Bharatiya Darshanoni Kaltattva Sambandhi Manyata

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Bharatiya Darshanonni Kaltattva Sambandhi Manyata" by Sukhlal Sanghavi:

This text, authored by Sukhlal Sanghavi, explores the concept of "Kala" (Time) as understood within various Indian philosophical schools, with a particular focus on Jainism. The author aims to delineate the historical development and variations in the understanding of time in ancient Indian thought.

Introduction: The Quest to Understand Time

The author begins by highlighting the profound diversity of the universe and how human intellect has long striven to comprehend it. Among these diversities, humans have observed cyclical changes in seasons, crops, and even atmospheric conditions (heat, rain, etc.) within the same region and at different times, as well as concurrent variations across different regions. While modern science attributes these changes to temperature and atmospheric variations, ancient thinkers believed there must be a more fundamental cause. This led to the philosophical inquiry into the nature of "Kala" (Time). India, being renowned for its philosophical deliberations, especially on abstract principles, offers diverse perspectives on this concept.

Categorization of Indian Philosophical Schools Regarding Time

The text categorizes Indian philosophies into three main branches: Vedic, Jain, and Buddhist.

• Vedic Philosophy:

  • The Vedas and Upanishads contain seeds of time-related thought, but these ideas are not yet systematically or logically developed. To understand specific beliefs about time, one must turn to later philosophical literature.
  • Vedic philosophies are broadly divided into six schools: Vaisheshika, Nyaya, Samkhya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa, and Uttara Mimamsa.
  • For clarity on time, these are further grouped into:
    • Schools with an Independent Concept of Time: Vaisheshika, Nyaya, and Purva Mimamsa.
      • Vaisheshika: The founder, Rishi Kanada, formulated four sutras on time. The first establishes time as an independent entity, citing reasons like the perception of seniority/juniority and the occurrence of simultaneous, prolonged, or momentary events. The subsequent three sutras define time as a substance, eternal, one, and the efficient cause of all actions.
      • Nyaya: Founder Rishi Gautama, while primarily focusing on logic and epistemology, does not explicitly define time in his sutras. However, he incidentally refers to time as an efficient cause, suggesting a closeness to the Vaisheshika view. The author notes the increasing convergence between Nyaya and Vaisheshika over time.
      • Purva Mimamsa: Founder Rishi Jaimini also doesn't explicitly mention time. However, later commentators like Parthasarathi Misra accept the Vaisheshika view of time. A key difference noted is that while Vaisheshika considers time imperceptible (paroksha), Mimamsa considers it perceptible (pratyaksha), based on the experience of "I perceived it at this moment."
    • Schools with a Dependent Concept of Time: Samkhya, Yoga, and Uttara Mimamsa.
      • Samkhya: This philosophy posits Prakriti (primordial matter) and Purusha (consciousness) as independent principles. Time is not an independent entity but a mere natural transformation or evolution of Prakriti.
      • Yoga: Founder Maharshi Patanjali, while not explicitly defining time, has his commentator Vyasa describe time as a conceptual construct of intellect, based on the subtle divisions of moments. A moment is defined as the time taken for a particle (paramanu) to traverse its own space. Thus, Yoga, like Samkhya, does not accept time as a separate, independent cause of action, viewing it as a product of Prakriti's inherent dynamism.
      • Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta): The primary commentator, Shankaracharya, establishes Brahman as the sole independent reality, deeming all else, including time, as illusory or a product of ignorance ("Brahma satyam jagan mithya"). Therefore, for Shankaracharya Vedanta, time has no independent existence. While other Vedanta commentators differ on aspects of the soul and the reality of the world, they all agree that time is not an independent entity.

• Jain Philosophy:

  • The author poses the question of whether Jainism posits an independent or dependent concept of time. The answer is that Jainism accepts both perspectives.
  • The geographical proximity and contemporaneousness of Jain and Vedic philosophies are highlighted, suggesting an influence on the dual understanding of time within Jainism.
  • Sectarian Differences: The text points out a crucial distinction between the Svetambara and Digambara traditions within Jainism.
    • Svetambara: Their ancient, medieval, and modern literature (e.g., Bhagavati Sutra, Uttaradhyayana Sutra, Viyahapannatti) contains references to both independent and dependent concepts of time.
    • Digambara: Their literature (e.g., Pravachanasara, Tattvarthasutra commentaries) exclusively supports the view of time as an independent entity.
  • Variations in the Concept of Time within Jainism:
    • Independent Time: While Vedic philosophy's independent time is generally considered singular, pervasive, and eternal, Jainism presents four distinct views on independent time:
      1. Time as an atom-like (anumatra) and singular entity.
      2. Time as a singular entity, but as large as human perception (manushyakakshetrapramana), not atom-like.
      3. Time as a singular entity, but neither atom-like nor human-scale, but pervasive in the universe (lokavyapi).
      4. Time as not singular, but innumerable (asankhya), with each minute particle of time being a distinct entity. This fourth view is exclusively held by the Digambara sect.
    • Dependent Time: While the Vedic dependent time is viewed as a transformation of Prakriti or an illusion of Brahman, the Jain dependent time is understood as the transformation of both sentient (chetan) and non-sentient (ajatan) substances. Unlike Samkhya and Yoga, which consider consciousness as immutable and only Prakriti as transformative, Jainism views both conscious and non-conscious entities as real and capable of transformation. Therefore, the flow of transformation in both sentient and non-sentient substances is considered time.

• Buddhist Philosophy:

  • Based on limited examination, the author concludes that Buddhist philosophy does not consider time as an independent entity.

Conclusion

The author expresses hope that this brief overview of time-related beliefs in Indian philosophies, particularly Jainism, will be of some use to scholars of Indian literature. The text emphasizes the rich diversity of thought on the abstract concept of time within India.