The absolute character of space and time has been denied by the physical theory of relativity. The three-dimensional space and the one-dimensional time which were supposed to have absolute validity have now been found to be welded together into a primordial stuff of space-time, of which the space and time which we ordinarily know are mere abstractions. The real physical world is, therefore, a four-dimensional realm with the ideas of up and down, right and left, forward and backward, and before and after for its constituents. These four sets of relations are to be taken into consideration in determining the character of any particular event. The theory of relativity has further led to modify our conception of matter which, it holds, is not an independent entity by itself, but is constituted of twists and turns or wrinkles in the space-time manifold. Space and time are discovered to be relative to the position and motion of the observers and the systems of reference which they employ. When these systems change, the significance of space and time also changes accordingly. The significance is, however, universal and not merely individual. The position has been summed up by James Jeans, thus: “Thus we conclude, with a high degree of probability, that the space-time unity and the objects which figure in it cannot be mere constructs of our individual minds, but must have existences of their own, although we know that space and time separately are abstractions of our individual minds from the space-time unity. This does not, of course, touch the question, to which we shall return later, of whether space, time and the material world are or are not of a mental nature, being perhaps the constructs of a consciousness superior to our own. So long as we are concerned only with our sensations, it is all the same whether we regard the world as a mental construct or as having an existence of its own independent of mind—the essential point at the moment is that it cannot be a private mental construct of our own” (Physics and Philosophy: p. 192).

The fact that space and time are mental constructs need not necessarily mean that each individual experiencer should have an absolutely independent world. There can be a common space-time for all observers who happen to use the same frame of reference, though there may be differences in the manner of their subjective reactions and interactions in relation to other individuals of such a space-time-world. This shows that the external world of common experience is not a construct of any particular individual but is the uniform object—with exceptions in respect of subjective reactions—experienced by a number of individual minds, establishing thus an existence of itself with some sort of independence over the perceiving minds. But even the world of a common space-time to different individuals of similar frames of reference must fall within the construct of a cosmic mind which should include all subjects and objects of perception. The space-time world is extra-mental to individual experiencers, but mental to the cosmic experiencer. The reality of the external world to individual experiencers cannot be obviated as long as experience is confined to individuality, for the curious fact that is often forgotten is that the individuals experiencing the world are themselves contents of the world as far as their constitution is concerned, though their essential consciousness ought to be construed to belong to a realm that is beyond space-time. But from the point of view of the ultimate consciousness, the reality of the world of space-time is revealed, and this ideality has reference and validity only to this consciousness. And as this consciousness is universal, the world of space-time is ideal only to it and not to the individuals. The latter are bound to particular and relative frames of reference of space-time. This bondage is Samsara. The universal consciousness, on the other hand, is the single witness and observer of the totality of all space-time reference and, not being confined to any particular order of space-time, it is eternally liberated and is identified with supreme freedom and bliss.

The story of Lila and Padma, in the Yogavasishtha, demonstrates the truth that the same event can have several dates and locations. An event that may take place for us on a particular day or date need not necessarily mean that it is completely restricted to that particular space-time coordinate. Every event is a universal event and is valid to the whole cosmos, though with the necessary changes required to make it relevant to the realm of being which is valid to all the frames of space-time experience. The past, present and future have no absolute determinations but are significant only in relation to individual experiencers. An event may have a different significance altogether with a different space-time meaning in some other realm of the universe. What is past need not necessarily be past for every one, and this applies to the present and the future also. The only thing that can be said about the truth regarding events is that they occur, ultimately, in eternity which does not admit of the differences of past, present and future. The division in the time-series has validity in relation to individuals whose consciousnesses are apparently divided due to their being fastened to particular objects of experience. Any event, taken by itself, and at a single given moment of time, may belong to either the past, or the present or the future in accordance with the space-time coordinate from which it is viewed. And from the point of view of the universal being, an event is a universal process inseparable from the consciousness in which it occurs. The divisions of space and time are, therefore, not truths having meaning to all experiencers but are, in a sense, working hypotheses constructed for making individual life possible. Space-time is a relation and not an existence. This world of space-time in which we live is not the only possible or the real one. There are as many worlds with as many space-times as there are frames of reference for modes of consciousness. When freed from limitation to any particular frame of space-time, an event reveals its character of being universal, i.e., of being everywhere and at all times, without spatial or temporal confinement of any kind. An event is infinite and eternal if only it can be extricated from particularised space-time references. As Truth is a universal oneness, all events in all space-times should be contained in it as non-different from it.

A knowledge of space implies a knowledge of the terms that it relates, and a knowledge of these terms, again, requires a knowledge of the space that differentiates them. Space and the things that it relates to determine one another. It is not true that space and time have an existence independent of the bodies which they contain and limit. If there is no individual existence, there is no spatial existence, also. Our dream perception is a clear instance: space and time with the objects appear to be all real while they are seen, but, on waking, the dream space and time vanish together with the dream objects. We do not see merely the dream space and time persisting even when their objects are contradicted in waking. Space and time are inseparably related to their contents, and their contents, again, are inseparable from the space and time in which they are involved. Without spatial and temporal distinction there is no objectness. This shows that what we perceive is not merely an isolated object but a complex system of reference which determines the nature not only of the object of knowledge but also of the individual constitution of the knower. The threefold process of the relation between the knower, the knowledge and the known, is involved in a particular space-time reference which determines the nature of all the three elements in the process. It is not enough, therefore, if in our search for real knowledge we take into consideration only the object of knowledge as spatially and temporally cut off from the subject, for the great error that is committed in all our objective searches and endeavours is that we disregard the role that is played by ourselves in our activities. What we know is really not any independent object but a complex situation in which the object is involved. And in this situation we ourselves, as knowers, are involved, so that in the degree of reality manifest in the subject and the object of our knowledge there is practically no difference. All quest for genuine knowledge must pay due regard to all the factors that are implicit in the manifestation of knowledge, and, obviously, it is not merely the object that is its determinant. Every act of knowledge includes the characters of space, time, causality, individuality and a distinction between the knower and the known. Unless a critical analysis of all these elements in their relation to one another is made in determining the nature of right knowledge, there is no possibility of our attaining it. Real knowledge is always a whole, and it binds together, in an internal relation, all the constituents which bring it about. This phenomenon gives us an insight into the truth that we live not as private individuals but as inhabitants of a cosmos where each is related to the other in the manner of parts to the whole in a living organism.

That space is not ultimately real is clear from the fact that externality is not ultimately real. Externality is the same as duality in perception, and reality is ever free from it, for what is real is never known as an object. If externality is not real, space cannot be real, and the reality of space is there only as long as externality is recognised as a fact. An inward harmony among things, which is their ultimate essence, discloses the empirical character of space which, by its very nature, does not allow of such a harmony. Discreteness among objects is fundamental to space, and indivisibility is natural to reality. Space-perceptions are determined by the position and velocity of individuals existing as percipients, and in several respects this law applies to time-perceptions also. That space and time are an appearance is discussed by Prof. Taylor on metaphysical grounds. “An all-comprehensive experience cannot apprehend the detail of existence under the forms of space and time for the following reason.” “It (i.e. such an experience) would not be of perceptual space and time, because the whole character of our perceptual space and time depends upon the very imperfections and limitations which make our experience fragmentary and imperfect. Perceptual space and time are, for me, what they are, because I see them, so to say, in perspective from the special standpoint of my own particular here and now. If that standpoint were altered, my whole outlook on the space and time order would suffer change. But the Absolute cannot look at the space and time order from the standpoint of my here and now. For, it is the finitude of my interests and purposes which confines me in my outlook to this here and now. If my interests … were coextensive with the life of the whole, every place and every time would be my here and now… “ “An absolute experience must be out of time and out of space, in the sense that its contents are not apprehended in the form of spatial and temporal series, but in some other way. Space and time then must be the phenomenal appearance of a higher reality which is spaceless and timeless” (Elements of Metaphysics: p. 254).