chhAndogya upaniShad 6.2.1 Shankara Bhashya Part 2 of 3

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

Namaste,

 

Shankara Bhashya- tr. Sw. Gambhirananda Part 2 of 3

 

 

As in the world someone, who in the forenoon had

seen a lump of earth spread by a potter desirous of

making pot, plate etc., he, on perceiving in that very

place different products like pot, plate, etc. while re-

turning in the afternoon after visiting a village would

say, 'These pots, plates, etc. were but earth in the

forenoon', so also it is said even here, 'In the beginning

this was Existence alone.'

By the words 'One only' is meant that there was

nothing else coming under the category of Its product.

By the words 'without a second' this is meant: As in the

case of pot etc. some other efficient causes like potters

and others, who are different from earth etc. but are

the transformer of earth etc. into pot etc. are seen,

similarly (here) also there arises the possibility of

having some other second thing which is different from

Existence, and yet is a cause associated with Existence.

This is being denied by the phrase, 'without a second

(advitIyam)'. So, 'Without a second' means that It

(Existence) has no second thing different from Itself.

Objection: Does it not also become established from

the standpoint of the Vaiseshikas that, all things remain

associated with Existence, since the word 'Existence'

and its idea remain associated with substances, quali-

ties, etc. as is noticed in such usages as, 'The thing

exists', 'The quality exists', 'The action exists', etc.?

Reply: It is true that it can be so now. But it is not

admitted by the Vaiseshikas that, before (its) creation

this product surely was existence alone. For, according

to them a product has no existence before (its) crea-

tion. Nor do they admit that before creation there

was only one Existence without a second. So this cause

which is spoken of as Existence, through the illustra-

tions of earth etc. is different from the existence imag-

ined by the Vaiseshikas.

Tat, with regard to that, with regard to the determi-

nation of the substance before creation; eke, some, the

nihilists; AhuH, say, while determining the substance:

idam, this, this world; agre, in the beginning before

creation; AsIt, was; eva, only; asat, non-existence,

merely an absence of existence. For the Buddhists

imagine that the reality before creation is merely an

absence of existence. But they do not stand for any

other substance opposed to existence, unlike the Nai-

yayikas who hold that existence and non-existence

mean 'things as they are', and the opposite of them *

(respectively).

 

*foot-note:

'According to the Vedantins a product remains inherent in the

material, so that production really means expression. According

to the nihilistic Buddhists, nothing exists before its production.

According to the Nyiya school, a product does not remain inherent

In its material, but it is altogether 'a new creation. The

material loses its former identity and becomes non~xistent as it

were,

and from that non-existence the product emerges as a new creation.

So the Nalylyikas believe in both the categories, existence and

non~xistence, whereas the Buddhists believe in nonexistence alone

as preceding creation.*