What Yoga, Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika and Advaita Can Contribute to Modern Questions About Time
This essay makes a narrower claim: Indian philosophical traditions distinguished at least three questions that modern discussions often collapse: whether divided time is constructed, whether an objective temporal basis underlies those divisions, and whether temporality itself belongs to ultimate reality. Together, these positions offer a conceptual background for asking how the understanding of time in ancient Indian philosophy relates to modern science.
Who Has Time to Understand Time?
If you have five minutes, you can begin to understand some complex ideas without spending as much time as I did on them!
A clock on the wall, or the hours and minutes you see on your mobile phone, simply measures intervals to give us some context. It does not tell us about the nature of “time.” It is good enough for measuring duration in daily life, just as kilometres are good enough for measuring distance.
We observe event order, change, aging, causal succession, duration, and differences between clocks, and construct the concept of time to understand, compare, measure, and speak about them. In this limited sense, the concept and conventions of time are human constructions.
In other words, time and related ideas are something that we “make up” to understand and sequence events and actions, or to distinguish what happened, what is happening, and what may happen. We observe increasing entropy and irreversible physical processes and use them to form our idea of time moving from past to future. But these processes are not “time” itself in any fundamental sense. In this article, if I call something “not real” or “made up,” I do not mean that it is imaginary or incorrectly measured. I mean that it may not be independently real or the final level of reality.
Proper Time and Spacetime
Physicists call the time interval measured by an observer’s own clock proper time. It is not improper to ask why! Although spacetime is four-dimensional, time is not the same kind of dimension as the three dimensions represented by length, width, and height (space). Einstein’s spacetime in general relativity is physical because it is measurable and has measurable effects, and geometrical because it establishes geometrical relations among spatial and temporal quantities. But time is not material in the sense of being a substance like a piece of wood.
What Gravitational Waves Establish About Time
A passing gravitational wave produces a tiny alternating change in the relative distance between LIGO’s (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) suspended mirrors. Laser light travelling through two of its perpendicular arms reveals this difference. In lay terms, a ruler along the path would “stretch” and return to its original length. On September 14, 2015, LIGO scientists detected a gravitational-wave signal produced by the merger of two black holes. This strongly confirmed another prediction of general relativity. Gravitational waves therefore give us evidence that the spacetime relationships described by general relativity are physically real and measurable. I am not questioning general relativity, not because I have studied enough to understand it fully, but based on empirical evidence alone. I am asking a different question: Does measuring how space and time behave tell us what they fundamentally are?
It is legitimate to ask why we should be less confused about time when science literally is more confused about everything else! We know almost nothing about electricity, magnetism, or gravity, especially why they behave that way, not so much about how they behave, in understanding which science has made enormous strides. Then, of all things, why would I wonder about “time”?
An Ancient Indian Line of Thought
Some time ago, while studying, I came across ancient Indian ideas about time that made me think about time and its study in physics and philosophy. Are hours, days, distance, direction, “before,” and “after” really separate things? Or are they different ways in which we measure and describe the same underlying reality? Indian philosophy, or darśana, examines this through ideas such as dravya and upādhi-bheda, which I will simply call condition-dependent difference. Several Upaniṣadic and later philosophical traditions, including the commentarial traditions of different schools, argue in different ways that the time, or kāla, we ordinarily experience is not the fundamental reality of time, although those experiences are real and may have an underlying basis.
A lay explanation of upādhi-bheda is “difference caused by conditions in a context,” or, more simply, “difference caused by local conditions.” The same person may be called a reader while reading and a cook while cooking. Reading and cooking are the relevant upādhis, or contextual conditions. The resulting difference in what can validly be said or inferred, “reader” under one condition and “cook” under another, is the bheda. The person remains one; the description changes because the condition changes. More generally, upādhi-bheda, or difference in local conditions, masks the underlying nature of what is being observed, which, in this example, is the person. Although various Indic schools use the term with different technical nuances, I see this common idea underlying those uses and employ it in that broad sense throughout this article.
Even though the phrase upādhi-bheda, which distinguishes what we measure from what lies underneath, is found later in Helārāja’s commentary on Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya, Vedic Upaniṣads such as the Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad imply that time is not real and claim that the underlying reality is not temporal [10]. In the limited sense in which I use “not real,” Nyāya darśana and Vaiśeṣika imply that what we divide and measure as time is not independently real. Temporal cognitions and divisions are signs or conditioned usages through which one real underlying kāla-dravya is known [4, 7, 8, 11]. Helārāja’s commentary on Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya states that what we measure as time is not “real,” but that an underlying reality exists, that this reality is also temporal [1]. Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika call this reality dravya (not necessarily physical). Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika do not say that underlying time is unreal. They treat temporal cognitions such as earlier, later, simultaneous, quick, and slow as signs from which time is known.
In the Tarkasaṅgraha, Annaṃbhaṭṭa, writing in the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika tradition, describes the underlying kāla as eka (एकः), vibhu (विभुः), and nitya (नित्यः): one, all-pervasive, and eternal [8]. “One” means that different moments, days, clocks, and events do not require independently existing time-substances. “All-pervasive” means that time is not confined to one location but grounds temporal relations among produced things everywhere. “Eternal” means that time is not itself produced or destroyed along with the events that arise and cease in relation to it.
Although Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika lists dik and kāla as distinct dravyas, “distinct” does not mean disconnected. They coexist within one objective reality and ground spatial and temporal ordering respectively. In that limited sense, Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika may initially appear comparable to the block-universe interpretation associated with general relativity, in which spatial and temporal relations belong to one total structure.
The comparison cannot be exact. Relativity unifies space and time geometrically as spacetime, whereas Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika retains dik and kāla as two distinct and irreducible dravyas. Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika therefore does not propose a block universe in the relativistic sense. Nor is its one underlying kāla necessarily equivalent to one universal numerical time or clock shared by all observers.
A narrower comparison nevertheless remains possible. Both accounts preserve an objective temporal reality while distinguishing it from the readings or divisions supplied by particular clocks and conditions. Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika explains moments and other temporal divisions as condition-dependent usages of one underlying kāla. Relativity treats measured duration as belonging to particular paths through spacetime rather than to one universal clock. The theories are fundamentally different, but both separate objective temporality from the idea of a single cosmic clock.
The clearest articulation that conventional time is a human construction based on moment and sequence, which are real, is found in Vyāsa’s commentary on the Yogasūtra [6]. While Sāṃkhya does not seem to agree that there is underlying dravya of time, it still supports that time is a lakṣaṇa-pariṇāma (transformation) of nature (prakṛti). It is also clear that space and time are not separate and arise from ākāśa the underlying [12].
Finally, Advaita Vedānta unequivocally states that time is not ultimately real. I interpret this as continuous with the Vedic and Upaniṣadic positions discussed here. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī expresses the point strikingly in the Siddhāntabindu: “Time, however, is avidyā itself” कालस्त्वविद्यैव तस्या एव सर्वाधारत्वादिति। [9]. The division of time is condition-dependent (upādhi-bheda). In this Advaita interpretation, even temporal order is not fundamental; it arises from a deeper level. Thus, upādhi-bheda offers a conceptual model for emergence in which unity at a deeper level is compatible with objective differentiation at the level of experience.
In Summary: Three Distinct Indic Positions on Time
1. Divided and Measured Time Is Not Fundamental
Divided and measured time is not the complete account of time: there is broad agreement on this among the particular schools discussed here, although they disagree about what underlies it. This is in line with general relativity in the limited sense that an observer’s clock along a path (proper time) in spacetime is physical and relative to the observer, not universal and, in that sense, “not real.” I am not claiming that ancient Indian thinkers possessed the modern concept of proper time. I am saying that they had already questioned whether the time we divide, measure, and experience should be identified with the complete reality of time. Relativity advances this earlier form of the idea and makes it physically and mathematically explicit.
2. There Is an Underlying Temporal Reality
There is an underlying reality to time that is temporal (in the sense of time) [Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika/Sāṃkhya-Yoga]. This, in my opinion, is in line with the “time” in the spacetime of general relativity. There is no universal time according to relativity. However, proper time does represent a temporal reality according to it. While the ‘one time’ of Nyāya is not the same thing as time dimension. This is similar to general relativity only in the limited sense that relativity also preserves an objective temporal reality while rejecting a universal clock.
3. Ultimate Reality Is Not Temporal
There is an underlying reality to time that is not temporal [Veda/Advaita]: our sense of time is an illusion from the perspective of what is ultimately real (ontologically final). General relativity neither proves nor disproves this position. It tells us how spacetime behaves, but it does not claim that spacetime is ontologically final in either a temporal or non-temporal sense. It leaves that possibility open.
Think of a house made of bricks. The house is real. We can measure its height and live inside it. But its reality as a house is not the final account of what it is made of. It is made of bricks at one level and mud at another, and so on. In the same way, spacetime, proper time, distance, curvature, and gravitational waves can be physically real and measurable without necessarily being the final layer of reality. Relative does not mean imaginary. Physically real does not mean universally absolute. And measurable does not necessarily mean ontologically final.
In other words, ancient Indians, at least the Advaita Vedānta school, did not regard time as final (there is no ontological finality in a temporal sense). While time in spacetime is “physical,” we do not know “how it is made” or how measurable spacetime emerges. When I first thought about general relativity in this way, that “physical” time could “emerge,” I set out to reconcile the idea of time in Indian philosophy, or darśana, which already seemed to suggest it. There is already a “problem of time”: time plays different and not directly compatible roles in ordinary quantum theory and general relativity. This is part of what physicists call the “problem of time.” Some approaches to quantum gravity investigate whether space, time, and geometry could emerge from deeper physical relationships or correlations. This remains an open area of research, not an established conclusion.
This is where I found Indian philosophy helpful. It does not provide the modern physics or mathematics of emergent spacetime. But ideas such as upādhi-bheda offer a conceptual possibility: objective differences at the level of experience and measurement may arise through different conditions without being fundamental divisions in the underlying reality. As you can see, this applies to distances as well, which are treated as upādhi-bheda. These ideas help us frame a question that physics has not yet closed: Is spacetime the final reality, or is it the measurable form taken by something deeper?
Note
It cannot be claimed that ancient Indian thinkers possessed the modern concepts, physics, or mathematics of proper time, general relativity, quantum theory, or emergent spacetime. Nor is it suggested that Yoga, Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, the Upaniṣads, and Advaita present the same theory of time. For the limited purpose of this article, the author interprets the Advaita Vedānta position as continuous with the positions expressed in the Vedic and Upaniṣadic passages under discussion. The author’s narrower claim is that these traditions question, in different ways, whether the time human beings divide, measure, and experience constitutes the complete or final reality of time. The author uses upādhi-bheda broadly to mean “difference caused by conditions in a context,” and “emergence” as a modern interpretive bridge, rather than as a claim that these traditions developed a scientific theory of emergent spacetime. Modern physics has not established that time or spacetime emerges in this way; this remains an open area of research.
(Acknowledgement: My sincere thanks to Dr. Nagesh Bhat K. C., Professor of Jyotisha at Shri Maata Samskrutha Mahapathashala, Ummachigi, for his valuable inputs and discussions on the Advaita interpretation of time.)
References
[1] “Even when oneness is established, multiplicity rests upon differences of upādhi.”
एकत्वेऽपि विभाविते नानात्वमुपाधिभेदनिहितम्। — Helārāja, Prakīrṇakaprakāśa on Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya 3.9.7–8, Kāla-samuddeśa, p. 344.
[2] “The differences belonging to things associated with time are regarded as differences of time itself. Thus differentiated through them, time serves to distinguish conventional determinations.”
संसर्गिणां तु ये भेदा विशेषास्तस्य ते मताः । स भिन्नस्तैर्व्यवस्थानां कालो भेदाय कल्पते ॥ — Vākyapadīya 3.9.8. “Some hold that time is distinct from activity: an eternal, one, all-pervasive substance that serves as the measure of things possessing action.”
व्यापारव्यतिरेकेण कालमेके प्रचक्षते । नित्यमेकं विभु द्रव्यं परिमाणं क्रियावताम् ॥ १ ॥ — Vākyapadīya 3.9.1.
[3] “Measures such as diṣṭi, prastha, and suvarṇa serve to distinguish material objects; time serves to distinguish actions, while number distinguishes everything.”
दिष्टिप्रस्थसुवर्णादि मूर्तिभेदाय कल्पते । क्रियाभेदाय कालस्तु संख्या सर्वस्य भेदिका ॥ २ ॥ — Vākyapadīya 3.9.2.
[4] “The cognitions ‘later,’ ‘simultaneous,’ ‘slow or long-lasting,’ and ‘quick’ are marks of time.”
(signs, not time itself). अपरस्मिन्नपरं युगपत् चिरं क्षिप्रमिति काललिङ्गानि ॥ — Vaiśeṣikasūtra 2.2.6.
[5] “An upādhi is a condition that accompanies every instance of what is to be established, but does not accompany every instance of the reason offered for establishing it.”
साध्यव्यापकत्वे सति साधनाव्यापकत्वम् उपाधिः। This is the specialized Nyāya-logical use of upādhi; the present article uses upādhi-bheda more broadly for condition-dependent differentiation.
[6] “There is no objectively existing aggregate of the moment and its sequence. This time, although devoid of an objective entity, is a construction of the intellect. The moment, however, belongs to objective reality and serves as the basis of sequence.”
क्षणतत्क्रमयोर्नास्ति वस्तुसमाहार इति बुद्धिसमाहारो मुहूर्ताहोरात्रादयः। स खल्वयं कालो वस्तुशून्योऽपि बुद्धिनिर्माणः शब्दज्ञानानुपाती लौकिकानां व्युत्थितदर्शनानां वस्तुस्वरूप इवावभासते। क्षणस्तु वस्तुपतितः क्रमावलम्बी। क्रमश्च क्षणानन्तर्यात्मा तं कालविदः काल इत्याचक्षते योगिनः। — Vyāsa’s Bhāṣya on Patañjali’s Yogasūtra 3.52.
[7] “Time is indicated by cognitions of priority and posteriority, simultaneity and non-simultaneity, slowness and quickness. Since no other cause accounts for the arising of these distinctive cognitions concerning objects, whatever serves as their cause here is time.”
कालः परापरव्यतिकरयौगपद्यायौगपद्यचिरक्षिप्रप्रत्ययलिङ्गम् । तेषां विषयेषु पूर्वप्रत्ययविलक्षणानामुत्पत्तावन्यनिमित्ताभावाद्यदत्र निमित्तं स कालः । — Praśastapāda, Padārthadharmasaṃgraha, section 42.
[8] “Time is the basis of ordinary usage concerning the past and so forth. It is one, all-pervasive, and eternal.”
अतीतादिव्यवहारहेतुः कालः । स चैको विभुर्नित्यश्च ॥ — Annaṃbhaṭṭa, Tarkasaṅgraha.
[9] “Time, however, is avidyā itself, because avidyā itself is the ground of the entire phenomenal order.”
कालस्त्वविद्यैव तस्या एव सर्वाधारत्वादिति। — Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, Siddhāntabindu, ed. P. C. Divanji (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1933), p. 96.
[10] “Brahman has two forms: time and the timeless. That which is prior to the sun is the timeless, without parts. That which begins with the sun is time, possessing parts. The year is the form of that which possesses parts.”
द्वे वा ब्रह्मणो रूपे कालश्चाकालश्च। अथ यः प्रागादित्यात् सोऽकालोऽकलः। अथ य आदित्यादिः स कालः सकलः। सकलस्य वा एतद्रूपं यत् संवत्सरः। — Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad 6.15.
[11] “Although time is one, differences of upādhi make it the basis of usages such as ‘moment’ and the like.”
कालस्त्वेकोऽप्युपाधिभेदात् क्षणादिव्यवहारविषयः। — Viśvanātha Pañcānana, Nyāyasiddhāntamuktāvalī, commentary on Kārikāvalī 46, क्षणादिः स्यादुपाधितः.
[12] “Space (dik) and Time (kāla) arise from Ether (ākāśa) and external conditions/movements.” दिकालौ आकाशादिभ्यः॥ –Sāṃkhya-Sūtras of Kapila.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.
