[Advaita-l] Real import of creation-sentences

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

Upanishads propound Brahman as the cause of world and elaborately describe
creation of world from Brahman. They describe the sequence of creation of
world from Brahman in TaittirIya 2.1.1.

BhAshyakAra would insist that this sequence is inviolable and would hence
reconcile the passages of TaittirIya and ChhAndogya. (एवमीक्षित्वा तत् तेजः
असृजत तेजः सृष्टवत् । ननु ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः’ (तै. उ. २
। १ । १) इति श्रुत्यन्तरे आकाशाद्वायुः ततस्तृतीयं तेजः श्रुतम् , इह कथं
प्राथम्येन तस्मादेव तेजः सृज्यते तत एव च आकाशमिति विरुद्धम् ? नैष दोषः,
आकाशवायुसर्गानन्तरं तत्सत् तेजोऽसृजतेति कल्पनोपपत्तेः । (Chh. U. 6.2.3))

This *prima facie *implies that srishTi-vAkya (creation-sentences) are
pramANa. Therefore, Brahman must be *with *world. And hence, the existence
of world should not be negated and Brahman should not be advitIya.

BhAshyakAra is therefore quick to respond - अथवा अविवक्षितः इह सृष्टिक्रमः
; सत्कार्यमिदं सर्वम् , अतः सदेकमेवाद्वितीयमित्येतद्विवक्षितम् ,
मृदादिदृष्टान्तात् । That the sequence of creation is not the intention,
rather to establish the advitIyatva of Brahman is the import.

The same concept is elucidated in VedAnta ParibhAshA.

It explains that creation-sentences do not have their import in propounding
srishTi. Rather, they propound advitIya Brahamn.

Question: How exactly do creation-sentences establish advitIya-Brahman?

Answer: When it is said - there is no rUpa in vAyu, it does not *ipso facto*
imply that rUpa does not exist elsewhere. Despite the absence of rUpa in
vAyu, it may pretty well be present elsewhere, say in fire, water, earth
etc.

Similarly, when it is said -- नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन -- it negates the
existence of world in Brahman. However, *ipso facto*, this sentence does
not prohibit the existence of world anywhere else, just as in the example
of rUpa-vAyu. And hence advitIyatva of Brahman is not established.

However, when creation-sentences are propounded, which establish Brahman as
the upAdAna kAraNa, it implies that the effect-world cannot exist anywhere
else without its material cause, Brahman. And then, Shruti through नेति
नेति, नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन etc speaks of non-existence of world in Brahman
also.

Thus, what results is the tuchchhatva of world and advitIyatva of Brahman
is established faultlessly. Because world cannot exist apart from its
material cause, Brahman --- and in the very same Brahman, it is
non-existent. Thus, world is utterly non-existent.

Thus, creation-sentences have their import in advitIya-Brahman through
paramparA.

ननु वेदान्तैर्ब्रह्मणि जगत्कारणत्वेन प्रतिपाद्यमाने सति सप्रपञ्चं स्यात् ,
अन्यथा सृष्टिवाक्यानामप्रामाण्यापत्तिरिति चेत् न । न हि सृष्टिवाक्यानां
सृष्टौ तात्पर्यम् । किन्तु अद्वये ब्रह्मण्येव । तत्प्रतिपत्तौ कथं
सृष्टेरुपयोगः ? इत्थम् - यदि सृष्टिमनुपन्यस्य प्रपञ्चस्य निषेधो ब्रह्मणि
प्रतिपाद्येत, तदा ब्रह्मणि प्रतिषिद्धस्य प्रपञ्चस्य वायौ प्रतिषिद्धस्य
रूपस्येव ब्रह्मणोऽन्यत्रावस्थानशङ्कायां न निर्विचिकित्समद्वितीयत्वं
प्रतिपादितं स्यात् । ततः सृष्टिवाक्याद्ब्रह्मोपादेयत्वज्ञाने सति, उपादानं
विना कार्यस्यान्यत्र सद्भावशङ्कायां निरस्तायां, " नेति नेति"(बृ.उ. २.३.६.)
इत्यादिना ब्रह्मण्यपि तस्यासत्त्वोपपादनेन प्रपञ्चस्य तुच्छत्वावगमे,
निरस्तनिखिलद्वैतविभ्रममखण्डं सच्चिदानन्दैकरसं ब्रह्म सिद्ध्यतीति परम्परया
सृष्टिवाक्यानामपि अद्वितीये ब्रह्मण्येव तात्पर्यम् । [

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.