Creation in Shruti and Gita Chapter 9

[Guest guest]

OM TAT SAT

What is the significance of the description of creation in Brh. Up and Tait. Up

? "All this is verily Brahman". Do we accept the Shruti description and

associate a time with this creation or does it mean that gold is simply saying

that I am all these ornaments. Brahman never acts or creates, right ? How do we

reconcile this with chapter 9 of Bhagawad Gita where the Lord says that at the

end of the Kalpa, everything goes back to my Prakriti and then again at the

beginning of the Kalpa the cycle starts. "It" or "existence" or "sat vastu" is

not same as Ishwara, right ? Is the Shruti description talking about Ishware or

Brahman ? In Gita, Krishna is mostly Ishwara or also represents Brahman ?

 

 

OM TAT SAT

 

 

 

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Brahmarpanam Brahmhavih

<mahadevadvaita> wrote:

>

> OM TAT SAT

> What is the significance of the description of creation in Brh. Up

and Tait. Up ? "All this is verily Brahman". Do we accept the

Shruti description and associate a time with this creation or does

it mean that gold is simply saying that I am all these ornaments.

Brahman never acts or creates, right ? How do we reconcile this with

chapter 9 of Bhagawad Gita where the Lord says that at the end of

the Kalpa, everything goes back to my Prakriti and then again at the

beginning of the Kalpa the cycle starts. "It" or "existence" or "sat

vastu" is not same as Ishwara, right ? Is the Shruti description

talking about Ishware or Brahman ? In Gita, Krishna is mostly

Ishwara or also represents Brahman ?

 

 

Namaste

 

I am sure many others will also reply to you. I am supplying my two

cents worth below.

 

First let us get this straight. Let us not expect shruti or the

Puranas to talk to us as if a Mathematics professor is presenting

his subject with all loopholes tightened and plugged. In all

scriptural literature, the vyavaharik (= mundane physical plane)

view and the paramarthik (= absolute view of Ultimate Truth) view

often occur in the same context and it is for the reader to

distinguish the two. In Vedanta discussions they try to clear this

a bit and even there unless you are led by a Master who has trodden

the field before you, you are likely to miss the one for the other.

With this warning let me give my explanation. I am numbering my

paragraphs for clarity and cross-reference.

 

1. In the absolute point of view there is no creation, no bondage.

But even here scholars will differ and present an alternate view

which is also called the absolute (paramarthik) view. In this

alternate view, there is creation and everything that follows

creation but these are all taken to be mAyA, -- that is, only

a 'play' or an `appearance' – you choose the word you like.

 

2. In the mundane physical plane, there is creation, there is an

Ishvara who creates. Whether this mundane physical plane is real

or unreal -- is the million dollar debate between Advaitins and non-

advaitins.

 

3. Among advaitins themselves, those who hold that there is no

creation or bondage ever, will say that the physical mundane plane

itself does not exist because of their stand in the Absolute.

 

4. But those advaitins who do not agree to that will take the

alternate absolute point of view mentioned in #1 above and so will

hold that creation and Ishvara are all part of mAyA. Though Ishvara

has control over mAya, the created beings have no control over

mAyA. But the act of creation is part of the mAyA. So according to

this school, everything in the created universe has only a

vyAvahAric reality and nothing more.

 

5. The non-advaitins do not agree to the introduction of mAyA. They

hold that Creation and Ishvara are as real as real can be. The

comparison with the unreality of the dream and mirage which the

advaitins proclaim, is not accepted by the non-advaitins.

 

6. Now comes the description in the scriptures about creation, about

Ishvara, about the Leelas of God and all the other stories detailed

in the puranas. Now it is up to you to decide for yourself which way

you want to lean. The characters in the puranas like Rishis, the

story tellers like Vyasa and others, and the sages of the Upanishads

like Yajnavalkya -- say dfferent things at different times, suiting

the context and the person with whom they are carrying on the

dialogue. All the five stands described above occur in various

places, starting from the Vedas and Upanishads all the way down to

puranas like Bhagavatam and stories in the Mahabharata. The Lord

Himself in Bhagavad Gita talks from the Absolute Standpoint most

often but also talks from other standpoints like Nos.2, 3 and 4.

The contention of the advaitins is that Standpoint no.5 is not

validated by any of the scriptures and it is to establish this much

of advaita literature takes pains.

 

I hope, Mahadev-ji, I have been of some help in understanding.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste All

ProfVK-Ji thank you for your excellent response. My

humble contribution follows:

 

Comment on:

 

How do we reconcile this with

chapter 9 of Bhagawad Gita where the Lord says that at the end of

the Kalpa, everything goes back to my Prakriti and then again at the

beginning of the Kalpa the cycle starts. "It" or "existence" or "sat

vastu" is not same as Ishwara, right ? Is the Shruti description

talking about Ishware or Brahman ? In Gita, Krishna is mostly

Ishwara or also represents Brahman ?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gita 9.7

sarva-bhutani kaunteya

prakrtim yanti mamikam

kalpa-ksaye punas tani

kalpadau visrjamy aham

 

Trans:

O son of Kunti, at the end of the millennium all material

manifestations enter into My nature, and at the beginning of another

millennium, by My potency, I create them again.

 

To my mind this verse is important as here the Lord reinterprets

Sankhya and introduces the concept of Ishvara in it. Sankhya says

that there are an infinite number of souls and that no God is

required. The operation of nature is sufficient to explain Cosmology.

The Gita, per Aurobindo is a glorious attempt to reconcile various

currents of thoughts prevalent at that time. Here the Lord introduces

Ishvara to the atheistic philosophy of Sankhya.

 

The following excerpt from Vivakananda's lecture "Cosmology"

describes Cosmology as per Sankhya:

 

Sankhya describes creation out of Prakriti or Avyakta, the

undifferentiated when the primal state of equilibrium of the three

gunas is disturbed. At the same time, everything has a tendency to go

back to the primal state of equilibrium, and the time comes (Pralaya-

end of a cycle) when that total annihilation of all manifestation is

reached. The projection and the Pralaya of the universe have been

compared by theistical writers in India to the outbreathing and

inbreathing of God; God, as it were, breathes out the universe, and

it comes into Him again.

 

When it quiets down, what becomes of the universe? It exists, only in

finer forms, in the form of cause, as it is called in the Sankhya

philosophy. It does not get rid of causation, time, and space; they

are there, only it comes to very fine and minute forms. Supposing

that this whole universe begins to shrink, till every one of us

becomes just a little molecule, we should not feel the change at all,

because everything relating to us would be shrinking at the same

time. The whole thing goes down, and again projects out, the cause

brings out the effect, and so it goes on.

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

OM TAT SAT

Sir, True to your stature, that was excellent material.

OM TAT SAT

 

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

I hope, Mahadev-ji, I have been of some help in understanding.

 

 

 

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

 

 

[Guest guest]

1. In the absolute point of view there is no creation, no bondage.

But even here scholars will differ and present an alternate view

which is also called the absolute (paramarthik) view.

 

praNAms Sri VK prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am just wondering what makes them to have the alternative view in

paramArtha also!! shankara's parama guru sri gaudapAdAchArya with no

ambiguity clearly declares that : na nirOdhO na cha utpattihi, na bhaddhO

na cha sAdhakaH, na mumukshu na vai muktaH ityEShA paramArthathA!! Shankara

himself justifies this view by saying "whenever there is confusion/conflict

between saguNa/Ishwara's Ishitavya/apara brahman and nirguNa/nirAkAra

parabrahman we have to draw our siddhAnta only in favour of shruti

pratipAdita nirguNa nirAkAra brahman since nirguNatva/nirAkAratva/akatruva

of parabrahman is the ultimatum given by shruti-s. Either we have to

discard Sri gaudapAdAchArya's *pAramArthic view* as non-advaitic &

shankara's verdict is out of context or we have to interpret the plain

meaning of these kArikA & shankara's commentary differently to propagate

alternative view. Choice is left to the *modern day innovative thinkers*

who want to float the *new stream of thoughts* against traditional

siddhAnta.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Respected Prof. Ji,

 

Sir, can you explain the following view in a bit more detail?

 

*********************************

3. Among advaitins themselves, those who hold that there is no

creation or bondage ever, will say that the physical mundane plane

itself does not exist because of their stand in the Absolute.

*********************************

 

How does this view explain our existance?

 

Nothing was created.

We are Brahman.

But we are not experiencing the eternal bliss. Why?

 

How does the above view answer this question ?

 

Regards

 

Madhav

 

 

 

 

India Matrimony: Find your partner now.