Thursday, November 14, 2013

15.2 Various Opinions On The Origins Of Creation

In connection with the world and its creation, various scholars have presented many and varying opinions.
 
1. One opinion says that the world remains the same at all time, and it does not undergo creation and destruction. From the beginning of time, the world is running as it is now, and will continue to do so in the future. The same earth, the same sun, the same moon, the same men and women, and the same process of their creation. For them, there is no question about the birth etc. of this world. All curiosity is wiped out. Why is there need to investigate when the world always remains the same? This opinion is firmly unacceptable to the Upanishads, since they prompt us to investigate the world's cause.
 
2. One opinion says that there are four aspects to the material cause of the world: earth, water, fire and wind. There is no intelligent cause of this world. There is matter which is inert, but no knowledge. Knowledge arises from matter alone. This is the materialistic or Chaaravaaka school. But this opinion is also not supported by the Upanishads. Brahman cannot be four. All these four causes will be incomplete and disconnected, whereas the brahman of the Upanishads is non-disconnected and complete.
 
3. The Jains also believe that the world always stays as it is. From this, some soul breaks out of the cycle and the world, without beginning and end, continues as it is. Here also, there is no intelligent cause in the form of Ishvara or brahman.
 
4. The Buddhists say that this world is science only (vijnyaana maatra), it did not created not get destroyed. The void (shoonya) alone is real. Here, the material cause of the world is either science or nothing at all.
 
5. Poora Mimaamsaa also says that the world is always as it is. In their opinion, there is no question with regards to when, who, where, how the world was created. They also do not accept any intelligent cause such as Ishvara.
 
6. The Nyaya school and the Vaisheshika school do accept birth but accept it as atom-created. Therefore they are also not in line with Upanishads.
 
7. The Saankhya school accept the transforming Prakriti as the cause of the world, therefore they too are not in line with the Upanishads.
 
8. Islam accepts Ishvara as the creator of the world, but does not accept the dissolution of the world. After the day of final judgement, heaven and hell continue to exist where souls live. Christianity also accepts a similar viewpoint. Therefore, Islam and Christianity also do not follow the Upanishads. Upanishads accept the dissolution of the world.
 
In this manner, in the afore mentioned opinions, there is non-acceptance of either the creation, or of dissolution, sustenance, creation-sustenance-dissolution from Ishvara or brahman. All these do not follow the Upanishadic viewpoint.
 
Now let us look at these from a different angle.
 
Void Philosophers (Shoonya Vaadi) do not accept either the material or the intelligent cause of the world. Substratum-less, observation-less, creation-less, yet experienced, this is the state of the world, is their opinion.
 
Science Philosophers (Vijnyaana Vaadi) say that the fragmented flowing nature of the mind is the cause of the impression flow (sanskaara dhaaraa). There is no intelligent cause or awareness of this world, and there is no aware or inert material cause of this world. Whatever exists is mind-impression-flow. For them, the mind is the material cause.
 
Material Cause Philosophers (Upaadaana Vaadi) are of two types : Internal material cause proponents and external material cause proponents. Chaaravaakaas are external material cause supporters since they accept four external material causes. They are not intelligent cause proponents since they do not believe in Ishvara. The Nyaaya school also falls into external material cause philosophy since they consider the atom as the material cause. Also, they are intelligent cause philosophers since they consider Ishvara to be the intelligent cause of the world. The natural Saankhya school supports internal material cause philosophy, since they Prakriti is in the intellect hence it is internal, and external to the seer. The Poorva Mimaamsaa or the action-impression school is also supporting the internal material cause philosophy since the impression of action stays in the mind. The science school (vijnyaana vaadi) is also internal material cause oriented, since they consider the mind as the material cause. The Ishvara school is also an internal material cause oriented school.
 
In the Vedanta philosophy, if there is any intelligent or material cause of the world, then it is brahman alone, and that too is known in brahman by maayaa alone. So long as we do not recognize brahman, till then, both the intelligent and material causes remain (inferentially). But, when brahman is recognized as non-different from the inner consciousness, there is neither an intelligent cause nor a material cause. Causality itself is negated since there is nothing else but brahman.
 
The world, already created, is visible in front of us. Now, scripture connects it to its origins. That someone created the world (intelligent cause), this opinion is called "aarambha vaada". That the world emerged, this opinion is called "parinaama vaada". It was neither created, nor emerged, and does not exist, there is only brahman, but is visible in the form of the world, this is "vivarta vaada". The Nyaaya and Vaisheshika schools are "aarambha vaada", Saankhya is "Prakriti parinaama vaada", Buddhist school is "mind parinaamaa vaada and shoonya parnaama vaada". The Vishishitaadvaita school is "brahman parinaama vaada". Vedanta is "vivirta vaada".
 
In this manner, there are several philosophical opinions about the creation of the world. But the shruti does not paint itself into a corner. It does not aim to say that the birth etc. of the world "happens" from brahman. All kinds of perceptions are illumined by a self illumined self. They remain in that self and eventually dissolve into that self. That self is brahman.
 
This is what it aims to say : "All these beings are seen to get created, in which they are seen to remain alive, into which they seem to be going, and into which they are seen to eventually dissolve, these perceptions of space, time, object, change in object, creation-sustenance-destruction, by which all these are happening, that is brahman". In this meaning, that inner self which is the witness ("you" aspect indicated meaning), is the same as the defined cause of the world brahman (Ishvara).
 
The world. the space-time-objects of the world, the cause of the world Ishvara, the illuminator soul and their five differences, all these are known. In the language of Vedanta, these differences alone are appearance pervaded (bhaana vyaapya). Wherever here is a difference, there is an appearance. Where there is no appearance, there is no difference. There is no difference without appearance, but there is appearance without difference. There is appearance of absence of difference (bhedaabhaava). This means that difference will happen only when it is known. The knowing of difference alone is difference. But is difference true or false? Then difference is false since it is negated after knowledge of the substratum.
 
It could be accepted that there is existence of objects (padaartha) in deep sleep, but there is no difference in deep sleep. The difference in objects is absolutely mental, only an experience of the intellect, appearance only, visible only. Difference is not a real thing, it is an experience, a thought flow. It is neither aware nor inert. That by which the experience of creation, sustenance, destruction of all worldly objects happens, is brahman. By which is this experienced? By the witness, me. Then who is brahman? You (witness) are brahman (in other words, the purified "I" is brahman.

No comments:

Post a Comment