Creation in the upanishads

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Bhaskar,

 

I admire the promptness with which you have offered your remarks on my post.

I do not have the bhAshya on the Gita with me now because it is in my

previous house. But I feel the same idea will be found there also.

 

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

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

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

> *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.

 

Shree Shastri garu - My PraNAms.

 

First I enjoyed the post. Recently I was trying to

present these thoughts in some coherent fashion to a

group of scientists who are more intellectuals than

have any prior exposure to vedantic concepts.

 

The contradictions that you mentioned are inherent in

the very dichotomy of the description of a creation

which is beginningless. 'Creation' and

'beginningless' itself involves a self-contradiction.

Yet, we see the universe as thermodynamically well

behaved and systematic system following universal laws

that are applicable to smallest of the smallest to the

largest of the largest, starting from sub atomic

particles to galaxies and cluster of galaxies that are

billians of light years away. It cannot but be a

creation since supreme intellegence is required to

have a system that is well ordered and well behaved

with well governed physical laws.

 

Krishna’s statement restating this contradiction

beautifully in the slokas ‘mayaa tatam idam sarvam

jagat avyakta muurtinaa, mastaani sarva bhuttani, na

ca aham teshu avasthitaH|| na ca masttani bhuutanni,

...They are all in me but I am not in them –

How one becomes many without becoming many – a

transformationless transformation – like gold become

many ornaments – it is just ‘vaachaarambhanam vikaaro

naamadheyam’ Oh! what examples scripture provides to

give the taste of this creationless creation.

The analogy of the dream world of creation and its

reality from the point of both dreamer and the waker

is mind-boggling. Tears come out my eyes in the

appreciation of this wisdom in appreciating the

reality of the universe and present it for in cryptic

form for the benefit of the generations to come.

 

My arrogant scientific mind gets humbled by these

absolute truths. I could not restrain myself than

expressing the joy and beauty of inheriting such

beautiful scriptures. My humble praNAms to those

great scientific minds and for you sir for bringing

our attention to Bhagavat paada Shankara's elegant

perspective of the Vedic statements on

Creation.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

A lucid description of the creation theories!

 

Just one point I would like to make to be pedantic. You say that: " The

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

truth that brahman, the cause, alone is real. " Does not Gaudapada in the

kArikA take pains to point out that brahman is kArya kAraNa vilakShaNa (free

from any cause-effect relationship)?

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Does not Gaudapada in the kArikA take pains to point out that brahman is

kArya kAraNa vilakShaNa (free

from any cause-effect relationship)?

 

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

If you could permit me to share my understanding on this, I would say, yes,

brahman is nirvikAri & nirvishEsha...there is absolutely no distinctions

such as cause & effect in the non-dual brahman. kArika itself elsewhere

says, ' no jIva is born and there is no cause for him (from which he is to

be born). this is the highest reality wherein nothing is born'.. Here if

we uphold the *ajAta vAda* of advaita, there is no room for us to think

brahman is *kAraNa* (cause) of something else as *effect*...when the

existence of *effect* itself is denied apart from *cause*, where does the

question arise that brahman is cause & prakruti is effect?? However, Sri

gaudapAda himself subsequently clarifies by saying ' birth is taught in

shruti-s as a doctrine to those who hold to the theory that things exist

because of their appearance and practical utility and who are always afraid

of that which is unborn'...Shankara in ArambhaNAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya

further clarifies; the effect is mere vAchAraMbhaNaM nAmadhEyaM (effect is

existing only in speech) which we call it a pot, a jug, a lid etc. But as

a matter of fact there is nothing which may be called an effect...for it

only a name not real...what is known as clay is the only real thing. From

this we can infer that brahman is the ONLY non-dual reality and therefore

the same reality has been called as *cause* from the stand point of taking

existence of *effect* as reality.

 

I hope Sri Sastri prabhuji would be in a better position to clarify this

point to the clarity.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar