Creation in the upanishads

[Guest guest]

Re- Questions by Shri Srinivas Kotekal,

 

Many questions and objections of this type raised in works such as

nyAyAmRta, SatadUshani, have been answered by Madhusudana Sarasvati in

Advaitasiddhi and by Anantakrishna Sastri in SatabhUshaNi.. I believe the

purpose of this Advaitin group is to discuss the established tenets of

Advaita for the benefit of students of Advaita. This is not a forum for

establishing Advaita against other schools. Whatever I write is based only

on authorities such as Sri Sankara and other Advaitic masters. I do not put

forward any original propositions of my own.

 

Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

> 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

 

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

 

praNAms

 

I was going through a old free translation of the tittirIya upanishad.

The author Swami Sharvanandaji of RKM makes a similar claim while

writing a note on the tadEvAnupravishat verse which is very

interesting to read which is as under:

 

" It should not be supposed that the divine being enters into the

created objects as a person having built a house enters its; this is

impossible because the deity is a spirit without any spatial relation

whatever. He is all and the whole; and the whole can never be

contained by the part. The allegory is meant only to point out the

truth of the evolution of nature. The evolution is unintelligible for us.

 

According to vEdAnta there is no 'absolute and total return' of the

universe to its source in time. Only 'individuals' return at the

completion of their evolution; ie when they attain liberation.

 

The purpose of the veda is to teach the science of liberation and

illuminaiton; and these two ends of life are achieved by the divine

involved in the individual and undergoing the limitations of birth and

rebirth. Hence a clear statement to the effect that the individual

soul who is to realize the divine is in truth the divine himself is

required, apart from the general assertion that the whole universe is

a theophany. Moreover the figure of god's entrance into creation

stresses the fact that nature is the living garment of God, for he

inddwells, inspires and controls the whole universe.

 

(Unquote)

 

The following paragraph is interesting:

 

" According to vEdAnta there is no 'absolute and total return' of the

universe to its source in time. Only 'individuals' return at the

completion of their evolution; ie when they attain liberation. "

 

BhagavAn krishna also says that: yad gatvA na nivartante tat dhAma

paramam mama. Going where one does not return that is my supreme

abode. But he does not say that the universe will vanish or it was not

created et all!!! And interestingly AchArya is also silent!

 

One young friend of mine who is devotedly studying the scriptures of

vEdAnta once remarked: " After reading the mAndukya kArika, gita sounds

strange to me! There is definitely something wrong somewhere. " :-))

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> advaitin , bhaskar.yr@ wrote:

> The following paragraph is interesting:

>

> " According to vEdAnta there is no 'absolute and total return' of

the

> universe to its source in time. Only 'individuals' return at the

> completion of their evolution; ie when they attain liberation. "

>

> BhagavAn krishna also says that: yad gatvA na nivartante tat dhAma

> paramam mama. Going where one does not return that is my supreme

> abode. But he does not say that the universe will vanish or it was

not

> created et all!!! And interestingly AchArya is also silent!

>

 

Namaste,

 

How then would Gita verse 14:2 be interpreted?

 

idaM GYaanamupaashritya mama saadharmyamaagataaH .

sarge.api nopajaayante pralaye na vyathanti cha .. 14\-2..

 

2. Those who attain identity with Me by resorting of this Knowledge

are not born even during creation, nor do they suffer pain during

dissolution.

 

 

Agatah, those who attain; mama sadharmyam, identity with Me the

supreme God,

unity with My real nature-sadharmyam, however, does not mean

similarity

of attributes, for, in the scripture Gita, distinction between the

Knower

of the field and God is not admitted; and this statement of the

result is

by way of eulogy-; upasritya, by resorting to i.e. by following;

idam, this;

jnanam, Knowledge as described, i.e., by following the means to

Knowledge;

na, are not; upajayante, born, produced; api, even; sarge, during

creation;

nor do they vyathanti, suffer pain, i.e. they do not perish;

pralaye,

during dissolution, when even Brahma perishes.

 

(Shankara Bhashya - tr. Sw. Gambhirananda)

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

Yes, of course - this is understood.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of S.N. Sastri

28 August 2007 07:41

advaitin

Creation in the upanishads

 

 

Gaudapada's statement that brahman

is neither cause nor effect is from the pAramArthica standpoint because then

there is nothing other than brahman. His statement that there is neither

bandha nor moksha is also from the pAramArthika standpoint. From the

vyAvahArika standpoint brahman is the cause of the universe.. Otherwise all

the statements of Sankara about brahman being nimitta kAraNa and upAdAna

kAraNa would have no meaning. This distinction of two standpoints is very

important.

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

7070/stime=1188283242/nc1=4507179/nc2=4776347/nc3=3848577>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

Namaste,

 

How then would Gita verse 14:2 be interpreted?

 

idaM GYaanamupaashritya mama saadharmyamaagataaH .

sarge.api nopajaayante pralaye na vyathanti cha .. 14\-2..

 

2. Those who attain identity with Me by resorting of this Knowledge

are not born even during creation, nor do they suffer pain during

dissolution.

 

Dear Sunder-ji,

 

PraNAms,

 

It's an honor to get questioned by you, and Its my pleasure to

answer your queries. Trust me, I don't mind loosing the argument

with whom I admire much. :-))

 

I will try to interpret the following verse quoted by you in

alignment with my thoughts expressed in the previous post.

 

" Those who attain identity with Me by resorting of this Knowledge

are not born even during creation, nor do they suffer pain during

dissolution. "

 

Here the lord is speaking about the individual for whom the delusion

is gone. For that individual there is no more return and no world

also. But if you consider creation as a whole it still continues!

The `rest of the bound' jivas are forced to the rigmarole of coming

and going with each cycle of creation. That is why lord says that I

create this world again and again. May be for this reason bhAmati

school divides avidya into two categories. The definition they give

for these terms are as under:

 

" This school also describes avidyA in terms of a root avidyA

(mUlAvidyA), which is universal, and is equivalent to mAyA, and an

individual avidyA (tulAvidyA), which `vanishes' when brahmajnAna

arises. "

 

Source: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~vs28/S.Vidyaraman/Advaita%

20Vedanta/avhp/bhavir.html

 

To say creation as anirvachanIya is one thing, But to me shristi-

drishti vAda seems to be a more realistic approach. Please read the

following passage which is quoted from Swami Krishnanandaji's

website:

 

" The whole text of Panchadasi written by Swami Vidyaranaya follows

the line of Panchapadika of Padmapada. What is its speciality? The

objective world must be existing. You cannot simply say your mind is

creating the world of trees and mountains and all that. Such

fantastic statements should not be made. Supposing it is accepted

that your mind is creating things by Avidya operation inside, then

you have to agree that the trees in the forest are created by your

mind; the cows and the pigs and the dogs that are moving in the

streets - they are created by you only; the mountains, the sun and

the moon and the stars are created by your mind. You cannot accept

this view and you will be repelled by the very idea that your mind

is creating the sun and the moon and the stars. You have to follow

the dictum of the Upanishads that originally the creation was

effected by a Cosmic Being and not by any individual human being. In

the process of creation, man is a latecomer. There were the space-

time manifestation, the five Mahabhutas - earth, water, fire, air

and ether; then the plants - trees etc. Man came later on. How can

the late-comer, man, be regarded as the originator of the universe?

An objective creator, Ishwara, is to be accepted and it is futile to

say that the human mind created the universe. This is Padmapada's

school of thought: 'Srishiti-Drishti' - creation first, seeing

afterwards. "

 

Apart from Gita it is very interesting to see bhagavadpAda's

commentary on the following brahma sutras:

 

33. But (Brahman's creative activity) is mere sport, such as we see

in ordinary life.

 

2.1.33 But (Brahman's creative activity) is mere sport, such as we

see in ordinary life.The word 'but' discards the objection raised.--

We see in every-day life that certain doings of princes or other men

of high position who have no unfulfilled desires left have no

reference to any extraneous purpose; but proceed from mere

sportfulness, as, for instance, their recreations in places of

amusement. We further see that the process of inhalation and

exhalation is going on without reference to any extraneous purpose,

merely following the law of its own nature. Analogously, the

activity of the Lord also may be supposed to be mere sport,

proceeding from his own nature, without reference to any purpose.

For on the ground neither of reason nor of Scripture can we construe

any other purpose of the Lord. Nor can his nature be questioned --

Although the creation of this world appears to us a weighty and

difficult undertaking, it is mere play to the Lord, whose power is

unlimited. And if in ordinary life we might possibly, by close

scrutiny, detect some subtle motive, even for sportful action, we

cannot do so with regard to the actions of the Lord, all whose

wishes are fulfilled, as Scripture says.--Nor can it be said that he

either does not act or acts like a senseless person; for Scripture

affirms the fact of the creation on the one hand, and the Lord's

omniscience on the other hand. And, finally, we must remember that

the scriptural doctrine of creation does not refer to the highest

reality; it refers to the apparent world only, which is

characterised by name and form, the figments of Nescience, and it,

moreover, aims at intimating that Brahman is the Self of everything.

 

3.2.5 But by the meditation on the highest that which is hidden

(viz. the equality of the Lord and the soul, becomes manifest); for

from him (the Lord) are its (the soul's) bondage and release.

Well, but the individual soul is a part of the highest Self as the

spark is a part of the fire. And as fire and spark have in common

the powers of burning and giving light, so the individual soul and

the Lord have in common the powers of knowledge and rulership; hence

the individual soul may, by means of its lordship, effect in the

dreaming state a creation of chariots and the like, springing from

its wishes (samkalpa).--To this we reply that although the Lord and

the individual soul stand to each other in the relation of whole and

part, yet it is manifest to perception that the attributes of the

two are of a different nature.--Do you then mean to say that the

individual soul has no common attributes with the Lord?--We do not

maintain that; but we say that the equality of attributes, although

existing, is hidden by the veil of Nescience. In the case of some

persons indeed who strenuously meditate on the Lord and who, their

ignorance being dispelled at last, obtain through the favour of the

Lord extraordinary powers and insight, that hidden equality becomes

manifest--just as through the action of strong medicines the power

of sight of a blind man becomes manifest; but it does not on its own

account reveal itself to all men.--Why not?--Because 'from him,'

i.e. from the Lord there are bondage and release of it, viz. the

individual soul. That means: bondage is due to the absence of

knowledge of the Lord's true nature; release is due to the presence

of such knowledge. Thus Sruti declares, 'When that god is known all

fetters fall off; sufferings are destroyed and birth and death

cease. From meditating on him there arises, on the dissolution of

the body, a third state, that of universal Lordship; he who is alone

is satisfied' (Svet. Up. I, 11), and similar passages.

 

Courtesy: Bharatadesam.com

 

(Unquote)

 

If we observe carefully, AchArya treats these sutras with a caution.

He explains the sutras literally and finally adds the word that the

world is of lower reality and is due to avidya.

 

In the bhashya of the sutra 3.2.5 it is very very interesting to

read his interpretation of the part of the sutra " for from him (the

Lord) are its (the soul's) bondage and release. "

 

Here on the one hand he accepts that the `grace of the lord' is a

must for liberation by telling that: " In the case of some persons

indeed who strenuously meditate on the Lord and who, their ignorance

being dispelled at last, obtain through the `favour' of the Lord

extraordinary powers and insight, that hidden equality becomes

manifest--just as through the action of strong medicines the power

of sight of a blind man becomes manifest " at the same time he

stresses on the nescience and writes that both knowledge and freedom

are from the lord `in the sense' that they are caused by the

knowledge of and ignorance of the lord.

 

But the question still remains. From where avidya or to ask in other

words creation sprang up? Shankara and SureshwarAchArya are silent.

So was Bhagavan Buddha; Who said that: it is better to get rid of a

poisonous arrow with which one is struck than to speculate on it as

to who shot it and the type of poison applied etc.

 

If one reads the sayings of the lord in the gita one will get a

different feeling altogether on the issues like ishwara, creation

etc. I feel that bhagavad gita and the bhAshya of AchArya itself can

be seen from different perspectives; which was tried by the later

advaitins. But they were careful enough not to digress from the

conclusions on the pAramArthaic view laid down by the great master

of advaita i.e. shankara.

 

Hope I have answered your question to some extent.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

>

>

> advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns@> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> How then would Gita verse 14:2 be interpreted?

>

> " Those who attain identity with Me by resorting of this Knowledge

> are not born even during creation, nor do they suffer pain during

> dissolution. "

>

> To say creation as anirvachanIya is one thing, But to me shristi-

> drishti vAda seems to be a more realistic approach. Please read the

> following passage which is quoted from Swami Krishnanandaji's

> website:

>

> " The whole text of Panchadasi written by Swami Vidyaranaya follows

> the line of Panchapadika of Padmapada.

> Apart from Gita it is very interesting to see bhagavadpAda's

> commentary on the following brahma sutras:

>

> 33. But (Brahman's creative activity) is mere sport, such as we see

> in ordinary life.

>

> 2.1.33 But (Brahman's creative activity) is mere sport, such as we

 

>

> But the question still remains. From where avidya or to ask in other

> words creation sprang up? Shankara and SureshwarAchArya are silent.

> So was Bhagavan Buddha; Who said that: it is better to get rid of a

> poisonous arrow with which one is struck than to speculate on it as

> to who shot it and the type of poison applied etc.

>

> If one reads the sayings of the lord in the gita one will get a

> different feeling altogether on the issues like ishwara, creation

> etc. I feel that bhagavad gita and the bhAshya of AchArya itself can

> be seen from different perspectives; which was tried by the later

> advaitins. But they were careful enough not to digress from the

> conclusions on the pAramArthaic view laid down by the great master

> of advaita i.e. shankara.

>

> Hope I have answered your question to some extent.

 

 

Namaste Vinayakaji;

 

Many thanks for your detailed response. If I understand your

viewpoint correctly, it would mean that even in the phenomenal

(vyAvahArik) sense 'sarga' and 'pralaya' are individual and not

universal. In the Bhashya on Gita 14:2, Shankara defines sarga as

SRRiShTi- or utpatti- kAle (creation), and pralaya as brahmaNaH

vinAshakAle (dissolution of Brahma). There is then no 'day and night

of Brahma', night being the bija (seed) or avyakta (unmanifest) state

and day day being the vyakta or manifest state.

 

The word 'creation' is of dubious value, as Gita 2:16 and 28

affirm that the 'manifest multiplicity' is only apparent and not the

ultimate Reality.

 

Your previous message carried an implication by your friend

that Gaudapada's Karika and Ajativada were somehow incompatible with

Gita's teachings. I think this is a mistaken notion.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

wrote:

 

Namaste Vinayakaji;

 

Many thanks for your detailed response. If I understand your

viewpoint correctly, it would mean that even in the phenomenal

(vyAvahArik) sense 'sarga' and 'pralaya' are individual and not

universal. In the Bhashya on Gita 14:2, Shankara defines sarga as

SRRiShTi- or utpatti- kAle (creation), and pralaya as brahmaNaH

vinAshakAle (dissolution of Brahma). There is then no 'day and night

of Brahma', night being the bija (seed) or avyakta (unmanifest)

state

and day day being the vyakta or manifest state.

 

Dear Sunder-ji,

 

praNAms,

 

sarga and pralaya should be universal only. What I meant was,

suppose `X' gets liberated in life and after the fall of the body,

there is no rebirth for that particular individual. For the rest of

the bound jivas the creation/dissolution and kalpas continue So

bhagavAn also assures us that the liberated jiva will not be reborn

during the next kalpa nor lies dormant in the avyaka at the time of

pralaya nay there is no world for him. That is why the tralsator

swami makes the comment that:

 

" According to vEdAnta there is no 'absolute and total return' of the

universe to its source in time. Only 'individuals' return at the

completion of their evolution; ie when they attain liberation. "

 

As I am trying to follow shristi-drishti vAda and so I am saying

that the avidya for that `particular individual' has vanished and it

continues for the rest? Or question should be dismissed at once,

since the questioning individual himself vanishes??

 

>>>Your previous message carried an implication by your friend

that Gaudapada's Karika and Ajativada were somehow incompatible with

Gita's teachings. I think this is a mistaken notion.

 

Reply: In my humble understanding at present level, ajAtivada is

upheld in the sense that for an enlightened individual there is no

dream called this world and not even `memory' of this dream (thanks

to nair-ji's lucid explanation which was given sometime back!) And

so for him practically there was no creation at any point of time

nay there is no time for him. Hope I am correct to some extent at

least. :-)

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.