Examination of time as per Relativity, NyAya and VedAnta

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

An examination of time has been done as per Relativity, NyAya and Advaita VedAnta. It is a rather elaborate note. I request learned members to go through it at their leisure and suggest changes, if any. It may require some significant dedicated time and I seek the indulgence of learned members in this regard.

The note can be downloaded in PDF from https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/examination-of-time-as-per-relativity-nyaya-and-vedanta.pdf

The crux of discussion, mentioned in Para 4.6 of the note, is as under:

As per Modern Science, there is no universal time. It varies from person-to-person and is also dependent on external conditions such as presence of massive objects in vicinity. Time is not an entity in itself but can at best be portrayed as a projection of an entity named as spacetime. As a shadow of spacetime, time varies from person A to person B. If the heart-rate of both A and B is 75 beats per minute when there is no relative motion between them, then as per A, the B’s heart rate will be much lower if B is in relative motion with respect to A. Similarly, time passes differently for A at sea-level and B at the top of Mt. Everest. Thus, though Modern Science refutes time as an independent entity, it retains a real spacetime. However, since spacetime is also an object of knowledge, as per VedAnta, this would also be illusory.

NyAya takes an extremely common sense view of time and infers the existence of an eternal, omnipresent, singular dravya named mahAkAla having no vyavahAra-yOgyatA. Through born-upAdhis, it accomplishes vyavahAra-yOgyatA and becomes the cause of vyavahAra such as past-ness/future-ness etc. We have seen that no valid pramANa can be adduced for that. Further, since anumAna and Shruti show complete identity of waking and dream, and just as there is no need to accept a mahAkAla to explain dream-cognitions of time, there is no need to accept mahAkAla to explain waking-cognitions of time either. Thus, NyAya’s view of having mahAkAla etc is devoid of merit.

Advaita VedAnta takes up the discussion of time at several levels. As per the core theory of advaita vedAnta, there cannot be any time as singular inactive reality, Brahman, cannot accommodate change without which time cannot be conceived. However, advaita uses several prakriyAs to arrive at its supreme teaching. In those prakriyAs, time is variously defined which suit the seeker at different stages of his spiritual evolution. Time can be described as a flow (TaittirIya AraNyaka), or as kriyA-shakti of Ishwara, or as taTastha-lakshaNa of Brahman, or as upalkshaNa of AtmA, or as avidyA or as avidyA-chit-sambandha or it can be dismissed completely. When time is described as avidyA-chit-sambandha or avidyA, in that case, it can be equated with AvaraNa. And when time is not equated to either avidyA or avidyA-chit-sambandha, rather is accepted to be born, it loses all its special treatment. It becomes like any other seen object, like a table or chair. There is no need to pay any special attention to time.

In the considered view of the writer of this note, time is just like any other seen. There is no need to pay any attention to it. No need to analyse changes in passage of time with respect to different observers or changes in the vicinity of massive objects. Time is also seen, and is hence illusory. And is hence not worthy of being paid any attention. It needs to be ignored, just as a mirage is ignored. It is however pertinent to note that ignoring ignorance, ignoring AvaraNa, ignoring time and ignoring causality practically appear to be the same. In that perspective, ignorance, AvaraNa, time and causality all appear to be practically the same. If I reject one, the others stand rejected ipso facto. And one situates as one’s own Self.

I request the following persons specifically to kindly share their views:

• Shri Lalitaalaalitah Swami ji.
• Shri Venkatraghavan ji.
• Shri Subbu ji.
• Shri Bandaru Viswanath ji.
• Shri Satyan Chidambaran ji.
• Shri Raghav ji.
• Shri Vikram Jagannathan Ji.
• Shri Jaishankar Ji.

Any errors or wrong deductions may kindly be highlighted without any hesitation.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

Link to the session on this topic during GOF 2026 is as under:

https://youtu.be/QLS28s_1u20?si=KWhdmZMLEo9oQ4p_

Critical comments on the overall issue of time vis-a-vis āvaraṇa/avidyā are welcome. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

I hope the mentioned people comment as well. The topic is of general interest and motivates thinking and discussion from scholars and non-scholars alike. Some thoughts after reading some parts of Sudhanshu-ji's writeup:

There is the statement to the effect that "time is a seen entity" and therefore illusory. 

We can ask what is meant by "seen" here? When it is said "Table is seen", the pramana is pratyaksha dependent on certain indriya. A certain cognition "of snake" that we correspond to the "eye-sense" we then understand as being superimposed on "rope". Therefore the snake that is seen is illusory.

Time on the other hand is understood as a locus for the duality of sequentially-seen and remembered cognitions. In the world that is seen now, we are able to or compelled to see/superimpose an order that differentiates mind from matter, and the past-seen (seen now as memory, in mind) from present manifest-matter existence. 

The table that is seen through the eye-sense is known as being seen now through the eye-sense. The chair that is seen in mind is known as having-been-seen through eye-sense before. So in the world of cognition, there is "seen" a differentiation/mapping of cognition-types and a directed Ordering-relation (Time) between them.

The claim that Time is avidya-chit-sambandha or avidya itself, and that avidya is the 'cause' of duality will have to mean that the knowledge that affirms a duality of cognitions has built-into-it the knowledge of an inherent ordering of the cognitions relative to some pramana that reveals the cognitions. The locus of this knowledge of duality and the pramana relative to whose revealing the cognitions are ordered is initially said to be mind and ultimately is the avidya that projects the time-space-objects duality. 

Avidya thus brings into awareness, this knowledge of objects tied-together in the framework/structure/Ordering of Time-Space-Causality/dharma. Duality is posited when two cognitions are posited distinctly and separately, and interlinked in an order "seen" between them by the unchanging Cognizer. Two cognitions instead of becoming sublated in awareness on the nondual Brahman appear real, distinct and related to eachother through time, space, causality. That is the manifestation of avidya.

Purvapakshi: A graph need not be directed or ordered; you impose/imagine that separately or not. The seeing of time is an adhyasa over and above the seeing of duality of objects in the cognition that is actually "forever now". Therefore time is adhyasa/pratibhasika illusory and not as fundamental as avidya.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCeSM%2Bhtrb3BTW59U4V6ibEVwVWF-zV5dZ2e96MCmuv1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Putran ji.

We can ask what is meant by "seen" here? 

Yes. It must be asked and very clearly understood as to what is meant by the word "seen". This is crucial because it is the hetu in the vyāpti mentioned by Bhagvatpāda in Vaitathya 2.4. (जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यमिति प्रतिज्ञा । दृश्यत्वादिति हेतुः । स्वप्नदृश्यभाववदिति दृष्टान्तः । यथा तत्र स्वप्ने दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यम् , तथा जागरितेऽपि दृश्यत्वमविशिष्टमिति हेतूपनयः । तस्माज्जागरितेऽपि वैतथ्यं स्मृतमिति निगमनम् ।)

Here I must mention that superficial understanding of driśyatva is not going to help anyone. At the same time, it is an intuitive thing. So, cutting through the defintion, one should get a vision as to what is meant here.

The topic is discussed in Advaita Siddhi and certain defintions are given of driśyatva which I enunerate here:

• शब्दाजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वमेव दृश्यत्वम्
• सप्रकारकवृत्तिविषयत्वमेव दृश्यत्वम्
• चिद्विषयत्वं दृश्यत्वम् 
• स्वव्यवहारे स्वातिरिक्तसंविदपेक्षानियतिरूपं दृश्यत्वम् 
• अस्वप्रकाशत्वरूपं दृश्यत्वम् 

In sum and substance, the first defintion basically means that the property of being the object of a thought which is not generated by shabda is called driśyatva. This ensures that tuccha and Brahman don't have driśyatva.

Other defintions also can be understood by referring to relevant portion of Advaita Siddhi. The crux thereof is this -- if x is sākṣi-bhāsya, then it is driśya. And as Vivaraṇa says, sarvaṃ vastu jñātatayā ajñātatayā vā sākṣi-caitanyasya viṣaya eva. So, all mithyā vastu are driśya.

So, yes, time satisfies all these conditions and hence it has driśyatva.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sudhanshu-ji,

This is what I am gathering from your writings and my thinking over them.

1. A unicorn is "seen" whereas a "horse-with-hare" is tuccha. Because the unicorn evokes the thought of a thing with appearance of horse-body but with an added horn to its head. Whereas by definitions, horse-with-horn is a self-contradiction.

2. Time in modern science is relative to each person, like "mother" is. In Nyaya (yet to read carefully), it may be a universally fixed entity "Mahakala". (Other intuitive understanding is as an ordering or directed-flow of cognitions/manifestation.)

However, if someone is able to define it in the context of "seen", then Time also is a nama with an associated generic rupa (has objective upadhi-based meaning in the world of duality), hence a nama-rupa that is within the "seen".

3. And this is the predominant emphasis of advaita. Time being a nama-rupa denotes an avidya-karya just like table and chair, unicorn and snake-on-rope. Therefore time is mithya and has no special "real" status.

4. At the same time, Advaita also recognizes the "intuitive" viewpoint of Time as being the causal foundational dimension of manifest existence, and in that context identifies Time by this intended meaning to be avidya itself, or non-different from the association of sambandha between chit and avidya which amounts to the projection of all duality.

thollmelukaalkizhu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBC51cO%3D3O%2Bv0u8KjuJKsJu%3DEwSHVqtz78J2MB%3DN30QHTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sudhanshu ji,

You have nicely summed up the Vedantic view of Time. The everyday experience itself shows us that time is part of the observed world; without time there is no experience. Hence Time is drśya, seen, object, inert and hence mithyā. 

Today, while reading the Atma purāṇa of HH Sri Shankarananda Saraswati, a Guru of Swami Vidyaranya, I found a footnote by the editor:

 २. 'कालस्त्वविधैवे' ति बिन्दुकृतः । रत्नावलीकाराः 'महाकाले मानाभावः, इदानीमिदम् इत्यादिबुद्धेः जन्यमात्ररूपखंण्डकालमात्रविषयकत्वमेव, अयं साभासाविद्यारूपः, अविद्यागताऽऽभासाऽविविक्तचित एवेश्वरत्वस्यो क्तत्वात्, साभासाविद्यायामीश्वरोपाधित्वमिति भाव' इति प्रतिपादयामासुः (पृ. १५२) । संवत्सरादिरूपकालस्योत्पत्तेः श्रुतत्वादीश्वरात्मा महाकाल एवादित्यादिभिरुपाधिभिः परिच्छिन्नः खण्डकालव्यवहारगोचर आकाश इव घटाकाशादिव्यवहारविषय इत्यभिप्रेत्य, उपहितस्य चोपाधिशुद्धाभ्यामनन्यत्वाऽयोगाज्जन्यतोपपत्तेर्निरूपकाणां च विराड्रूपतेव निरूप्यस्य कालस्यापि तद्रूपता सङ्गच्छत इत्यनुसन्धेयम् । 

Translation by Clause AI, with my interaction:

2. The phrase kālas tu avidyaiva ("time is indeed nothing but nescience/avidyā") was written by the author of the Siddhāntabindu [Madhusūdana Sarasvatī].(I think Bindukr̥taḥ refers to this. I may be wrong.)

The author of the Ratnāvalī established the following (p. 152): "Regarding mahākāla (primordial/great time), there is no scriptural authority (pramāṇa). The intellect (buddhi) in the form 'this is now', 'this was then', and so forth, has as its object only khaṇḍa-kāla (divided/finite time), which is the nature of something produced (janya-mātra-rūpa). This [i.e., mahākāla itself] is of the nature of avidyā together with its reflection (sābhāsa-avidyā-rūpa), because Īśvarahood has been stated [in the tradition] to belong to the cit (pure consciousness) that is not distinguished from the ābhāsa (reflection/appearance) residing within avidyā; and the purport is that, in sābhāsa-avidyā, [mahākāla] serves as the upādhi (limiting adjunct) of Īśvara."

Since the origination (utpatti) of time in the form of the year and so on (saṃvatsarādi-rūpa-kāla) is attested by śruti, [the intended meaning is as follows]: Mahākāla, who is the very Self as Īśvara, is — just like ākāśa (space), which, though itself unlimited, becomes the object of practical usage as ghaṭākāśa (pot-space) and similar divisions through limiting adjuncts (upādhis) such as pots — delimited by limiting adjuncts such as Āditya (the sun) and others, and thereby becomes the object of practical usage concerning khaṇḍa-kāla (finite, divided time).

With this understanding in view, and because — given that what is conditioned (upahita) cannot be non-different from both the pure upādhi and the impure upādhi [simultaneously] — the origination [of finite time] is rendered intelligible; and furthermore, since the nirūpakas (determinants/qualifiers) themselves have the nature of Virāṭ (the cosmic totality), it is to be reflected upon that kāla as the nirūpya (what is determined/qualified) likewise has that same nature.

Apart from this, or including the above thoughts, there are some references to the concept of Kāla in Volume 1 of 'Sri Dakshinamurti Stotram,' English, authored by Ved Br.Sri D.S.Subbaramaiya:

https://archive.org/details/wg880/page/n29/mode/2up

The table of contents pertaining to Kala, is reproduced here. The three digit numbers are page numbers inside the book. Those interested can read about those topics in the above link. 

5.6 Kala 324 5.6 1 'Flow' of Time 325 5.6.2 'Time' in various Schools 327 5 6.3 Vedantic view of Time 327 5.6 4 Time revealed by Sakshi 329 5.65 Time as an effect of Avidya 330 5.6.6 Time as Avidya 330 5 6.7 Time as relation between Avidya and Brahman 331 568 Time as Kriyasaktı of Isvara 332 5.6.9 Time as Tatasthalakshana of Brahman the Timeless-Eternity 334 5.6.10 Time as leading to Eternity 336 5.6.11 The 'Now' Experience: Fleeting Image of Eternal 'Now' 339.

The same book contains a discussion about 'Space, deśa' too. 

Warm regards

subbu    

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCeSM%2Bhtrb3BTW59U4V6ibEVwVWF-zV5dZ2e96MCmuv1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Putran ji.

1. A unicorn is "seen" whereas a "horse-with-hare" is tuccha. Because the unicorn evokes the thought of a thing with appearance of horse-body but with an added horn to its head. Whereas by definitions, horse-with-horn is a self-contradiction.

I think horse-with-hare and unicorn are both tuccha. This is because there is no upādhi (locus) in which these are perceived as existing. क्वचिदपि उपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यनर्हत्वम्।

2. Time in modern science is relative to each person, like "mother" is.

Yes, it is a projection of spacetime on time-axis.

However, if someone is able to define it in the context of "seen", then Time also is a nama with an associated generic rupa (has objective upadhi-based meaning in the world of duality), hence a nama-rupa that is within the "seen".

One can try to frame one's intuitive understanding. However, nāma-rūpa are avidyā-kārya.

While khaṇḍa-kāla is avidyā-kārya and is hence nāma-rūpa, the mahākāla is either avidyā (sābhāsa-avidyā) or avidyā-cit-sambandha. The latter may not fall in the category of nāma-rūpa. Rather, it is avidyā or avidyā-prayukta.

3. And this is the predominant emphasis of advaita. Time being a nama-rupa denotes an avidya-karya just like table and chair, unicorn and snake-on-rope. Therefore time is mithya and has no special "real" status.

Yes. For khaṇḍa-kāla. (Unicorn needs to be removed).

4. At the same time, Advaita also recognizes the "intuitive" viewpoint of Time as being the causal foundational dimension of manifest existence, and in that context identifies Time by this intended meaning to be avidya itself, or non-different from the association of sambandha between chit and avidya which amounts to the projection of all duality.

Yes. This is crucial. For khaṇḍa-kāla and mahākāla as per Advaita, the portion 4.3 of the note may be perused.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.