-1946. 3. Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism & its Relation to Hina- yana-N. Dutt-1930. 4. A Historical Study of Terms Hinayana & Mahayana and the origin of Mahayana Buddhis.m-R. Kimura- Calcutta-1927. 5. Buddhist Philosophy-A. B. Keith-1923. 6. Bauddha Dharma Darsana-Acharya Narend radeva-1956. 7. Buddhist Logic-Th. Stcherbatsky-Vols. I & IJ-1932. 8. Buddhaghosa-B. C. Law-1946. 9. Buddhism in Translation-Harvard Oriental Seres-Vol. III-Warren-1947. 10. Buddhism-Edward Conze-1952. 11. Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy-Takakusu-1947.

204 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

12. Early Monastic Buddbism-Vols. I & II-N. Dutt-1941 & 1945. 13. History of Indian Literature-Vol. II-Winternitz-1933. 14. History of Indian Philosophy-Vol. I-Dr. Umesh Misra- 1958. 15. History of Indian Philosophy-Vol. I-Dr. S. Radhakrishnan 1923. 16. History of Buddhism-( Translation-Obermiller )-Butson 1931-32. 17. History of Indian Logic Satischandra Vidyabhusana-1920. 18. Studies in the Origin of Buddhism-G. C. Pandey-1957. 19. Systems of Buddhist Thought-Yamakami Sogen-1912. 20. The Central Philosophy of Buddhism-T. R. V. Murti- 1955. 21. The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the word 'Dharma'-Th. Stcherbatsky. 22. The Philosophy of Universal Flux-Dr. S. Mookerjee- 1935. 23. Vaibhāșika Darśana-Anant Kumar Bhattacharya.

PART B 1. Dravya-Samgraha of Nemicandra-English Translation of Ghoshal-C. P. H. Arrah-1917. 2. Nyāyāvatāra of Siddhasena Divakar-Edited with. English Translation by S. C. Vidyabusan-Indian Research Society-Caleutta 1909. 3. Pañcāstikaya along with Tātparyavrtti-Edited and Trans- lated by Manohar Lal. 4. Pravacanasāra-Rayacandrasastramala-Bombay-1906. 5. Pravacanasāra-Translation by B. Feddyor-Cambridge University Press. 6. Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra of Umasvati-English Transla- tion by J. L. Jaini-C. P. H. Arrah-1920. 7 Sarvārtha Siddhi of Āchārya Pujyapäda-with Hindi trans- lation-Bhartiya Jñanapițha-Kashi-1958.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 205

8. Şaddarśana Samuccaya-Haribhadra-Jaina-Ananda Gran- thamala, Bhavanagar-1917. 9. Tattvārtha-Rājavārttika of Akalanka-Bhartiya Jñānapițha, Kashi-1958. Standard Works and Translation 1. History and Literature of Jainism-U.D. Barodia-Bombay 1909. 2. Jaina Sutras-Sacred Books of the East Series-Vols. 22 & 45 Hermanna Jacobi. 3. Outlines of Jainism-J. L. Jaini-Cambridge-1916. 4. The Heart of Jainism-Stevenson Cinclair-1958. 5. The Philosophy of Non-Absolutism-Dr. S. Mookerjee.

CHAPTER V

TEXT

1. Bhāșāpariccheda of Viśvanātha-with English Translation Swami Madhavanand-Advaita Asram-1940. 2. Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series. 3. Citsukhī ( Tattvapradīpikā ) of Citsukhācārya-Udasina- samskṛta Vidyalayah, Kasi. 4. Khandanakhandakhādya of ŚrIharsa-with Hindi Trans- lation and notes-Ed. Kashi Sanskrit Series. 5. Kiraņāvalı of Udayana-Benaras Sanskrit Series. 6. Kiraņāvalībhāșkara of Padmanābha Miśra-Ed. Saraswati Bhavan Texts-1920. 7. Nyāyabhāşya of Vātsyāyana-Ed. V. S. S. 8. Nyāyakandal of Śrīdhara-Ed. V. S. S. No. 6-1895. 9. Nyāyakusumāñjali of Udayana-Ed. Bibliotheca Indica ( Cal.) 10. NyayalılāvatI of Vallabha-C. S. S .- 1934. 11. Nyāyamañjari of Jayanta Bhatța-Ed. C. S. S. 1895. 12. Nyāyasūtra of Gautama-Ed. Biliotheca Indica (Calcutta). 13. Nyāyasūtravrtti of Viśvanātha. 14. Nyāyavārttika of Uddyotakara-C. S. S. 1898.

206 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

15. Nyāyavārttika Tātparyațīka of Vācaspati Miśra-V. S. S. Benares-1898. 16. The Bhāsya of Praśastapāda-Ed. V. S. S. 1895. 17. Padārthatattvanirūpaņa of Raghunātha Śiromaņi-Benares 1916. 18. Sarva Darśana Samgraha of Madhava- Calcutta Edition- 1889. 19. Siddhänta Candrodaya of Śrıkrsņa Dhurjați, Benares 1881 ( With English translation and notes ). 20. Siddhāntamuktāvalī of Viśvanātha with English Trans- lation-Advaita Ashrama-Calcutta-1940. 21. Satapadārthi of Sivaditya, Ed. V. S. Ghate, Bombay. 22. Tarkasamgraha of Annam Bhatta-Edited and Translated by Pdt. Jwala Prasad-Motilal Banarisdass-1955. 23. Tattvacintāmaņi of Gangeśa-Bibliotheca Indica. 24. Vaiśeșikasūtra of Kaņāda-Ed. Bibliotheca Indica. 25. Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, Benares. 26. Upaskāra, a commentary of V. S. by Śānkara Miśra-Ed. Bibliotheca Indica. 27. Yogabhāşya of Vyāsa-Ed. Madras Govt, Oriental Series.

Standard Works and Translations

1. A History of Indian Philosophy-Vol. I. Dr. S.N. Das- gupta-1952. 2. A Rational Refutation of Hindu Philosophical Systems- N. Nilkantaha Shastri Gore-Translation by F. Hall 1892. 3. Conception of Matter-Dr. Umesh Misra-1936. 4. History of Philosophy-Eastern and Western-Vol. I-Ed. S. Radhakrishnan-The Ministry of Education- Government of India-1952. 5. Indian Logic & Atomism-A. B. Keith-1921. 6. Nyāya-Vaišeşika Darśana-Prof. H. M. Jha-Pustaka Bhan- dara, Laheriasarai. 7. Nyāya Sūtras with Bhāşya & Vārttika & notes-English Translation by Dr. Ganganatha Jha.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 207

8. Praśastapāda Bhāşya with Nyāyakandalī-English Trans- lation by Ganganatha Jha-Reprint Benares-1916. 9. Saptapadärthi-English Translation-Theosophical Publi- shing House, Adyar, Madras. 10. Studies in Nyāya-Vaisişika Metaphysics-Sadananda Bhaduri. 11. The Nyäya-Sutras with extracts from the Vrtti of Viśva- nātha of Ballantyne-I-II books only. 12. The Hindu Realism-Dr. J. C. Chatterjee. 13. Vaiseșika Sūtras with extracts from commentary-English Translation by Gough-Lazarus & Co., Benares.

CHAPTER VI

TEXT

1. Pātañjalayogasūtrabhāsya-Vivaraņam-Madras Govt. Ori- ental Series. 2. Samkhyasutras with Commentary of Aniruddha-Ed. Kalivar Vedantavagish-2 Vols. Calcutta-1935. 3. Samkhyasūtras-English Translation by R. Garbe-1891- 92 Bibliotheca Indica Series. 4. Sāmkhya ·Kārikā of Īśvara Krsņa-B. & O. R .- 1922. 5. Sämkhyatattvakaumudī of Vācaspati-Ed. with Commen- tary by Sitaram Sastri & Ramasastri Bhandari Benares-1919-22. 6. Sāmkhya-Pravacana Blāsya of Vijňānabhikşu-Kashi Sanskrit Series. 7. Tattva-Vaiśāradī of Vācaspati-Ed. by Gosvami Damodar Sastri-Benares-1935. 8. Tattva Vaiśāradī of Vācaspati-English Translation by J. H. Woods-H. O. S. Cambridge. 9. Tattva Vaiśāradī of Vācaspati-English Translation by Ramprasada-Sacred Books of Hindus, Allahabad- 1910. 10. Yoga-Vārttika of Vijňānabhikşu-Sānga-yoga-daršanam - Benares.

208 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

11. Yuktidīpikā-Ed. P. Chakravarti-Calcutta Sanskrit Series. 12. Vaiyākaraņasiddhāntalaghumanjușā of Nāgeśa Bhațța- Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series.

Standard Works

1. A Study of Patañjali-S. N. Dasgupta-1920. 2. A study of Yoga-Jajneshwar Ghosh-1933. 3. Early Samkhya-E. H. Johnston. 4. Origin & Development of the Sämkhya System of Thought P. Chakravarti-Caleutta Sanskrit Series-Vol. XXX. 5. Outlines of a Philosophy of Religion-H. Lotze-New York 1892. 6. Patañjala Yoga-Darśana-( Hindi ) Srimad Hariharananda Aranya Lucknow University. 7. Samkhya System-A. B. Keith-1924. 8. Samkhya Darsan Ka Itihasa-Pandit Udayavira Sastri- 1950. 9. The Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus-Sir B. N. Seal-Motilal Banarasi Das-1958. 10. Yoga Philosophy-S. N. Das Gupta. 11. Yoga as Philosophy & Religion-S. N. Das Gupta-1924.

CHAPTER VII

TEXT

1. Jaimini Sutras-Edited and English Translation-Prof. Thadani. Bharati Research Institute-1952. 2. Mānameyodaya of Nārāyaņa-Text and Translation by C. Kunhan Raja-Theosophical Publishing House, Madras-1933. 3. Prakaraņapañcikā of Šālīkanātha Miśra-Banaras-1903. 4. Śāstradīpikā of Pārthasārthi Miśra-Niranaya Sagar Press- Bombay-1915. 5. Ślokavārttika of Kumārila Bhatța-Chowkhambha Sans- krit Series-1898-9. 6. Ślokavārttika of Kumārila, Bhațț-English Translation Ganganatha Jha-Bibliotheca Indica-1900.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 209

7l Tantravärttika of Kumārila Bhatța-Benares Sanskrit Series-1890. 8. -do- -English Translation by Ganganatha Jha Bibliotheca Indica-1903.

Standard Works

1. A History of Indian Philosophy-Vol. I. 1952-Dr. J. N. Singh. 2. History of Philosophy-Eastern & Western-Ed. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan-1952. 3. Karma Mimamsa-A. B. Keith-Haritage of India Series. 4. Mimamsa-Prof. N. V. Thadani. .01 5. Prabhākara School of Purva Mimāmsā-Indian Thought- Allahabad-1911. 6. Purva Mīmāmsā-Pasupati Natha Sastri-Calcutta-1923. 7. Purva Mimamsa & its Sources-Banaras Hindu University by Ganganatha Jha. 1942.

CHAPTER VIII

TEXT

1. Aņubhāşyam of Vallabha-B. I. new Series-Calcutta 1891. 2. Brahma Sūtra-Anandasrama Sanskrit Series-Poona No. 21, 1890. 3. Brahma Sutra-English Translation and Text-Ed. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan-1960. 4. Brahmasütrabhāşya of Šankarācārya-Ed. Narayan Sastri A. S. S. Poona-1900-1903. 5. -do- -English Translation by G. Thibaut, S.B.E. Oxford 1890. . Bhāgavata Tātparya-Madhva-C. S. S. 7. CitsukhI-Hindi Translation and notes-Udasina Samskrta Vidyalaya-Kashi. 8. Māņdūkya Kārikā of Gaudapāda with English Translation by Sri Ramkrishna Asrama, Mysore 1949.

14 A. T.

210 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

9. Nyāya Sudhā of Jayatīrtha-Benares-1901. 10. Prasthānaratnākaraḥ of Purușottamjī Mahārāj-Chow- khamba Sanskrit Series-1909. 11. Śrībhāşya of Rāmānuja-Brahma Vadin Press, Madras- 1899. 12. -do- -Translation by George Thibaut, S. B. E. Vol. 48. Clarendon Press-1884. 13. Tattvamuktākalāpa-Venkațanātha-University of Mysore Publication-1933. 14. Tattvatraya-Lokācārya-Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series. 15. The Complete Works-Swami Vivekananda-Vols. I-VI. 16. The Upanişads with Śāmkara Bhāşya-Text and Hindi Translations-Gītä Press-Samvat 2009.

Standard Works

1. Advaita Philosophy-Kokileshwar Sastri-1926. 2. Advaita Vedanta & Modern Physics-Srimat Puragra Parampanthi. 3. A History of Indian Philosophy-Vols. III & IV-Dr. S. N. Dasgupta-1952. 4. A History of Indian Philosophy-Vol. II .- Dr. J. N. Sinha. 5. A Study of Vedanta-Prof. S. K. Das. 6. Indian Theism-N. Macnicol-Oxford-1915. 7. Outline of the Vedanta System of Philosophy according to Sankara-P. Deussen-Eng. Translātion-2nd Ed. Cambridge 1915. 8. Studies in Vedanta-V. J. Kirtikara-D. B. Taraporewala & Sons-Bombay-1924. 9. The Philosophy of Bhedäbheda-P. N. Srinivasachari- Madras-1950. 10. The Vedanta-V. S. Ghate-Poona-1926. 11. Vacaspati Misra on Advaita Vedanta-Dr. S. S. Hasurkar.

( Common to all Chapters ) 1. A History of Philosophy-Windelband-New York-1905.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 211

2. A History of Science-Whetham-Cambridge University Press 1929. 3. A Pluralistic Universe-William James. 4. Creative Evolution-Bergson-1907. 5. Critique of Practical Reason-Translated by Maxmuller- Kant-1881. 6. Early Zoroastrianism-Moulton-London-1913. 7. Essays in Science-Albert Einstein-A Mentmor Book 1958. 8. Introduction to Metaphysics-Bergson-1903. 9. Matter and Motion-James Clark Maxwell. 10. Maya-Swami Madhvatirth. 11. New Pathways in Science-A. S. Eddington-1935. 12. New Background of Science-Sir James Jeans. 13. Outlines of Greek Philosophy-E. Zeller-1931. ( Kagan Paul ). 14. Physics & Philosophy-Sir James Jeans-1948. 15. Prof. Eddington's Clifford Lectures-R. B. Braithwate Mind-N. S. 38-1929. 16. Science & the Modern World-H. A. Reason. 17. -do- -A. N. Whitehead-A Mentor Book-1948. 18. Space, Time & Deity-Dr. F. Alexander-1920. 19. Space, Time & Gravitation-A. S. Eddington-1929. 20. The Quest of Overself-Paul Brunton. 21. The Nature of Physical World-A. S. Eddington-1928. 22. The Philosophy of Physical Science-A. S. Eddington- 1949.

3. The Limitations of Science-J. W. N. Sullivan-London 1933. 24. The Philosophical Aspects of Modern Science-C. E. M. Joad-1918. 25. The Science of Peace-Bhagvan Das. 26. Time and its Mystery-New York University Press. 27. The Superphisical-Osborne. 28. The Idealistic Reaction Against Science-Aliotta. 29. The Anatomy of Modern Science-Bavink Bernhard.

212 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

30. The Ether of Space-Oliver Lodge. 31. The Metaphysical Foundation of Modern Physical Science -F. A. Burtt. 32. The Roads to Modern Science-H. A. Reason. 33. The World as I see it -- Albert Einstein. 34. The Mysterious Universe-Sir James Jeans-1931. 35. The Growth of Physical Science-Sir James Jeans-1948. 36. The Universe & Dr. Einstein-Lincolm Barnett. 37. Wonders of Time and Space-Swami Madhvatirth.

JOURNALS 1. Mind-Edited by Prof.G.Ryle-Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd- 2. Philosophy-Edited by H.B. Acton, Macmillan & Co. Ltd. 3. Philosophical Quarterly-Managing Editor-G.R. Malkanı -The Indian Institute of Philosophy, India. 4. Tye Hibbert Journal-Allen and Unwin, London.

INDEX

A Ālambana, 55, 63.

Abāva, 70. Alexander, 172-75, 185-87.

Abhidharma, 61. Alokākāśa, 77, 82, 112.

Abhidharma Koşa, 54, 61, 69, 70. Amarakoşa, 19, 20.

Abhidharmakoșabhāșya, 57. Ananda, 150.

Absolute, 179. Anaxamenes, 10.

Absolute space, 161-63, 165. Andhakas, 69, 74.

Absolute time, 162-63, 165, 168, Antaḥ-karaņa, 114, 154. Antarikşa, 6, 9. 181. Abstract space, 45. Aņu, 32, 116. Ap, 39. Action, 126. Āpadeva, 191. Active cause, 62. Apāna, 15. Aditi, 9. Adāra Kalāma, 59. Aparatva, 83.

Ādhāra Kāraņa, 22. Apratisamkhyanfrodha, 56. Āraņyakas, 11. Adharma, 82. Ardhamāsa, 4. Adhva, 54. Arhats, 67. Advaita vedānta, 136-38, 150-52, Aristotle, 189. 191-93. Arjuna, 24, 30, 31, 52. Aeneid, 177. Arthaśastra, 27, 32. Aleons, 16. Articulate, 155. Afternoon, 32. Arundhati, 52. Aggregate, 77. Asamskrta, 56. Agni, 9, 19, 39. Asamskrta Dharma, 69, 71, 74. Agni Purāņa, 23. Astācala, 101. Ahirbudhnya samhitā, 5. Asuras, 50. Ahorātra, 4, 79, 108. Atala, 49. Aitareya āraņyaka, 15. Atharvaveda, 4-10, 33, 35, 176. Aitareya Brāhmaņa, 4. Atman, 102. Aitareya upanişad, 12. Atomic time, 145. Ājīvikas, 61. Atoms of time, 77. Ajñāna, 14, 17. Ātyantīka pralaya, 38. Akrta, 47. Auditory organ, 81. Akriyāvādins, 40. Ākaśa Gangā, 51. Auditory perception, 81. Auditory sense, 137. Ākaśa 9, 11, 12, 13, et passim. Auttama Manvantara, 36.

214 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Āvaraņa, 70, 75. Brahma loka, 45, 47. 9 Āvaraņābhāva, 152. Brahman, 5, 12, 13, 15-18, 22, Avasarpiņikāla, 79. 26, 28, 100, 135, 136, 138, Avasthā pariņāma, 60, 117. 151, 155, 176. Avatāra, 35. Brāhmaņa literature, 34. Avidyā, 136. Brahmānda, 19. Avyakrtākāśa, 155. Brahmāņda purāņa, 47. Avyakta, 21, 22, 39, 176. Brahma's day, 37. Ayana, 32, 33, 79. Brahmasutra, 70, 135, 155. Ayaugapadya, 83. Braithwate, 170. Ayuta, 79. Brhad-āraņyaka upanişad, 11, 14,

B 15.

Bala, 49. Broad, Dr. C. D., 44.

Bali, 50. Buddha, 40, 57, 59, 62, 63, 71,

Bergson, 14, 20, 183, 185, 186, 73.

188. Buddhaghoșa, 182.

Bhadanta Buddhadeva, 57, 58. Buddhi, 8.

Bhadanta Dharmatrata, 56, 57. Buddhism, 59, 60, 67.

Bhadanta Ghaşaka, 57, 58. Buddhist, 56, 142, 146, 153, 155,

Bhadanta Vasumitra, 57. 183, 188.

Bhāgadheya, 26. C

Bhagavad-Gita, 29, 37, 39, 52, Cakşușa Manvantara, 36. 179. Calvinistic doctrine, 40. Bhägavata, 19. Candrakīrti, 182. Bhartrhari, 25. Carișnava, Manvantara, 36. Bhāskara, 109. Causal efficiency, 59. Bhatța Mīmamsaka, 89, 130, 190. Causality, 136. Bhavānī, 50. Causation, 138. Bhavişya, 19. Cause, 66. Bhavitavya, 25, 26. Chandogya Upanişad, 11. Bhavitavyatā, 28, Change, 148. Bhiksu, 22, 118, 120, 124. Characteristics of Yuga, 35. Bhuh, 47. Chief destructive force, 28. Bhūtākaśa, 155. Cidakāśa, 51. Bhūrloka, 48, 49. Ciratva, 83. Bhuvaḥ, 47. Cit, 150. Bhuvanas, 6. Citsukha, 103, 104, 137. Bliss, 150. Cittakāśa, 51. Bradley, 99. Congnition, 62, 63, 97, Brahma, 19, 37, 39, 45, 47, 48, Computation of, 32. 176. Concept of Kala, 5.

INDEX 215

Concept of space, 3, 11, 14, 81, Dișta, 24.

156. Divine years, 35. Concept of time, 3, 15, 26, 32, 67, Division of time, 32-34, 55, 59, 68,156,179. 66, 79, 91, 127-28, 145.

Concept of trinity, 21. Division of space, 152.

Concept of universal, 90. Doctrine of change, 61.

Concept of Yuga, 33. 3 Doctrine of Parināma, 59.

Conceptual space, 160. Doctrine of universal existence, 58.

Conceptual time, 161. Dravya, 77, 181.

Consciousness, 64, 150, 154. Dream, 64.

Continuity, 184. Dreaming state, 29.

Continuance, 184. Duration, 14.

Copernicus, 193. Duration of manvantara, 36.

Cosmic form, 53. Duree, 14.

Cosmic space, 112. Dvādaśaha, 4.

Cosmic sport, 149. Dvaitavāda, 149.

Creative aspects of Kala, 30. Daivam, 24. Dvāpara, 6, 34, 41, 129. D Dyauḥ loka, 4.

Daityas, 49, 50. Dyaus, 5, 6, 8.

Daiva, 26, 28, 33, 176, 178. E

Danavas, 49-51. Eddington, 167, 169, 170, 180, Darkness, 70. 184, 191, 192. Dasgupta, Dr. S. N., 8, 21, 23. Effect, 66. Day, 15, 16, 26, 30, 32, 38, 140, Efficient cause, 21, 147. 149. Einstein, 31, 150-58, 166, 167, Democritus, 184. 171, 172, 180-85, 193-95. Deśa, 22. Element space, 155. Descartes, 179. Empedocles, 10. Destiny, 7. Empirical consciousness, 97. Destructive aspects of Kala, 30. Empirical intuition, 120. Determination, 40. Empirical knowledge, 136. Determinism, 4, 42. e Empirical reality, 136. Devas, 48, 50. Empirical time, 6, 10, 14, 16, 21, Dharma, 35, 69, 70, 82, 183. 77, 150, 180, 183-84. Dharma pariņāma, 60, 117. Energy, 7. Dhruva, 23, 46. Entropy, 169-70. Dik, 13, 82, 100-107, 110, 112, Erroneous vision, 17. 122, 124, 131, 154, 190. Eternal duration, 20. Dimensions, 77. Eternal manifestation, 149. Diňnāga, 63, Eternal now, 18.

216 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Eternal time, 121. Gross, 9. Eternity, 17, 18, 22, 147, 176. Ground cause, 22. Ether, 3. Guņas, 7. 76, 122, 123. Etherial space, 52, 113. H Euclid, 157, 167. 4 Evolutionary process, 123. Half-days, 16 Existence, 150. Hamsa, 51. Existence of Akāśa, 113. Hațha, 25. Existence of time, 83. Heliometric, 47. Experience, 64. Heraclitus, 10. Extra-cosmic space, 82, 112. Herbert, 190.

F Highest principle, 13, 15. Hīnayāna, 54. Fate, 25, 176, 178, 179. Faulty observation, 14. History of Indian philosophy, 122. Hitler, 41. Five characteristics, 20. Hitopadeśa, 179. Five lakşanas, 37. Horizontal extention, 77. Fetzerald-Lorentz, 164, 166. Human endeavours, 28. Forenoon, 32. Human years, 35. Form, 123. I Fortnight, 149. Freedom of will, 178, 179. Idavatsara, 4. Fundamental space, 2, 31. Ignorance, 14. Future, 16, 18, 61, 62, 66, 67, Immanent cause, 25 91, 92, 94, 95, 98, 119, 120, Immediacy, 149. 142, 145, 149, 181, 186. Implication, 8. Futureness, 58. Individual Gods, 3.

G Indivisible ( Akhanda ), 21. Infinity, 22. Gabhastimān, 49. Infinity of time, 171. Gandharvas, 51. Gańgeśa, 187. Infinity of space, 171.

Gārgī, 11. Inherent nature, 16.

Garuda, 19, 51. Intellectual intuition, 120.

Garuda Purāņa, 23. Internal events, 17.

Gaudapāda, 17. Interval, 119.

Ghatika, 108. Iśvara, 25, 107, 148, 149, 151.

God, 21, 22, et passim. Iśavra-gītā, 22.

Gods, 51. İśvara-gItā-bhaşya, 23. Gopatha Brahmana, 34. J Gośala, 44. Jaimini, 131. Great aeons, 16. Jaimini sūtra, 126.

INDEX 217

Jaiminīya Upanişad brāhmaņa, 9, Kiraņāvalt, 108. Jainas, 77, 79, 145, 183, 184. Koran, 178.

Jaina ontology, 82. Knowledge, 119.

Jaina philosophy, 76, 82, 184. Kışņa, 24, 29, 30, 31, 41, 53. James Cleark, 180. Krta, 34.

Janaloka, 47, 48. Krtānta, 26, 27.

Jīvas, 78. Kșana, 80, 108, 109, 116, 119. Jīvātmans, 48, 107. 120, 183, 187-189. Kşipratva, 83. K Kūhakas, 50.

Kadru, 50. Kumāras, 48.

Kailaśa, 46, 53. Kumārila 129, 131, 133, 134, Kaivalya Upanişad, 16. 154.

Kāla, 3, 8, 21, et passim. Kūrma-purāņa, 22, 33, 46.

Kalana-Karana, 8. L Kalāņus, 77, 184. Laghủ, 32. Kali, 7, 34, 41. Kāliyas, 50. Lakşaņā-pariņāma, 117.

Kaliyuga, 35. Lakşamaņa, 26.

Kalpanā, 63. Lankāvatāra Sūtra, 73.

Kalpas, 27-29, 33-35, 37, 47, Lava, 8, 32, 79.

127, 129, 179. Law of anekānta, 80.

Kamala, 79. Law of causation, 73.

Kamalaśīla, 72. Laws of Karma, 25.

Kāmasūtra, 28. Law of Parsimony, 146.

Kanāda, 110. Liebnitz, 177, 182.

Kant, 75, 98, 99, 115, 140, 144, Light, 70.

179, 185, 190. Lrla, 51, 52.

Kāraņa Ākāśa, 124. Lrlavibhuti, 149.

Karma, 23, 25, 28, 43, 150. Limiting condition, 188.

Kāryākāśa, 124. Linga, 20.

Kassapikas, 69. Locus, 122.

Kassyapiyas, 64. Lokācārya, 148-49

Kāșțhā, 32, 33, 108, 149. Lokākāśa, 77, 82, 112.

Kasyapa, 5. Lokas, 13, 45, 47.

Kathavastu, 54, 64. Lotze, 190.

Kathavatthu, 68, 69, 74, 181. Lunar years, 4.

Kauşītaki Upanişad, 12. M Kautilaya, 27, 32, 34, 39. Madam Blavatsky, 39. Kāya, 77. Madhva, 149-50, 154-55, 191. Kharva, 34. Madhyamikas, 54, 65, 73, 74, 94, King Viduratha, 52. 142, 143, 182.

218 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Mahabhārata, 3, 24-26, 30, 34, Motion, 97, 193. 37,40, 41,51. Mtyu, 25. Mahadeva, 38, 49. Multiples, 4, 32, 33, 79, 149. Mahākāla, 79, 80. Mundane space, 82. Maharloka, 46, 48. Mussolini, 41. Mahat, 8, 45, 49. N Mahātala, 49, 50. Mahāyāna, 54. Nadrka, 32.

Mahisaskas, 74. Nāgas, 49, 51.

Maitrī Upanișad, 13, 15, 16, 18. Nāgārjuna, 56, 66, 142.

Mana, 5. Nāgeśa, 121.

Mānameyodaya, 133. Naimittik-pralaya, 38, 39, 149.

Māņdukya Upanişad, 16. Naiyāyikas, 95, 96, 101, 110, 134,

Manifest universe, 3. 137, 139, 187, 190.

Manu, 34, 35, 38, 48, 127. Nalika, 32.

Manus, 7, 149. Nantam, 31.

Manusmrti, 31, 33. Nali, 79.

Manvantara, 20, 32-36, 127, 179. Nalina, 79. Mārkaņdeya purāņa, 20, 23, 36. Narada, 19. Māsa, 4, 32. Nārāyana, 13. Maskari gosāla, 40. Nature, 150. Material cause, 107, 147. Nature of space, 73, 75. Material elements, 16. Nature of time, 58. Matsya purāņa, 20, 23. Nature of observation, 30. Matter, 185, 192-93. Necessity, 16. Māyā, 49, 136, 150. Negation, 153. Maya Danava, 49, 50. Newton, 109, 159, 161, 162, 181. Māyika Iśvara, 151, 193. New test-ment, 178. Mentarevents, 17. Night, 20, 30, 32, 33, 38. Mental time, 17. Nihilistic Buddhist, 152. Metaphysical time, 98. Nimesa, 32, 33, 108, 149. Meghanādāri, 139. Nirvāna, 62, 67, 100, 181, 185. Milinda-pañha, 67, 68, 74. Nirvicāra Prajña, 120. Mīmāmsā, 126-27, 190. Niscayakāla, 77, 78. Mimāmsakas, 81, 90, 99, 101, Nitala, 49. 134, 187, 190. Nitya pralaya, 38, 149. Mirkowski, 159, 163-64, 167, 172. Niyati, 7, 27. Moment, 29, 87, 96, 97, 116, 117, Notions of Kāla, 107. 120, 189. Number, 99. Months, 26, 33, 79, 149. Nyaya, 133, 181, 183. Momentariness, 183. Nyāya-bhāșya, 115. Moon, 9, 51. Nyāya-Kandali, 99.

INDEX 219

Nyāya-sūtra, 94. Physical objecs, 76. Nyāya System, 110. Physical space, 161. Nyaya-Vaiśeşika, 89, 92, 93, 96, Physical time, 124, 161. 109, 111, 115, 124, 130, 154, Pitț, 5.

181, 186, 189. Plato, 177. Nyāya-Vaiśeşika philosophers, 89. Posteriority, 83, 87, 98, 137, 139, Nyāya Vaiseşika System, 83, 88, 98. 140. Prabhakara, 129-30, 133-34, 190. 0 Pradeśa, 77, 81, 82.

Objective Cognition, 63. Pradhana, 22.

Obstruction, 72. Prahara, 32.

Occupation of space, 72. Prajāpati, 5, 7, 12. Osborn, 180. Prakaraņapañcika, 131.

P Prakaraņa ( Sargas ), 23-27. Prakrti, 7, 21-23, 122, 128-29, Padma, 19. 148-50, 152, 155.

Paingala Upanișad, 13. Prākrta pralaya, 38, 149.

Paippaladr Atharvaveda, 6. Pralayas, 36, 149, 179.

Paksa, 4, 32, 79. Prāņa, 5, 8, 15, 79.

Pañcaratra literature, 7. Pratisamkhyanirodha, 56.

Pañcīkaraņa, 154, Present, 16, 58, 61, 66, 69, et

Pandavas, 41. passim.

Pani, 50. Presentness, 58.

Paramāņus, 32, 113, 116. Priority, 137, 139, 140, 146.

Paramatmana, 23. Process of creation, 7, 191.

Parameśvara, 38, 176 Process of evolution, 116.

Paratva, 83. Prof. Einstein, 14.

Pargiter, 36. Prof. Maxmüller, 3.

Pariņāma, 60. Prof. Milne, 14.

Parivatsara, 4. Pubbaseliyas, 69.

Paryāya, 76. Pudgals, 76, 78, 81, 82. Past, 16, 18, et passim. Purāna, 19-21, 23, 33, 176, 178-

Pastness, 58. 79.

Pātāla, 49, 50, 51. Purușa, 7, 21-23. Patañjali, 121. Puruşa-kāra, 23, 26-28, 178. Paul Bruniton, 179. Puruşa-sūkta, 30. Period of pralaya, 32. Purva-Mīmāmsā, 129. Period of manus, 32. Perceptual time, 161. Q

Phenomenal world, 73. Qualities, 76. Philolaus, 10. Quickness, 83, 86, 137, 149.

220 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Quintuplicative process, 154. Samkalpa, 12.

R Samkhya, 57, 59, 60, 120, 128, 188. Raghunatha or Raghunātha Śiro- Samkhya philosophy, 70. mani, 39, 107. Sāmkhya Pravacana, Bhāşya, 121. Rāhu, 48. Samkhya-yoga, 7, 59-61, 113, 122- Rajas, 116, 144, 150. 23, 188-89. Rama, 40. Ramānuja, 139, 152. Smrti, 34.

Rāmāyaņa, 24-26, 40, 51. Samskāra, 67.

Rasātala, 49-51. Samskrta Dharma, 69.

Rāśis, 4. Samsara, 183.

Realists, 64, 75. Samvatsara, 4, 5, 33.

Reality, 68, 80. Sanaka, 48.

Reality of kala, 76. Sanandana, 47.

Real time, 20. Sandhya, 34, 35.

Reimann, 157-158. Sandhyamśa, 34.

Relation of Samyoga, 84. Saniḥsāra, 54.

Relative position, 122. Śańkara or Śankarācārya, 15, 18,

Relativity of time, 30. 41, 43, 70, 71, 138, 150-52.

Relativity of time and space, 29. Sarva-Darśana-Sangraha, 104.

Republic, 177. Sarvāstivādins, 55, 58, 59, 69, 181.

Rgveda, 3, 33. Sat, 5, 150.

Rgvedic hymns, 8. Satapatha Brāhmaņa, 6, 9.'

R.k, 5. Sattva, 149-50.

Rotations, 4. Satya, 47, 129.

Rsis, 48. Satya loka, 48.

Rtu, 4, 6, 32, 33, 79. Satya Pralayas, 149.

Rudra, 48. Sautrāntikas, 54, 56, 61-63, 72,

Rudraka Rāmaputra, 59. 182, 188.

Rupa, 55. Savastuka, 54. Savicāra Prajña, 120. S Sayaņa, 15. Śabara Bhāsya, 129. School of Buddhism, 54.

Śabda, 9, 82, 113, 154-55. Season, 79, 149. Śabdatanmātra, 9, 154. Secondary principle, 14. Sakşr, 154-55. Siddhas, 48. Śakti, 7. Simultaneity, 31, 83, 137, 149. Şadvimsa Brāhmaņa, 34. Sir Eddington, 164. Sāmagrī, 98. Sir James Jeans, 159, 162-64, 181, Sāmānya, 90. 192. Samaya, 79. Śiromaņi, 39.

INDEX 221

Sītā, 51. Svabhāva, 150,

Śiva, 19, 57. Svah, 47.

Skanda, 19. Svarloka, 47.

Skandha, 81, 82. Svarocișa, 36.

Ślokavārtika, 129. Svāyambhuva, 36,

Slowness, 83, 149. Śvetāśvatara Upanișad, 16, 176.

Stars, 9. Swami MadhvatIrtha, 30.

Solar motion, 4, 86. Swamī Vivekānanda, 138.

Solstice, 149. T Soul, 83, 89, 102, 103. Sound, 81, 82, 113, 154. Taittirlya āraņyaka, 14. Taittirīya Upanişad, 12. Space, 6, 20, 64. Talatala, 49, 50. Space point, 77. Tamas, 124, 149-50. Spiritual space, 51. Tanmatra, 116. Spatio-temporal determination, 64, Tantravārtika, 129. 65 Tapoloka, 47, 48. Spatiotemporal series, 11. Tatparya, 108. Spinoza, 177. Tattvacintāmani, 187. Spirit, 16. Tattvamuktākalāpa, 145, 147, 148. Spiritual objects, 76. Śrāvakas, 55. Tattvasamāsa, 121.

Śrīdhara, 91, 108. Tattvasamgraha pańjikā, 73.

Śrīharsa, 92, 93, 94. Tejas, 5.

Srīnivāsadāsa, 148-49, 154. Temporal division, 58.

Śruti, 126. Thadani N. V., 3.

Stalin, 41. Thales, 10.

Stars, 16. Theory of Creation, 83.

Subāla upanișad, 13, 160. Theory of Henotheism, 3.

Subjective conception, 63. Theory of irrevocable, 40.

Subjective form, 74. Theory of relativity, 14, 156-160,

Subtle elements, 9, 10, 45. 162-64, 168. Time, 3, 7, 10. et passim. Succession, 83, 98, 137. Time-Atoms, 145-46. Succession of events, 20. Timeless ( Eternal ), 18. Śuddhādvaita, 150 Tirthas, 19. Sullivan, J. W. N. 171, 192-93. Tiryak-pracaya, 77. Sun, 9, 16,51. Totality of causal conditions, 98. Śunya, 182-83. Trailokya, 50, Śunyavāda, 54. Śunyavādins, 182-83. Trailokyanātha, 50 Trasarenus, 32. Surya, 19. Transcendental time, 6, 10, 14, 21, Sutala, 49, 50. 25, 77, 93, 184.

222 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPACE AND TIME

Trayah, 4. Varāha, 20. Tretã, 41 Vardhamana, 111-12.

Tratā yuga, 6, 35, 129. Vartamāna, 187.

Truți, 8. 32, 108. Vartana, 184. Totality of position, 122. Varuna, 8.

U Vasubandhu, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 69. Udayācala, 101. Vasumitra, 59. Udayana, 108. Vasuki, 50, 51. Udyotakare, 72. Vatsara, 4. Ultimate cause, 65. Vātsyāyana, 28. Ultimate principles, 9, 14, 15. Vāyu, 9, 33. Unit of time, 109. Vāyu purāņa, 35, 37, 38, 46, 47. Universal spirit, 21. Vedānta, 107, 135, 193. Universe, 21, 22. Vedantins, 89-91, 139. Unmarifested space, 155. Vedantist, 99. Upādāna Kāraņa, 107. Vedas, 3, 129, 131. Upādhi, 188. Vedhas, 32. Upanişads, 11, 14, 137, 157. Veņīdatta, 107. Ūrdhva pracaya, 77. Venkațācārya, 141-42, 145, 147- Utpatti prakaraņa, 27. 48, 152-54. Uttarapathakas, 74. Veńkațanātha, 139. Ușã, 4. Vertical extension, 77.

V Vibhajyavādins, 63. Vijnāna, 55, 62-63. Vacaspati, 117-19. Vijñāna bhikșu, 22. Vacuity or space, 72. Vijñāna-vādins, 182. Vaibhaşika, 54-56, 61-63, 65, 66, Vikalpa, 74. 69, 70, 72-73, 113. Vipāka-hetu, 55. Vaibhaşika School, 56. Virgil, 177. Vaikuņțna, 46, 53. Virocana, 50. Vairājas, 47, 48. Viśīstādvaita, 193. Vaīśeşika, 79, 81, 82, 85, 89, 90, Visișțadvaita School, 148. 92-94, 96-98, 100-103, 111, Viśiștādvaitins, 191. 131, 134, 141, 142, 147, 183, Vişnu, 19, 22, 35, 45, 46. 190. Vișņu purāņa, 21, 33, 46, 50, 48, Vaiśeşika philosophy, 110. 108. Vaiśeşika system, 86. Vişnusmrti, 31. Vaivasvata, 36, Vivekānanda, 151. Vallabha, 97, 150, 155. Volitional activity, 8. Vamana, 20. Vartas, 19.

INDEX 223

Vyavahāra kāla, 77, 78, 183-184. Yaugapadya, 83. Vyasa, 35, 38, 96, 97. 119. Year, 27, 29, 32, 79, 140, 149.

W Yeșţha, 5.

Whitehead, A. N., 14, 192. Yoga, 60, 97.

Y Yoga-bhāsya, 60, 96, 116-17. Yogācāra, 54, 73. Yādavaprakāśa, 141. Yogācārins, 64. Yadu, 42. Yogācārya, 64. Yajña, 5. Yoga-sūtra, 63, 116, 119. Yājñavalkya, 11, 179. Yoga-vāsișțha, 27, 29, 51, 179. Yajus, 5. Yuga, 6, 27, 32, 33, 34, 38, 124, Yama, 32. 127, 129, 149, 179. Yaśomitra, 51. Yugadharma, 35. Yatindramatadīplkā, 148. Yuktidīpika, 121.

SOME IMPORTANT PUBLICATIONS IN THE STUDIES:

1. SARVADARŚANASAMGRAHA : Or Review of the different systems of Hindu Philosophy by Madhava Acharya. Translated by E. B. Cowell, M. A. and A. E. Gough, M. A. Reprint. 1961.(X) 15-00

2. VAIŚESIKA PHILOSOPHY : According to the Daśa- padāratha Śāstra. Chinese Text with Illustration, Trans- lation and Notes by H. Ui. Edited by F. W. Thomas. Reprint. 1962. ( XXII ). 16-00

3. A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF RAMANUJA. By Dr. Anima Sen Gupta. 1967. (LV) 20-00 4. AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE ACCORDING TO ABHI- NAVAGUPTA. By Raniero Gnoli. Second Edition, Revised, Enlarged and Re-elaborated. 1968. ( LXII ) 45-00

4. SRI AUROBINDO AND THE THEORIES OF EVOLU- TION : A Critical and Comparative Study of Indian and Western Theories of Evolution with Special Reference to Sri Aurobindo's Philosophy of Evolution. By Dr. Ramasankar Srivastava. 1968. (LX ) 30-00

5. HYMNS OF THE ATHARVAVEDA. Translated into English with a Popular Commentary by R. T. H. Griffith. 2 Vols. Complete. Reprint. 1968. ( LXVI) 40-00

6. THE KAUŞĪTAKI BRAHMAŅA-UPANIŞAD. With the Dipikā Commentary of Śankarānanda. Edited with an English Translation by E. B. Cowell, M. A. Reprint. 1968. ( LXIV ) 20-00

THE CHOWKHAMBA SANSKRIT SERIES OFFICE P. O. Box 8, VARANASI-1 (India ) Phone : 3145 CHO PU