|
Part XXXXIV -
Questions on ‘Creation as Transformation’
Question: If Brahman is undifferentiated
pure consciousness, how can one undifferentiable entity
become many differentiable entities? In the creation
of ring, bangle etc, there is an intelligent cause – the
gold smith. And there is an instrumental cause – the
tools which enable him to make the beautiful ring, bangle,
necklace, etc; i.e. varieties of forms. Similarly, in
the creation of the universe of names and forms, there
must be both material cause and instrumental cause.
If these causes are separate from Brahman, then Brahman
is not one without a second. If they are the same as
Brahman then Brahman must have internal parts – material,
instruments and intelligent causes. Either way ,the
fundamental postulate that Brahman has no internal divisions
is violated.
Answer: Not so. Brahman is one without a second;
all causes rest in Brahman. Brahman is pure consciousness,
there is nothing other than pure consciousness. Since there
seems to be a creation, advaita considers that it is an apparent creation
or ‘transformation less transformation’ or vivarta.
The intelligent, the material and the instrumental causes are
also apparent for the apparent creation. From the point of
view of Brahman, there is really no creation at all, and one
cannot count apparent entities as parts of Brahman since they
are not real. Ontologically they do not have the same degree
of reality. Ring, bangle, etc are different from each other
but from the gold standpoint there is no difference. They are ‘ringly
gold’ and ‘bangly gold’ etc. Hence, ontologically,
gold has a different degree of existence in relation to ring,
bangle, bracelet, etc. Ring, bangle, bracelet, etc are not parts of
gold; they are gold that appears to have different forms. In
the same way, all objects in the universe exist in different
apparent forms with different names. But, from the point of
view of existence itself, it remains as indivisible and undifferentiable
and thus part-less in spite of the differentiable attributive
universe.
Question: Even so, the attributes of a ring
are different from those of a bangle, etc. Since it is an intelligent
and ordered creation, there have to be causes for these attributive
differences in order for the objects to be created, even if
they are apparent. Thus, even if there are no specific objects
other than ‘ringly gold’, ‘bracelety gold’,
etc, they are attributive and have sajAti, vijAti and svagata
bheda-s [similar, dissimilar and unique attributes]. A ring
is different from a bangle and one ring differs from another.
Even within the ring itself, the inside is different from outside.
Similarly, each individual is different from another and they
are not randomly created. There must be some cause for this
order. If that cause is different from Brahman, we have duality
and, if that cause is the same as Brahman, then we have internal
differences in Brahman. Since the cause for each product is
different, the attributes are different.
Answer: Yes, there are causes for the attributive
differences in the products. In the vivarta transformation,
these causes are also of the same degree of reality as the
products. The source for all these causes, according to advaita
vedAnta, is called mAyA. mAyA is defined as yA mA sA mAyA – that
which appears to be there but is not. Creation is not random.
The attributive differences in the products of creation come
from karma, the subtle impressions or saMskAra carried over
from the previous creation. (In the case of the jIva, these
are also called vAsanA-s.) The cause for the previous creation
again comes from the creation prior to that one. Thus, there
is no beginning or end for this cycle of creation, sustenance
and annihilation. Hence, Krishna declares that there is no
reason for one to cry that someone is going to die, since there
was never a time that the jIva-s were not there (na tvevAham
jAtu nAsam …).
Objections
1. There is no proof for introducing mAyA to explain
the creation.
2. Scripture says that Brahman is:
a) that ‘from which all beings are born, by which they
are sustained and into which they go back’ – yatova
imAni bhUtAni jAyante (Tait. Up.)
b) the source for all beings – yat bhUta yonim paripasyanti
dhIrAH (Mun. Up.)
c) that from which comes the birth of the universe – janmAdyasya
yataH (Br. Su.I.i.2).
Finally, the whole doctrine is self-contradictory. Brahman
is infinite and part-less and at the same time there is a mAyA
that is the cause for creation. mAyA cannot be separate from
Brahman since it violates the infiniteness of Brahman. Yet
he cannot be the same as Brahman. mAyA has to be inert as it
is different from Brahman and Brahman is defined as a ‘homogeneous
mass of consciousness’ (Ma. Up.). mAyA cannot be a conscious
entity, since we would then end up with two entities which
are conscious. Brahman cannot even create using mAyA, since
he would then be become a kartA (‘doer’). The homogeneous,
all pervading consciousness cannot have mAyA, an inert entity,
either as a separate or as an integral part. The whole philosophy
seems to be based on a shaky foundation.
Answer: Several objections have been bundled
together in the above. First, there are scriptural reference
to mAyA – mAyantu prakRitim vidyAt (Sv. Up.) and mayA
adhyaksheNa prakRitiH sUyate carAcaram (B.G.) – ‘Know
that mAyA is prakRRiti’ and ‘prakRRiti creates
the whole universe of movable and immovable under my president-ship’.
Hence, mAyA is not an advaitic interpretation. Brahman is
consciousness and infinite. Existence-consciousness logically
has to be infinite, too. The ‘infinite’ cannot
create, since creation is an action and therefore would involves
a modification. Yet there seems to be creation.
Scripture also says that, knowing Brahman, one knows everything.
This can be true only if everything is nothing but Brahman.
And that Brahman you are – tat tvam asi. Since you
are a conscious-existent entity, being svarUpa lakshaNam,
by definition you are Brahman; aham brahmAsmi is the absolute
truth that the scriptures declare.
Hence, creation has to be looked at from two different
perspectives. From the absolute point of view, Brahman
alone is, as pure homogeneous consciousness without
any attributes whatsoever, since only finite objects
can have attributes that differentiate them from other
finite objects. mAyA can only be of the nature of mAyA,
i.e. it is only an apparent factor that is the cause
for the creation. The wielder of mAyA is Ishvara, as
Krishna declares following the Upanishadic statement ‘ mAyinantu
maheswaram’ (Sv. Up.). Thus Ishvara, a conscious
entity using mAyA as his shakti or power, creates the
world of plurality using the karma from the previous
lives of the jIva-s as the basis for creation. Since
it is born of mAyA shakti, the product is also of the
nature of mAyA; i.e. one cannot say that it is real
or unreal, just as with the ring and bangle that are
created out of gold. Is the ring real? No, it is actually
gold. The ring
can undergo destructive transformation in becoming a bangle
but the gold does not change in this transformation. From the
gold’s perspective, the transformation is vivarta. From
the ring’s perspective, which is of a lower order of
reality, the transformation into bangle is pariNAma. Hence,
we have the scriptural statement: “let me become many
(bahushyAm) and He became many (prajAyeya), where the prefix
pra-, as VidyAranya says, implies a peculiar transformation
involving mAyA, and keeping Brahman intact or untouched during
the transformation. Also, “sarvaM khalvidam brahma – all
this (that we see) is nothing but Brahman” and “nehanAnAsti
ki~nchana – there is nothing other than Brahman. Hence,
the creation has to be vivarta from Brahman’s point of
view, preserving the absolute reality, even though it can be
considered to be real at the transactional level. Thus, analysis
of the scriptural statements shows that they are self-consistent
and indicates the absolute nature of the reality in spite of
apparent plurality. Hence, the truth is advaitam.
Proceed to the next
essay.
|
