We human beings get bored sometimes. And we end up doing all kinds of silly things. But does God also get bored sometimes? Does he also do silly things?
We were discussing the debate that was going on between the Samkhya philosophers and their rival group which I refer to as Brahma Supporters. Both these rivals claimed that they revere the Upanishads as the basis of whatever they say. But their views are diametrically opposite! One says that the concept of God is irrelevant and the other says that God is everything!
Each has a theory of how the world came into existence. We saw the Samkhya version of the story in the previous episode. Let us now hear what Brahma supporters have to say in reply.
Brahma Supporters:
“Let us educate you now on what exactly the Upanishads have said about creation. We will also make it very clear how you have misunderstood and may be misinterpreted the Upanishads. Now listen.
In the beginning there was Brahma or God and nothing else. There was no world, no souls, no nothing. He was all alone. And this God thought “Let me be many!”. So, he created 3 basic elements. He wanted to ‘be’ many more. So, each of these basic elements combined with each other to produce infinitely many things. That is how the material world came into existence.
But this material world was insentient. It could not feel, it could not experience, it did not have a free will. God wanted these things to be sentient. So, he reproduced himself as many souls or Jivatmas and entered these inert things which we call as bodies. These souls are sentient. So, what resulted is a world full of infinitely many inert things, some of which are livened up by the sentient souls.
Though each of these sentient souls were also the forms of the God itself, they were limited by the bodies they have taken. Their knowledge, intelligence, capabilities, and happiness were limited, unlike the God who is boundless, not limited in any way, who is the embodiment of infinite existence, intelligence, and happiness – Sacchidananda.
Being totally free of any adjuncts, the God remained separate from whatever was created. He could do so because he was beyond space and time, unlike the created things which are bound by space and time. Ultimately, we have three classes of things – material entities that are insentient, embodied souls that are sentient but limited by their bodies, and finally the totally free, all capable, all knowing, all blissful Brahma.”
Samkhya opponent:
“What you are explaining is actually the description given in the Chandogya Upanishad, except that you have changed the names here and there. What you call as Brahma is nothing but what we call as Pradhana. What you refer to as three basic elements is same as Satva, Rajas, and tamas, and what you call as Jivatma is the soul we are talking about. So, why do you say we are wrong?”
Brahma supporters:
“You probably did not get what we said earlier. Your Pradhana is insentient and our Brahma is not. How can they be same? Your souls are separate entities, separate from the Pradhana, but our jivatmas are nothing but forms of the same Brahma. They are not something different. So, either you have not understood the Upanishads properly or you are merely misinterpreting them. There is no way you can exclude God if you accept the true interpretation of the Upanishads.”
Samkhya opponent:
“That sounds ridiculous. If everything is God or Brahma as you claim, why is it that material things insentient, why are your Jivatma limited in their capabilities? They too should have been like God – all capable, all knowing, all powerful?”Brahma supporters:
“Have you ever visited a beach? Have you seen the waves? What are those waves? Are they something different from the sea? No, they are not. The same sea takes the form of waves. These waves rise, roar, and finally fall and disappear after sometime. Does that affect the sea? Does it make the waves different from the sea? Or are the waves as powerful and eternal as the sea? No. That is because the waves are transient forms of the sea with some capabilities and limited life time. But in essence, they are all nothing but the sea itself.
Let me give you another example. You grow hair on your body. If you cut the hair, does it hurt you? No. Because the hair is not live. But the same hair grew out from your body which is live. Actually, the hair is some part of your body itself in a different form and with a different property. But still it IS insentient. That does not contradict anything. Does it?
Let me quote an analogy from one of the Upanishads. The Mundaka Upanishad explains this beautifully. It says
“The way a spider weaves its web, the way various trees grow on earth, the way we grow our hair, the Brahma created this world.
YathorNanaabhih srjatE grhNatE ca
Yathaa prthvaam OShadayah sambhavanti
Yathaa sathh purushaat kEshalOmaani
Tathaa sambhavateeha vishvam”
– Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.7
The spider is sentient but its web is not. It creates the web by taking out a juice from its own body. It does not bring the juice from somewhere else. The juice is part of its own body, so to speak. But still it is insentient. The spider also does not use any external tools to weave the web. It uses its own body to do that. It uses its legs. So, the spider brings out a web from within itself. The rest of the verse elucidates this idea further.
Now don’t argue that even Pradhana could have done that. No. A non-sentient thing can come out of a sentient thing, but not the other way. No matter how many inert things you put together, you cannot create a sentient thing out of it. Such a thing is never seen.”
The Brahma supporters somehow managed to silence the Samkhya opponent at the moment. But question still remains. Why did this Brahma create this world at all? Was he too bored being all alone 😊? Why did he have to get into ‘create mode’?
Some philosophers try to explain this out by saying that it was all a playful act or Lila of God. He was just being a bit playful and wanted to make something. But as Buddha once said, such a God should have been very cruel to create a world which is full of misery. And calling it a mere play is nothing short of sadism.
The people like Sankara also have tough time answering this question. Sankara wriggles out of the question by saying that no such creation ever took place in reality! Afterall, this world according to Sankara is just an illusion or Maya. In that case, why do the Upanishads keep narrating such stories? Were they all joking?
Sankara’s cryptic reply was that such stories are not meant to explain the process of creation, but as a symbolic way of saying that whatever we see as world around is nothing but the God himself. That raises a lot of questions though.
I try to rationalize this tricky question in my own way. I say that the question itself is invalid. You can ask the ‘why questions’ only within the domain of causality. Within the causality domain, every effect got to have a cause. And so, asking ‘why’ is valid. But God being outside this domain, is not bound by causality. So, the question itself does not apply. Probably, I need to explain that further. May be that calls for another series of talks 😉
But let us continue with our wrestling match between opponents and the Brahma supporters. Join me in the next episode.
A series on ancient Indian composition Brahma Sutra. © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2020-21
No comments:
Post a Comment