Eternality of the Universe

[wundermonk]

Hello everyone,

One thing that is a point of agreement between Hindus and some atheists is the eternality of the universe.

Per Hinduism, there was never a point in time when the universe did NOT exist. Nyaya and Mimamsa, notably, hold that time is an ontological real and is linear. That is, they claim it makes sense to talk about times such as t = 13 billion years ago (bya), t = 1000 trillion years ago, etc. The universe was existent all ALL past times.

Samkhya believes that change is beginningless (due to the metaphysical principles of prakriti whose gunas are always in perpetual motion) and does not feel the need to postulate the separate existence of time as an ontological real. Even in Samkhya, it makes sense to talk about times such as t = 13 billion years ago, t = 1000 trillion years ago, because prakriti (matter/nature) was always existing and in perpetual motion/change.

I do not really have any questions to ask of fellow patrons here on this topic...just thought I would throw this out there. Feel free to comment as necessary.

[Kismet]

One thing that is a point of agreement between Hindus and some atheists is the eternality of the universe.

How does this line up with the notion that this world was over long ago? That is, with enlightenment all ignorance (as well as a world) is destroyed....

Why is the world still here if we are one soul and, with the dawning of understanding for that one soul that all is atman, are we not all raised up?

I have heard the example given that it is like a helicopter departure from a series of linked bridges. But then, how is it the bridges keep building themselves one after the other?

I came up with (to my mind) a slightly better analogy. If linear time is like a hard, straight noodle of sphaggeti, then seeing the world the way an enlightened person does, this noodle gets cooked and becomes curved. Then, all the points along the noodle (representing moments of time) are all reflections of a single, eternal present. So in that sense I suppose you can have infinite points on a line, so long as all those points's converge on a single ontological ground which is being or the Self.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Wundermonk: “therewas never a point in time when the universe did NOT exist”-“ Samkhya believesthat change is beginningless”

Kismet: “If linear time is like a hard,straight noodle of sphaggeti, then seeing the world the way an enlightenedperson does, this noodle gets cooked and becomes curved. Then, all the pointsalong the noodle (representing moments of time) are all reflections of asingle, eternal present …”

Wow! This is why I like Hindus!

Om Namah Sivaya

[Kismet]

Why thank you ShivaFan.

[wundermonk]

How does this line up with the notion that this world was over long ago? That is, with enlightenment all ignorance (as well as a world) is destroyed....

AFAIK, no Hindu darshana argues that there was a beginning to the universe or that there is an "end state" to the universe. So, the world is never destroyed absolutely for all.

Why is the world still here if we are one soul and, with the dawning of understanding for that one soul that all is atman, are we not all raised up?

That there is just one self/Atman is an Advaitic view. Nyaya/Samkhya/Mimamsa all believe in a plurality of selves. My guess on the Advaitin's response to if there is just one self, on the liberation of one jiva why dont all jivas get liberated is to state that in an absolute sense, that there are multiple selves itself is an erroneous cognition. Analogy - multiple pots all enclosing their own "individual" spaces. But space is one, all-pervading and eternal. When one pot breaks, the "individual" space realizes its oneness with the other space. The "individual" spaces in other pots are not "individual" at all - from a transcendental POV. So, from the ultimate reality, there is just space.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

As I understood it, the "universe" is not really eternal. But prakRiti from which the universe is created is eternal. This is absorbed back into Brahman after mahA-pralaya and then projected forth anew again and again. We call it the "universe" only when it is in its manifest form.

regards,

[wundermonk]

Even if manifest Prakriti is called the universe, there never was a first universe that "began to exist" a finite time in the past. The universe/effect always existed in subtle/unmanifest form in its causal substrate - per Samkhya.

[Kismet]

AFAIK, no Hindu darshana argues that there was a beginning to the universe or that there is an "end state" to the universe. So, the world is never destroyed absolutely for all.

The world is never absolutely destroyed...but perhaps it is "destroyed" for all in the soteriological sense on a case by case basis. On the relative level it is ever-existing, but on the upper level it can't possibly be said to exist.

When one pot breaks, the "individual" space realizes its oneness with the other space. The "individual" spaces in other pots are not "individual" at all - from a transcendental POV. So, from the ultimate reality, there is just space.

My take: either we all get on the boat and leave, or we all drown. But, I confess, this is my own "all or nothing" view. How can Oneness have any division in its heart?

[charitra]

if time is linear as opposed to circular, then it is bound to have a starting point

[Sahasranama]

if time is linear as opposed to circular, then it is bound to have a starting point

A mathematical line doesn't have any starting point.