मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा ।
उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः कथंचन ॥ १५ ॥
mṛllohavisphuliṅgādyaiḥ sṛṣṭiryā coditānyathā |
upāyaḥ so'vatārāya nāsti bhedaḥ kathaṃcana || 15 ||
How can there be no duality when all Upanishads uniformly teach the creation of duality. Srishti prakaranam alone is elaborate.
Pancabhuta srishti with individual and collective creation panchikaranam etc. Not only of jagat but also of jivas. Upanishads take various examples also to show how particular it is in talking about srishti. Yathornanabhis+ In Chandogya Upanishad which Acharya is referring to here, the examples of mud or clay etc. From one lump of mud varieties of earthern wares are created. Again from one loha or iron, varieties of things are produced like nail-cutter. Just as from one huge fire sparks are produced.
In Mundaka also it comes. From one karana aneka karya utpattih. When Sruti seems to take this much interest in creation how can we very easily and effortlessly dismiss the creation Upanishad does not casually talk. If you have to call it gaunam if it is gaunam it must be casual.
Acharya answers here. It is true. Srishti is talked about vary carefully. Accepted. Srishtih ya codita. Creation has been taught. Anyatha - in many ways in different different Upanishads. In Taittrya Upanishad panca bhuta srishti and in Chandogya Upanishad three bhuta srishti was talked. There is pancikaranam and trivrit karanam. Anyatha is meant for telling this. The examples also are various.
All these have been elaborately taught, no doubt. Upayah + The right way of looking we have to learn from this. After all that srishti, what is the conclusion of sruti. We have to look into. We should not blindly analyse and stop. After srishti, the conclusion is different.
Atha samudra + From that mountains, oceans are all come etc in 8 verses. The final verse is purusha eva idam sarvam. You think that all these came. Upanishad says it is not so. Purusha alone is all these.
All these are only different names but the substance is purusha eva.
That mantra alone they will not read. Second chapter first section of Mundaka. 9 slokas talk of srishti. So srishti is more important. The conclusion is since karyam does not exist separately from the karanam, karyam is as good as non existent. Karyam is said as vacarambahnam + It is mere vikarah. The definition of karyam is this. A creation is nothing but a new name. It is just initiated by your tongue. There is no substance called karyam. Purusha means Brahman. Brahman was, is and will be. Srishti is merely in name. In the next section also Upanishad does the same thing. Knowing that it is not easy to understand, After elaborate srishti, At the end it says Brahma eva purastat and so on.
Srishti is to show that jagat is karyam and Brahman is karanam. The advantage in this is that the next step can be easily understood as there is no karyam other than karanam. I introduce srishti not to accept world but to negate the world. Sah upayah. It is only a method of teaching. For what? Avataaraya. For the sake of clear understanding of student. Avatara is lit coming down. It should sink into or penetrate into brain. Karyakarana sambandha is to negate prapanca. It is a trick of teaching.
Nasti bhedah + The fact is there is no bheda. It is like differences in river, tank, well etc. All of them are water. We attribute many names for convenience. We ourselves then get trapped. We do need names for transaction. But they are only names. Many names does not mean many padarthas. Many padams does not mean many padartha. Padarthah ekam eva advitiyam Brahman.
Is it not your interpretation? Dvaitin will say so. Sruti does not say it is not real. For that we say that if the sruti really means that plurality has come out of it, it must then be a fact. If it is a fact, really come out, who ever sees plurality will have right vision or wrong vision? Sruti must praise it by saying whoever has dvaita darsanam has right knowledge. But it says mrtyoh + He will travel from death to death. Whoever has abheda drishti has satvik knowledge and bheda darsanam is rajasic knowledge in 18th ch. Kaivalya is still more explicit. Na ca bhumirapah n ca vahnihasti+ Dvaitin says for this that sruti wants to say that when pralayam comes there will only be isvarah.
At that time isvarah alone will be there. These bhutas will not be there. Sruti does not say it is not there now. But in pralayam it is not there. For that we say if sruti wants to say that now there is dvaitam and during pralayam dvaitam will not be there, sruti should use which tense? It should use future tense. But it says there is no bhutas now. Na asti iti it says. Not na bhavi.
No comments:
Post a Comment