Cosmological Cycles

At this point, it is pertinent to mention that the idea of Cosmological-cycles has often been confused with the notion of cyclic time. It is commonplace to maintain that the Indian notion of time is cyclic as opposed to the Judeo-Christian understanding of linear time. This view is not only an oversimplification, it has created serious obstacles in the context of cross-cultural and inter-religious exchanges. The philosophical scenario in the Indian context is as it can be expected in the case of any major philosophical tradition. Just as in the history of western thought, one encounters a wide range of positions such as the view of absolute time, time as a relational concept, time as process, time as appearance etc. etc., similarly the different schools of Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina traditions have put forward diverse views concerning time, such as the ideas of absolute and relative time, several variants of a discrete view of time, a view where space-time-matter are combined in the same principle, time as appearance etc. etc.

In this connection, let me refer to the discussion that I earlier mentioned concerning the diverse manner in which the notion of ‘beginning’ has been interpreted, by various schools. Let me take the examples of Vaisesika and Sankhya, to show how in each case these conceptualizations are in harmony with their over-all positions and with their respective theories of causality and views about time.

Sankhya., considered to be the oldest school of Indian philosophy, propounded a form of metaphysical dualism. The two principles are termed as PuruÅŸa and PrakÅ—ti - the former conceived as an unchanging principle of consciousness and the latter as everchanging, ever-active Nature. It is in the notion of PrakÅ—ti, the sanskrit word for Nature, that Sankhya combines space, time and matter in the same principle. An important cosmological idea that the school puts forward is the idea of cosmic evolution, claiming that there is a persistent tendency in PrakÅ—ti to revert to its unmanifest state, that is the state of cosmic dissolution. This is the pre-empirical aspect of Nature when all heterogeneous manifestations cease but it retains its primal dynamism.

Causal operation - they maintain - makes manifest the effect. In other words, the effect is an actualization of that which was potentially present in the cause. However, in the frame of metaphysical pluralism propounded by the Vaiśeşika school, the effect is conceived to be non-existent prior to causal operation. Thus, whereas for Sankhya, a beginning refers only to an emergence of an effect that was pre-existent, i.e. latent in the cause, there was no need to postulate any idea of an empty time; in Vaiśeşika, an effect is seen as a new beginning and since it was absent before the causal operation took place, the idea of absolute and relative time came to play a significant role. What is of special interest for our present discussion is to note the Vaisesika insistence on the idea of ‘prior non-existence’, which is evidently a temporal reference implying that a beginning is always an event-in-time.

Detailed argumentation in support and against all these positions, recorded in expository and polemical literature, are available. However, I would like to draw your attention here to the fact that to ignore all these variety of views and describe the Indian conceptual experience of time simply as ‘cyclic’ is a cliche that we must get rid of.  This is not only a distortion of the Indian philosophical scenario, it hampers cross-cultural exchanges. A perusal of literature shows many examples of misuse of time metaphors but what is particularly disturbing is to see how cyclicity and linearity have ceased to be simple time metaphors that depict recurrence and irreversibility and have come to be associated with such concepts as that of history, progress and even of salvation. I have discussed these questions in greater detail elsewhere as I have found that these improper metaphorical designations are used as a conceptual device to set up major philosophico-theological traditions against each other. It is precisely these that obstruct dialogue.

Contributed by: Dr. Anindita Balslev