Creation in the upanishads

[Guest guest]

*The real object of the description of creation in the upanishads.*

 

* * Different upanishads describe the creation, sustenance and

dissolution of the universe differently. The taitt. up. describes the

creation of five elements. The chandogya up. speaks only of three elements.

The aitareya up. describes creation in an entirely different manner. These

contradictions are not considered to be of any importance because the

description of creation is not the intention of the upanishads. According to

advaita, creation is not real, but is only a superimposition on brahman,

which alone is real in the absolute sense. The universe, which is a

transformation of *maayaa*, is *anirvachaniiya**. *It cannot be described

either as real or as unreal. It has empirical reality only. The description

of creation, etc, in the upanishads is only to bring out the truth that

brahman, the cause, alone is real. The effect, universe, has no independent

existence apart from the cause, brahman. The following passages from SrI

Sankara's bhaashya bring out the real purpose of the statements about

creation in the upanishads.

 

br.up.2.1.20. bhaashya.—*tasmaat

upakramopasamhaaraabhyaam-------------------vaakyaani iti.*

 

From the introduction and conclusion it is clear that the passages speaking

about the origin, sustenance and dissolution of the universe are intended

only to strengthen the idea that the individual self is the same as the

Supreme Self.

 

br.up.2.1.20. bhaashya.—*tasmaat

ekaruupaikatvapratyayadaarDhyaaya------------------paramaatmanaH*

 

Therefore, the mention in all the Vedaanta texts of the origin, sustenance

and dissolution of the universe is only to strengthen our idea of brahman

being a homogeneous entity, and not to tell us that the origin, etc, is

real. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that a part of the indivisible,

transcendental Supreme Self becomes the relative, individual self, because

the Supreme Self is intrinsically without parts.

 

The theory of *vivarta*

 

advaita Vedaanta explains the creation of the world by the theory of *

vivarta.* This theory is different from the theory of *aarambha vaada *of

nyaaya-Vais'eshika and the *pariNaama vaada *of saankhya. According

to *aarambha

vaada *the effect was not pre-existent in the cause and is something new

which has come into existence. This theory is also called *asatkaarya

vada,*because according to this the

*kaarya*, effect, did not previously exist. According to the *pariNaama

vaada, *the effect was existent in the cause and is only a transformation of

the cause. It is therefore also known as *satkaarya vaada,* because the

kaarya, effect, was existent in the cause. According to advaita, the effect

is not an actual transformation of the cause. brahman is immutable and there

can be no transformation of it. It only serves as the substratum

(*adhishThaana)

* for the appearance of the universe, just as the rope serves as the

substratum for the appearance of the illusory snake.

 

This nature of the universe as a mere appearance on brahman is brought out

beautifully by sures'vara in the following verses:-

 

Naishkarmyasiddhi.1.1—I offer my salutation to Hari, the destroyer of

darkness and the witness of the intellect, from whom the universe consisting

of ether, air, fire, water and earth has arisen like a snake from a garland.

 

taitt. up. bhaashya Vaartika.2.378—He, the Supreme Lord, the controller of *

maayaa*, having created the universe with His *maayaa*, entered that very

universe in the same way as a garland can be said to enter the illusory

snake projected on it. (By this, the statements in the taitt.up.2.6.1 and

the Br.up.1.4.7 that the Lord, having created the universe, entered into it,

are also explained).

 

This appearance of the universe is due to *avidyaa, *or nescience, which

conceals brahman by its veiling power (*aavaraNa s'akti)* and projects the

universe by its power of projection (*vikshepa s'akti).* The universe is

therefore said to be only a *vivarta,* or a transfiguration, of brahman.

Like the illusory snake with rope as the substratum, the universe is *mithyaa,

*with brahman as the substratum. But there is a vital difference between the

illusoriness of the rope-snake and that of the universe. While the snake is

purely illusory, or *praatibhaasika, *the universe has empirical, or

*vyaavahaarika,

*reality. That means that the universe is real for all those who are still

in ignorance of Brahman. It loses its reality only when brahman is realized

as the only reality and as identical with one's own self, or, in other

words, when identification with the body-mind complex completely disappears.

Bondage is nothing but identification with the body-mind complex. This

identification being due only to the ignorance of the truth that one is

really the *aatmaa*, which is the same as brahman, it can be removed only by

the knowledge of one's real nature as brahman. * *

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

These contradictions are not considered to be of any importance because the

description of creation is not the intention of the upanishads. According

to

advaita, creation is not real, but is only a superimposition on brahman,

which alone is real in the absolute sense.

 

[.........]

 

br.up.2.1.20. bhaashya.—*tasmaat

ekaruupaikatvapratyayadaarDhyaaya------------------paramaatmanaH*

 

Therefore, the mention in all the Vedaanta texts of the origin, sustenance

and dissolution of the universe is only to strengthen our idea of brahman

being a homogeneous entity, and not to tell us that the origin, etc, is

real. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that a part of the indivisible,

transcendental Supreme Self becomes the relative, individual self, because

the Supreme Self is intrinsically without parts.

 

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks a lot for sharing this very enlightening post. Like in

bruhadAraNyaka upanishad bhAshya, shankara expresses the same opinion in

sUtra bhAshya also. There he says, the scriptures (shruti) with regard to

the effect (kArya) is not consistant. This is because, *effect* is not the

main purpose of teaching. shruti does not intended to teach all this

detail of creation etc. for there is no good of human life perceived or

declared in it. It is only intended to teach creation & related matter

just to drive home the point that *effect* is not different from the

*cause*. Shankara, in this context quotes kArika also where its been said

the creation which has been explained with the illustrations of spark,

clay, metal etc. is only a device just to lead the mind to the ultimate

non-dual truth. Hence, there is no diversity on any account.

 

But, on the contrary, if you see Lord's words in gIta, he says clearly

*prakrutiM svAmavashtabhya, visrujAmi punaH punaH*.... it seems he himself

directly admitting that not only once but *again & again* he is doing this

*creation* work by controlling his prakruti...And elsewhere Krishna further

clarifies, yet these *acts* donot bind him!! so that he re-confirms that

though he himself doing all these *acts* (creation), he does it in a

detached manner, so that it wont bind him !!!...shankara bhAshya on these

verses would be really an interesting reading.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar