Nature of Time

Author(s): Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Z_Mahavir_Jain_Vidyalay_Suvarna_Mahotsav_Granth_Part_1_012002.pdf and Mahavir_Jain_Vidyalay_Suvarna_

Page 11

NATURE OF TIME : 73
past and present-exist. The distinction among them is based on the causal efficiency (karitra) of an element. Causal efficiency (kāritra) is of two kinds-one that determines the general character of the remote fruit (phalaksepa) and the other that actually produces the fruit (phaladāna). All the dharmas, when they are in a state of phalaksepa are termed present. The states prior and posterior to this state are devoid of phalaksepa-sakti. Prior non-existence of this power is termed future; and posterior non-existence of this power is termed past. The future and the past exist in the same sense as the present exists. All the three times, rather 'transitions', have the same nature always; merely their efficiency (karitra) differs. While discussing the doctrine of the existence of three times (adhvā) it is said, in the Abhidharmakośa, that the future (effect) becomes present through deśāntarakarsana. In the Vaibhāșika list of seventyfive dharmas Time finds no mention. But we may surmise that through the back door both the types of time-one unitary immutable and the other conditioned empiricalenter the Vaibhāṣika philosophy. One unitary immutable time is accepted under the name of Amộta dhātu (=Nirvana dhātu). The empirical time is accepted in the guise of samskrta laksaņas which together, like Vaiseșika time, constitute the general cause of change.41
The Sautrāntikas deny the objective reality of the samskrta laksaņas viz. production etc. The notions of production etc., they say, refer not to a moment but to a series (of moments) which is a mental construction.42 Again, they believe in the present time only, while the other two divisions of time, namely, past and future, are regarded as non-existent. Neither the past nor the future exists.43 Even what is called present is nothing over and above an element (dharma). Hence here the moment becomes a synonym of an element.14 This is the reason why the author of Brahmavidyabharana writes as follows: In the opinion of the Buddhists Time does not exist. Ajar etc. which is perishable by nature in the very act of emerging becomes the basis for the assumption of moment (kşana). They assert that moment is nothing over and above the objects such as a jar. There is no independent time such as a kşana.45
The Da
41 Ibid., pp. 575-582. 42 Abhidharmakośabhâsya, ii. 46 ab. 43 The Central Conception of Buddhism (Stcherbatsky), pp. 71-80. 44 Ibid., p. 36. 45 बौद्धानां मते क्षणपदेन घटादिरेव पदार्थो व्यवडियते, न तु तदतिरिक्तः कश्चित् क्षणो नाम कालोऽस्ति...क्षणिकः
qurd xfet ERT STEFTER I II. 2.20.