Philosophy In Jain Agams: Time (Substance)

When 'Time' substance is added to the concept of Pañcāstikāya, then these six together are collectively called as 'ṣaḍdravya.^[1]' Time is an important factor in the context of the universe. In Jain tradition there are two concepts available regarding time.

1. According to the first concept, time is not an independent substance. It is just the mode of living and non-living beings.^[2] According to this belief, the transformation within the soul and matter itself is called as time, metaphorically. Actually, the modes of conscious and non-conscious beings are determinants of time. Time has no independent existence. In Pātañjala Yogasūtra, kāla (time) has not been regarded as an independent existent. Time is not a substantially existent substance. It is a product of our intellect and it is known according to the verbal expression. It seems as an actual existent, to only those people who have a fickle state of mind.^[3] The conceptual acceptance is that the time is only a metaphorical or cognitive existent and not a metaphysical reality.
2. According to the second concept, time is an independent existent.There has been a separate mention of addhā samaya.^[4] Although, the philosophers who hold that time is an independent substance, also do not believe in astikāya of time. There is a mention of only five astikāyas everywhere viz dharmāstikāya, adharmāstikāya etc.^[5]
   

In Śvetāmbara tradition, there is a description of both the concepts regarding time but, the Digambara tradition accepts only the independent existence of actual time.

Both the tradition of Jains, Śvetāmbara and Digambara accept time to be an independent substance, but, with respect to the nature of time, they differ.

Śvetāmbara tradition does not accept the atom of time. Secondly, they believe in the empirical form of time, that functions in samaya kṣetra and in transcendental time that exists in both cosmic and trans-cosmic space.^[6] According to digambara tradition, time is cosmos-pervasive and atomic by nature. Atoms of time are innumerable and they dwell upon each pradeśa (unit) of cosmic space.^[7]

Pt. Sukhalal is not in favour of the concept of independent existence of time. In this context he states that from a transcendental point of view, it is not necessary to believe in the separate existence of time. With the acceptance that it exists as a mode of soul and non living beings, the purpose is fully served. Hence, this concept works on empirical basis. Other views are ideal and metaphorical ones. To believe in the existence of time functioning only up to human dwelling region, is an empirical view point whereas the acceptance of its atomic existence is a metaphorical acceptance of time.^[8]'

Pt. Dalsukh Malvania has opined that the concept of not believing in time to be an independent real existent is an ancient one. He states that-'the view of not counting time to be a separate existent seems to be an ancient one because when it is questioned -what is universe?, both Śvetambara and Digambara tradition upheld that the universe is constituted of Pañcāstikāya (five astikāyas). It has never been said that the universe is constituted of ṣaḍdravyas (six substances). Hence, we must infer that the belief in time as a separate real is not too ancient and that is the only reason for the difference of view point regarding the nature of time in both the traditions.^[9]'

Acharya Mahapragya reconciles these two view points on the basis of Anekānt. He writes that-'time is a substance in the list of six substances and it is also intervened with the mode of living and non-living entities. These two statements are relative statements and not contradictory. From transcendental view point, time is the mode of living and non­living beings and from empirical viewpoint, it is substance, due to its utility. It is the cause of all transformations which attests to its significant characteristic. That is the reason for it being counted in the list of basic substance.^[10]'