Creation?

[Guest guest]

As we disperse for the weekend, I would like to pose a topic for all the

discussers on the list serve to think in the weekend. Obviously we are in

the jiiva-jagat-Iswara circle and the discussions pertain to within this

realm.

 

Creation - We have a biblical interpretations and we have vedantic

interpretations and we have Darwin theory of evolution - We have pressures

from the church that creation theory should be taught in the schools. As

we read in the news - discoveries of new galactic activities - stars with

new planetary systems and possibilities of extraterrestrial life etc.

 

Does this universe qualify itself as a creation ? and what makes something

a creation? Are there any one in the list serve who can prove that it is

indeed not a creation - logically. And are there who can prove the

opposite. How can one proves that it is indeed a creation - can this be

logically if not scientifically established as creation -If it is like a

dream, who is that dreamer and why does he want to dream - Extra galactic

activities that occurred billions of years ago we are seeing now with our

instruments(since they happened billions of light years away). When I

look at the sky I get lost in wonder in terms of the magnitude of the

universe in terms of size and in terms of time scale. When this universe

in its embrionic state - was there an observer since on whom the whole

creation was projected? When there was no observer, was the universe

existed - did the galactic activity take place. We are seeing now the

stars which existed billians of years ago since they are billians of light

years away - past is seen in the present. We will never know whether they

are there now or not since it will take another billians of years to find

out. It is all mind boggling - right now in my mind but is there a mind

that can see all these clearly what is happening 'now'?

 

Of course you can ask me what is that to do with advaita? - only because

it lays emphasis that creator and creation is one and the same - all one -

non-duel.

 

I want to hear what everybody feels about this vast unbounded universe and

our role in this - This also keeps our mind off from the silly Clinton

affair that is played out until one becomes sick of it.

 

Hari Om! and have a nice weekend.

 

Sadananda

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Greetings Advaitin:

 

Shri Sadanandaji has posted an interesting topic for discussion and I

hope to see greatern number of members to participate. An extensive

elaboration of the Vedantic point of view on Creation is readily

available at the Homepage maintained by Shri. Vidyasankar. I have given

the reference below. Extensive materials on other viewpoints are

available in the internet and can be obtained through the search engines

such as Altavista.

 

I conducted a search over the Internet using the Altavista search engine

on "creation" and obtained 1.3 million web pages containing the word

'creation! After further investigaion, I found that 9 out of those 10

pages corresponded to "Webpage creation!"

 

--

Ram V. Chandran

List Moderator

 

 

CREATION THEORIES IN ADVAITA VEDANTA(From Vidyasankar's Homepage)

 

WEBSITE: http://www.erols.com/ramakris/advaita/creation.html

 

(Reproduced here for the benefit of those who don't have WEB Access)

 

There are three main ways of understanding creation in the advaita

tradition - namely, ajAti vAda (creation is not an absolute, real

event), sRshTi-dRshTi vAda (what has been created is perceived) and

dRshTi-sRshTi vAda (perception is indeed creation). The ajAti view is

held in the pAramArthika sense, while the other two views are held in

the vyAvahArika sense. As in most issues in advaita philosophy, the

writings of Sankara themselves draw upon all these views, while later

writers develop upon one or the other view. The ajAti vAda is mainly

elaborated by gauDapAda, Sankara's paramaguru. However, please remember

that the advaita tradition is one of oral teaching, and therefore the

description that follows is not exhaustive. A given teacher may use one

or more of these vAdas, depending upon his own views, the student's

ability, and other factors.

 

 

sRshTi-dRshTi vAda :-

Whether of the bhAmatI or of the vivaraNa school of advaita, most

authors start off assuming the

universe. For the beginning student, this makes sense, because everybody

starts off by observing a

universe distinct from "oneself", and believing that this observed

universe has a distinct reality apart

from "oneself". So long as this "oneself" is identified by the observer,

not with the Atman, but with

anAtman, advaitins would say that there is a difference between the

observed ("the universe" which, by

the way, is wrongly perceived) and the observer (the "oneself" which is

wrongly identified). At this stage,

there is still ignorance about the true nature of external things and

oneself. Taking this ignorance into

account, and referring to the IkshaNa-Sruti (tadaikshta, bahusyAm

prajAyeya - this sentence occurs

almost every time there is talk of creation in the upanishads, as in the

sad-vidyA section of the

chAndogya), the universe is held to be created by brahman in His

capacity as ISvara. This is the

sRshTi-dRshTi vAda, i.e. the universe that is seen has been created by

ISvara. sRshTi (creation) is

therefore prior to dRshTi (perception). In other words, advaita will

defend the view that a thing has to

exist beforehand for it to be perceived.

 

However, it is pointed out that to even talk of creation, one has to

assume avidyA, and one has to admit

of mAyA, as the power of ISvara. Under this view, mAyA is accorded a

measure of reality with respect to

the observed universe, and is similar in many respects to the notion of

prakRti in sAm.khya. Still, it is

denied that this mAyA has an independent existence or reality of its

own. It is made absolutely

dependent on brahman, which is the sole reality. It is this position

that differentiates advaita vedAnta

from the dualistic sAm.khya, although some authors of the bhAmatI school

may write in such a way as to

make this distinction very fuzzy indeed. Inasmuch as the only

independent cause is brahman as ISvara,

and so far as it is held that the mAyA disappears when brahman is truly

known, this view is still non-dual

in its teaching. This notion of brahman as ISvara, with attributes, who

appears to be different from the

creation, is therefore described as the "taTastha-lakshaNa" - a

temporary description for the purposes of

explaining creation to those who seek one. This temporary description

does not mean that non-duality is

compromised. The sRshTi-dRshTi view may help the layman to understand

the fact that throughout the

ages, advaitins have by and large been very devoutly religious people,

who worship their chosen deity.

They do not think that this affects non-duality in any way. So much for

vyavahAra.

 

ajAti vAda :-

The notion that mAyA has no reality in itself, and that brahman is the

only real, allows the sRshTi-dRshTi

vAdin to "graduate", so to speak, to ajAtivAda, the view that no

creation really occured ever. Although

one initially starts looking for brahman from an ontological

perspective, this search for origins is

ultimately futile, as far as moksha is concerned. When the house is on

fire, one first looks for water to

put it out. After the fire is extinguished one may search for the causes

of the fire.

 

Similarly, if the questioner's goal is moksha, advaita points out that

there is no moksha till the Atman is

properly known as brahman Itself. Therefore, understand the Atman first,

theories about how this

creation came about can wait. Until now, the questioner has been

concerned mainly with explaining the

external world, which (s)he knows only through the operation of the

senses. The identity propounded by

the upanishads (between the Atman and brahman) opens up an even more

fascinating inner world that is

not seen by the eye, not heard by the ear and not felt by touch. It is

this inner search that allows the

sAdhaka to acquire the jnAna to deny mAyA any reality whatsover. At this

stage, brahman, which was

previously understood to be with attributes, is understood in its

essence to be really nirguNa. This

essential nature of brahman is described as "svarUpa-lakshaNa" - a

description that captures the real

nature of brahman. When brahman is apprehended as the nirguNa, without

any attributes, mAyA

completely disappears. The universe too, consequently has to disappear.

This is the most difficult thing

for anybody to understand and accept, because the senses constantly seem

to remind one of the

presence of the universe. But then, the unitary understanding of the

Atman as identical to brahman

occurs only at the turIya (the fourth) state, not in the jAgrat

(waking), svapna (dream) and sushupti (deep

sleep) states. As the mANDUkya upanishad reminds us, the turIya is

adRshTam (unseeable),

avyavahAryam (non-relational), agrAhyam (ungraspable), alakshaNam

(without any attributes), acintyam

(unthinkable), avyapadeSyam (cannot be indicated as an object),

ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram (the essence of

cognition of the One Atman), prapancopaSamam (that into which the entire

universe is resolved),

SAntam (peaceful), Sivam (auspicious), advaitam (non-dual).

 

As far as creation theories are concerned, the most important adjectives

in the mANDUkya's list, in my

opinion, are prapancopaSamam - that into which the world is resolved,

and ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram - the

essence of cognition of the One Atman. These words indicate that in the

turIya state, the mistaken

identification of the Atman with anAtman has ceased, and there is no

more external world perceived as

separate from oneself. The "oneself" that was previously talked about

doesn't exist anymore, and the

world external to this "oneself" also does not exist anymore. Only the

One Atman remains. It is only at

this stage that it makes sense to talk of ajAti. The word

prapancopaSamam indicates that the

world-in-itself has no existence. It is as if this world that was

previously seen as external to "oneself",

along with the "oneself" that was previously mistakenly identified with

things other than the Atman, is

now resolved into the One Atman, the one and only Reality.

 

The same idea is mentioned in the bRhadAraNyaka - yatra tvasya sarvam

AtmaivAbhUt, tatra kena kam

paSyet? etc. leading to vijnAtAram are kena vijAnIyAt? In the state of

non-duality, the One Atman itself

is the whole world; there is nothing other than this Atman, so talk of a

world external to this Atman does

not even arise. The questions posed by the bRhadAraNyaka indicate that

there are no senses of sight,

smell, touch etc. that can operate at this state. Hence the question,

vijnAtAram are kena vijAnIyAt? -

how is the knower to be known? i.e. not through the senses. I will

restrict the urge to indulge in poetic

fancy about the ineffable nature of this vijnAtA, and the experience

that defies words. Reverting to our

concern about creation, we can say this much. As the question of

creation does not even arise when the

identity of Atman with brahman is known, ajAtivAda follows. After all,

this Atman is eternal, unborn and

undying, admitting of no divisions. As the creation (prapanca) has been

resolved (upaSamam) into this

One Atman Itself, prapanca can be described as not created. This is the

paramArtha. Returning to

vyavahAra, one comes back to the jAgrat, svapna and sushupti states, but

the knowledge gained in the

turIya state remains, and the earlier sRshTi-dRshTi view loses much of

its significance.

 

Thus, traditional advaita vedAntins generally handle creation by

provisionally explaining it in terms of

sRshTi-dRshTi vAda, followed by a subsequent ajAti vAda argument, which

denies that creation is an

event that took place at some given point of time in the past. This

approach follows the

adhyAropa-apavAda method (sublation of superimposition), and is closely

tied to the vyavahAra and

paramArtha ways of understanding reality. So far as the paramArtha is

held to be the only Real, ajAti is

upheld. sRshTi-dRshTi is accepted only in the vyAvahAric sense, and

needs to be transcended along with

the rest of vyavahAra, for the sake of moksha.

 

This description of creation theories in advaita holds true for those

authors who want to approach the

paramArtha through the vyavahAra, i.e. from sRshTi-dRshTi to ajAti.

There are other authors like

SrIharsha, citsukha and sukhaprakASa, who care not a whit for vyavahAra,

and do not feel the need to

even talk about creation. These authors are masters of dialectic, much

like nAgArjuna, and are

interested in demolishing the logical premises of any question or

definition that presupposes duality. As

an aside, these authors are quite aware that their method is very close

to the madhyamaka approach,

but they categorically assert brahman as the only absolute, and still

find fault with nAgArjuna for not

asserting the existence of one absolute.

 

dRshTi-sRshTi vAda :-

This brings me to the third view, namely dRshTi-sRshTi vAda, as

described by one author - prakASAnanda

sarasvatI (ca. 16th century CE) - in his vedAnta-siddhAnta-muktAvalI.

This author also wrote texts on

SrIvidyA, such as tArAbhakti-tarangiNI. His view does not seem to have

much use for the

vyavahAra-paramArtha distinction accepted by most advaitins. The

individual jIva in its capacity as

individual is asserted to create its objects of perception. The

well-known question, "if a tree falls in the

forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" seems to knock the

bottom out of this view. But

prakASAnanda would reply that so long if there is no observer, there is

no forest, no tree, and hence no

question of its falling down nor of its making any sound. Thus, this

vAda comes close to many schools of

subjective idealism and also to the buddhist vijnAnavAda. It also seems

to throw up the most interesting

logical paradoxes that are familiar to those interested in

interpretations of quantum mechanics, e.g. the

act of observation itself causing a particular collapse of a wave

function, thus creating its outcome in

some sense, and the absolute necessity of the observer in any

description of an event.

 

But I digress here. However relevant it might seem to modern science,

the specific dRshTi-sRshTi view

of prakASAnanda does not seem to be accepted by many advaita vedAntins.

To begin with, this view is a

significant departure from SankarAcArya himself. The first objection to

this would be that it flies in the

face of all pramANas, such as perception, inference etc. A thing has to

exist, in whatever sense, for it to

be observed. The other objection to prakASAnanda's answer would most

probably be that this view can

be taken as denying brahman Itself, leading to all sorts of logical

contradictions. Does prakASAnanda

explicitly deny the vyavahAra-paramArtha distinction? He cannot, because

then moksha would not be

different from samsAra, which is again close to the bauddha equations of

samvRti and paramArtha, and

of samsAra and nirvANa. Whether the bauddha SUnyatA is different from

the advaita brahman or not,

every advaita vedAntin wants to set himself apart from the buddhist in

this regard. For the typical

advaita vedAntin, prakASAnanda's dRshTi-sRshTi vAda is unnecessary for

paramArtha; ajAtivAda explains

paramArtha better. Its only use then, can be for vyavahAra. Given the

axiom that brahman always exists,

it follows for the sake of vyavahAra, that brahman as ISvara is the

universal witness. Even if no ordinary

living being heard a tree falling, ISvara always observes all, and

hence, provisionally accepting

prakASAnanda's dRshti-sRshTi vAda, it must be allowed that there was

some sound when it fell. Does

prakASAnanda deny that brahman exists, for the sake of vyavahAra, as

ISvara?

 

I don't know prakASAnanda's answer, but I think that he cannot, so long

as he allows that brahman

exists in the forms of observers and observed. If ISvara exists in the

vyAvahAric sense, then is he the

creator of the universe or not? If yes, dRshTi-sRshTi vAda is

contradicted, for it holds that an individual

observer also creates that which he observes. This takes away from the

creatorship of ISvara. If it is

said that the jIva and ISvara are both brahman and the created entity is

also brahman (since everything

is brahman, anyway), so that the creation by a jIva does not contradict

ISvara's creatorship, the

objection to this would be that such a view ends up partitioning brahman

into several different real

entities, but brahman cannot be so divided. If ISvara is said not to be

the creator, then this view

contradicts Sruti. Besides, what is the practical use, to the spiritual

aspirant, of admitting such an

ISvara? I might be simplifying these arguments somewhat, because I am

still not very familiar with

prakASAnanda's reasoning, but I believe I have presented the main

threads of argument regarding his

views here.

 

I would like to end on a note of caution against reading too much into

the names of these vAdas. The

names are meant to capture the most significant thread of discussion in

each vAda, but it is easy to be

misled into an analysis of the respective positions that concentrates

only on their names and forgets all

the other allied arguments that are not specifically mentioned in the

name. Each vAda touches upon

every issue that is of concern to the advaita vedAntin, but in slightly

different ways. Besides, a given

advaita teacher might hold views which can be described as

dRshTi-sRshTi, but which might differ from

prakASAnanda's views. Also, the dvaitins of the AnandatIrtha school are

necessarily sRshTi-dRshTi

vAdins in their own way, but they can never be a dRshTi-sRshTi vAdins.

An advaitin, on the other hand,

may teach students according to either dRshTi-sRshTi vAda or

sRshTi-dRshTi vAda, but all versions of

these vAdas will return to the basic Atman = brahman equation. In the

final analysis, as long as moksha

remains the prime issue around which every discussion revolves, ajAti

vAda always remains, and every

advaitin returns to it, whatever other vAda he uses when talking of

vyavahAra. Thus, no true advaitin will

deny ajAtivAda, although he may rarely talk of it, and he probably will

not actively teach it to anybody

but the most advanced student.

 

Note: I want to express my sincere thanks to Shri Vidyasankar for this

excellent Article.