Madhubani painting: Shiva’s Third Eye by Bharti Dayal
Click on image for enlarged view.

Introduction

Indian Scholars had indeed talked a lot on various aspects of life in terms of theology and philosophy. Indian thought system has also a lot of contributions and contains several qualities; for instance, it always seeks to accommodate Lōka with śāstra. Loka (society) gives guidance to sāśtra and sāśtra would never be opposite to Lōka. The second quality of this tradition is to think about the society, not to a particular person. In this thought system, darśana is a guideline to get the supreme goal of human life. Till the time of Mādhavāchārya, there had been sixteen paths in the Indian philosophical system-- Pratyabhigyā Darśana was also an important path amongst themⁱ . But later on this darśana passed into oblivion, but this path always grew upward. Still we can consider this one of the worthy paths among the Indian philosophical schools. In this system kāla is an important entity.

Here in this research paper, endeavours have been made to focus on the concept of ‘Time (kāla)’ with respect to eastern and western philosophical systems as well as modern science. Stress has been laid mainly on the perspective, trying to understand whether Time (kāla) is an absolute or a relative entity

The Concept of Time

Time is an element of the measuring system which is used or talked of regarding the sequence of events, equating the length of events and the gaps between them, and measuring the motions of objects. As an adjective the term kāla means the black colour (krishna)ⁱⁱ but as a noun it refers to the God of deathⁱⁱⁱ . Nāsadīyasūkta of the Ŕgveda tells of a mystic kāla when there was nothing in spite of blackness^iv . Kālasūkta of the Atharvaveda presents “kāla as a powerful regulator”^v and generator^vi ”. Pāņini has described it as vela, samaya^vii and also as akhandopādhi^viii . In Nirukta, it denotes movement. (gatyarthakü)^ix . The Upanişada offers several meanings of it. The Vŗhadāraņyakopanişad refers to it as samvatsar^x but this kind of division colligates practical life. Maitreyiupanişada refers to this as faceless (amurtatva)^xi . Śvetāśvataropanişad^xii and Māņďūkyopanişad^xiii describe it in the way of describing the cosmological concept. Yuktidīpikā does not accept kāla as a padārtha^xiv. Sānkhyadarśana also rejects it^xv . Vaiŝeşika^xvi and Nyāya^xvii systems clear that it is only for inference, Bhāsarvagya denies accepting the existence of kāla. Mīmāmsā tells that there is no discussion^xviii on kāla, it is doubtless. Advaitavedānta tells that kāla is not the subject for perception^xix . Rāmānuja tells that in practical life we should accept the kāla. Śākta tantra tradition colligates the kāla as the set of verbs ^xx . In the Gītā it refers to counting^xxi , the Bauddha tradition does not accept it as a separate element. The Jain system accepts it as of two types: Nitya (permanent and indivisible) and Anitya (ephemeral and divisible). In Ãyurveda, kāla has been described as a regulating power. Śatapatha Brāhmaņa accepts it as divisible.

In laukika sāhitya like Rāmāyana^xxii , Mahābhārata^xxiii , Gītā^xxiv, Charakasamhitā^xxv , and the texts of Kālidāsa^xxvi etc, kāla has been described mainly to clear the kāla as divisible time.

The text of Ăyurveda -- CharakaSamhitā establishes its concerns with the cause of disease. It divides kāla as nityag and anityag. Nityagkāla is related with cosmological thought^xxvii but anityagkāla is related with divisible time. Sūtrasthāna of the CharakaSamhitā makes it clear that the yoga and ayoga of kāla are the cause of disease^xxviii and also tells that the kāla is an important factor for the curing of illnesses .

In Yogavāśisţha it is said that kāla is just like the ocean in which a number of rivers fall. Those rivers dissolve their own existence merging into the ocean. The condition of kāla is also the same, akhanda kāla is in the form of ocean and practical time is like the river. The writer of Yogavāśisţha, Vālmīki, says that practical time is only our mental construct.

In the Vākyapadīya, kāla, which is clearly related to Kāśmīra Śaivism, refers to large contents. Actually, in Kāśmīra Śaivism, kāla is the power of Śiva (and described in the way of describing pancakanchuka) so in Vākyapadīya it is accepted as the power of Śabdabrahma. Śiva who manifests the object also manifests them in sequence so what is called time is power of Śiva as well as Śabdabrahma. In Vākyapadīyabhāva (essence of verb) has been called as kāla. To understand this bhāva divided in two parts first of them is kāraņātmā and second is kāryrātmā. Here kāryrātmā refers to divisible time which is accepted also by modern science.

In Brahmakāņda of Vākyapadīya it has been noticed that kāla is the one of śakti, by which śiva manifests the word^xxix . Vākyapadīya accepts kāla in two types first of them is pāramārthika; second one is vyāvahārikakāla. Pāramārthikakāla is endless and absolute but vyābahārikakāla is not endless. Bhartrihari (writer of Vākyapadīya) says that due to pratibandha and abhyanugyā^xxx we may assume the past or future. He gives the example of ghaţiyantra (water clock). Vartamāna is the middle phase of pratibandha and abhyaugyā, Paņini also clears this thought^xxxi . Bhartrihari clearly says the difference between past and future^xxxii . Thus, we may say that in Indian philosophical thought systems kāla is described in two forms firstly absolute and second one is relative.

On other hand, in western thought systems, there are a number of thinkers who tried to solve the discussion related with time but till date it is unsolved. Plato argued that Time is the creation of God in the shape of Idea. Plato accepts it as “a moving image of eternity.” Like Plato, Aristotle also accepts it but he does not agree with Plato on this point that it is the creation of God. His argument is that time itself is a movement, and the flow of time is essentially defined by the movement of heavenly bodies such as the sun and moon^xxxiii . St. Augustine agreed with Plato that Time is the creation of God but he tells that time would not exist without an intellectual being who is able to think about present, past and future.

In 1687, Isaac Newton placed before the contemporary world a new concept based on his observations and views in his work "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica." He attempted to define the concept of time based upon his laws. He came to this point that time exists outside the mind, flowing independently of all objects or things, even the universe. Newton considers time to be a self-reliant, infinitely large container independent of the objects or events to fill it. It exists whether or not events happen to fill it. Unlike the view of Plato, he believed that time was absolute, and existed even before the creation of the universe. In his masterpiece Principia he writes that “absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external.” (Newton’s Principia) This concept was a bit weird to the contemporary people who were stern followers of earlier philosophical works. Newton’s theory of “absolute time” gave them a new paradigm regarding time. He was of the views that time was not determined by the universe, or movement, or change, but flowed on its own accord. With the advent of a whole new scientific model of the universe, built on laws based heavily on time, Newton’s theories gave a whole new dimension to the notion of time in science and mathematics.

Although Newton’s laws of the universe were accepted by the scientific community, and further by the existing societies, because the followers and believers of the law led people to accept the new thought so convincingly either through predictions or through natural phenomenon in the real world. But his views about time gave a new platform to the thinkers of his time, if not common people. Scientists with differing views started up surging from the oblivion with their own views to counter the view of Newton’s Time, like the philosophers of earlier times. The most visible face among them was German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz. He opposed Newton’s view of “absolute time” although his ideas were backed by theological views; and he took sides with Aristotle’s position, that time is not independent of the events , but related to change and motion. He perceives that time can be thought only with respect to ordering of events, and if there are no events to put on order perhaps time could not exist.

Leibnitz was not the sole prominent face who objected to Newton’s absoluteness of time. The Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach also put before us the uselessness of Newton’s absolute time. “This absolute time,” he wrote, “cannot be read off any motion, therefore has no practical and scientific value. We are completely incapable of measuring the change of objects with respect to time. Time is an abstraction to which we arrive at by the change of objects because we do not rely on a concrete measure since all are interconnected.^xxxiv Mach says that there is no way we could measure the so-called absolute time, even though it were to exist, we could not use it. Further he is quite convinced that time based on the movement and changes of the universe would be much more meaningful and straightforward. “It is outside our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction, at which we arrive by means of the changes of things^xxxv ”.

Despite all the existing contrary views and objections, Newton’s absolute theory of time had managed to survive over the centuries, due to its validity, effectiveness and capability in the predictions of the natural phenomena although on a macroscopic level. Classical physics still exerts it presence even today; it has successfully introduced a concept of time that seemed to be in excellent agreement with physical science and its description of the natural world. It seemed to provide ample proof for the absolute nature of time.

Despite all the conflicts, philosophers and scientists on both sides alike arrived at a consensus. They took it for granted and came to agree with the proposition that time existed there should be a single order of universal time. Putting it in other words, there would be a single uniform time scale where each instant of time would correspond with one definite state of the entire universe. By doing so they agreed that the order of events occurring in time was fixed. If an observer perceives that event A happened before event B, any other observer would concur. If the interval between two events was 10 seconds on one clock, it would be ten seconds on an identical clock elsewhere. But with the advent of relativistic time, this view faced lot of opposition from various quarters.

Einstein revolutionised the way people were accustomed to think and perceive the prior idea of time and space, rather the entire universe. Einstein put forward a new theory of time and space based on his study of propagation of light. He discarded the classical assumptions of space and time being absolute, also he declared that time and space should not be treated independent entities but as space-time taken together . This view was a paradigm shift in the whole world of Physics and it challenged the earlier assumption and understanding of the people regarding laws of matter and laws of classical physics; it rejected two of its primary conditions: absolute time and space.


Theory of relativity suggests that time is not an absolute property, but something relative to our perspective or “reference frame." It was primarily based on two notions. One was that motion was relative. The easiest way to understand this is to imagine a “reference frame,” where there are just two particles. If the distance between particle A and particle B is constantly increasing, who is moving away? A or B? A person gauging with respect to A would say that particle B is moving away from A with such and such speed. Similarly, a person gauging the same with respect to B would say that particle A is moving with such and such speed. One could also say that they were both moving away from each other at a velocity of with same speed. Therefore, there was not absolute motion in the universe, only motion relative to an observer. If two observers were moving at the same speed in the same direction, they would appear at rest relative to each other, and therefore in the same reference frame. If they were not, they would be in relative motion with each other and would be in different reference frames.

The second notion was quite different from first one. It took the speed of light as its primary recourse to analyse and gauge and came to this view that the speed of light was constant to all observers in any inertial frame of reference (an inertial frame is one in which objects do not move relative to each other unless acted on by forces). Putting it onto different scales, we find that the speed of light is independent of the speed and position of the observer’s frame. It means if we attempt to chase a light signal, we will never succeed in catching up, because it will always seem to move away from us at the same speed, regardless of our own speed. At first sight, the theory seems to contradict our common sense. If we chase a bullet fired from a gun in an airplane travelling at the same speed of the bullet, we would logically seem to be at rest with respect to bullet from the classical Physics point-of-view. But the problem surfaces when we travel at the same speed as a beam of light. If we hold a flashlight in front of our face, we wouldn’t expect to see its light no matter in whatever speed we are going. Einstein suggested that this was due to the universal constancy of the speed of light. If there was no such constancy, we would not have been able to measure the speed of light, because in some cases we would have been chasing light and in others we would be running away from it, leading to different measurements. Since we are able to measure the speed of light, it is logical to assume that it is constant to us, the observer.

Now let’s see what happens when we put the two notions together. Most people consider themselves to be at rest if they stop walking around, but we are actually still hurtling through space with the earth in its orbit around the sun. Suppose we fired a rocket at the same speed as the earth’s orbit but in the opposite direction of our orbit. According to an observer on earth, the rocket is flying away at a high speed. According to an observer on the rocket, however, he would have stopped in mid-orbit, while the earth is continuing to speed its way around the sun. The difference may seem trivial and does not appear to have anything to do with time, but it is actually very important. How? Let’s say there was a light bulb at the centre of the rocket, and two astronauts at the tip and the tail. If the bulb emitted a light signal, both observers in the rocket would agree that they saw it at the same instant, because light takes the same time to each of them. From earth however, we see the astronaut at the tip of the rocket traveling away from the light, and the astronaut at the tail traveling towards it, so we would conclude that light reached the astronaut at the tail before reaching the astronaut at the tip. Essentially, we are disagreeing on the order of events, and therefore, assigning different times to the same events. That suggests that time is not an absolute property, but something relative to our perspective or “reference frame”. Since light signals need time to propagate, observers in different reference frames will construct different simultaneous images of the state of the world, therefore, we can no longer be sure of whether two events are really simultaneous or not, because we cannot judge one reference frame to be more valid than another. Even if we tried to account for the travel time of signals, we would still not arrive at an absolute conclusion of simultaneity, because light travels at the same speed for observers in all frames. As counter-intuitive as this may seem, it has been verified in countless experiments. Simultaneity, and therefore, time, is relative, not absolute.

What this entails is that the past present and future are not the same for all observers. What has already happened for an observer in one frame may not have happened yet for an observer in another, so what is in your past may be in another observer’s future. The present is also dependent on the observer, since there is no set of simultaneous events for one instant that all observers can agree on. Time is relative to the observer.

Another interesting consequence of special relativity is “time dilation,” the phenomenon of time slowing down or speeding up relative to one’s speed. According to the theory, an observer on earth looking at a clock on a spaceship moving away from earth at a speed almost near the speed of light will perceive it to be running slower that his own identical clock. As extraordinary as this may seem, the effect has actually been seen in experiments with subatomic particles moving at nearly the speed of light, with results highly consistent with Einstein’s calculations. Clocks on satellites also exhibit this effect to a smaller extent.

Special relativity was “special” in that it did not account for the effects of gravity. Later, with the introduction of general relativity, Einstein brought gravity into the equation. I will not go into the specifics of the differences between the two, since it is way beyond the scope of this article, so let it suffice to say that special relativity deals with “flat” space-time, and general relativity deals with “curved” space-time. This “curvature” of space-time was caused by the presence matter. It was discovered that gravity of matter could warp space-time just like speed and motion could. In other words, time dilation could also occur just by being near a large gravitational force, meaning that the rate of clocks would slow down to outside observers when in the neighbourhood of large masses. The effect is evident enough that clocks recording time on satellites have to be adjusted to account for motion and gravitational time dilation in order to synchronize with clocks on earth.

In short, we may say that the concept of kāla is shown in two forms theoretical (universal) and practical (relative) in Indian thought system as well as western thought system. But later on in modern science it is established as a construction of our mind. Eastern philosophers, unlike the Greeks, have maintained that space and time are constructs of our mind. The eastern mystics treated them like all other intellectual concepts; as relative, limited and illusory.^xxxvi In spite of similarities we cannot tell that Indian thought system and modern science agree with each other, for example, Vākyapadīya of Indian thought system tells that Time is not good or bad in itself; there is no increase or decrease in objects. This view is totally opposite to modern science. Modern science finally regards time is not an absolute but as a relative entity^xxxvii which may be acceptable in practice but kāla must be treated as universal and real.

Bibliography

• Apte, VamanShivram, Sanskrit-English dictionary, Star Publication, New Delhi, 1995
  
  
• Capra, Fritj of, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, Shabhala Publications, USA. , 2009
  
  
• Cardona, G. Linguistic Analysis and Some Indian Traditions. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. (Google books), 1983.
  
  
• Gerow, Edwin. A History of Indian Literature. Wifsbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1977.
  
  
• Jha, Ganganatha. Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa. Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1967.
  
  
• Jha, Pt. Govind (Ed.), Kalyani Kosh (A Maithili-English Dictionary), Darbhanga, Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh Kalyani Foundation (Available on www.scribe.com ), 1999
  
  
• Jha, Vishwanath (ed.) ,Amarkosha (by Amarsingha), Varanasi, Motilal Banarasidas Publications, 1975.
  
  
• Ravin, Yael and Claudia Leacock. (Ed.) Polysemy (Theoretical and Computational Approaches), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.
  
  

ⁱ Sarvadarshan Sangrah.

ⁱⁱ Vaman Aapte Kosha P. 271

ⁱⁱⁱ Ibid.

^iv Nasadiya hymn Rig. 10.129.1

^v Atharvaveda 19/54/3

^vi Ibid.

^vii Panini Sutra 3/3/167

^viii Ibid 1/2/53-57

^ix Nirukta 3/9/14

^x Vŗhadāņyakopanişad 1/2/4

^xi Maitryi upanişad 6/14

^xii Shvetashvataropanishad 1/2

^xiii Mandukyaa Upanishad 3/96/4

^xiv Yuktidipika 15

^xv Samkhyasutra 2/12

^xvi Vaiseshiksutra 2/2/6-9

^xvii Nyaya Lilavati 296-97

^xviii Mimamsabhashya 10/8/69

^xix Tatvadipika P.510

^xx Tripurarahasya 11/46

^xxi Gita 10/29

^xxii Ramayan 5/24

^xxiii MB 10/2/9

^xxiv Gita 10/333

^xxv CS 25/25

^xxvi Shakuntalam 01/1

^xxvii CS 8/137

^xxviii Ibid.

^xxix Vakyapadiya 1/3

^xxx Vakyapadiy 3/30

^xxxi PS 3/2/123

^xxxii Vakyapadiy 3/51

^xxxiii Ibid.

^xxxiv The Clock and the Arrow: A Brief Theory of Time. P. 206

^xxxv The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development, Ernst Mach, 1893

^xxxvi The Tao of physics, Capra Fritjof, third adition1991, p. 179

^xxxvii Time according to physics- A quality of measuring, usually with reference to periodic process such as the rotation of earth or the vibration of electromagnetic rendition emailed from certain atoms. The New Collins Dictionary P. 1049-50