Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c10.s1.t1: 1. Introduction to the Cosmology

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c10.s1.t1

Language
English

1. Introduction to the Cosmology

c10.s1.t1.1

THE sûtras of Bâdarâyaṇa define Brahman as that *janma-âdi asya yata' iti*, " whence is the origin, etc. (*i.e.* the origin continuance and end) of this (universe)." This definition goes back in the first instance to Taitt. 3. 1:—" That in truth out of which these creatures arise, whereby they having arisen live, and into which they at death return again, that seek thou to know, that is Brahman." It is to be noted however that in this passage of the Upanishad there is no mention as in the sûtra of an origin continuance and end of the universe as a whole, but only of the individual beings. The case would be different with a still older passage, Chând. 3. 14. 1, if we could follow S'ankara :—" Assuredly this universe is Brahman; it should be worshipped in silence as *Tajjalân*." The word *Tajjalân* is a mysterious name of the universe as identified with Brahman that occurs only here, and it is explained as follows by S'ankara on Chând. 3. 14. 1:—" From this (*tad*) Brahman by development into fire, water, earth, etc. the universe has arisen (*jan*); therefore it is called *taj-ja*. So on the reverse path to that by which it has arisen it disappears (*lî*) into the very same Brahman, *i.e.* it is absorbed into his essence; therefore is it called *tal-la*. And in the same way finally it is Brahman in whom the universe at the time of its origin breathes (*an*), lives and moves; therefore is it called *tad-anam*. Therefore in the three periods (past, present and future) it is not distinct from the essential Brahman, since there is nothing which lies outside of and beyond these.”¹ When Böhtlingk² declares this explanation of S'ankara to be ungrammatical, on the ground that *upâsîta* must have an object, and accordingly proposes to find the secret name in *jalân* alone, he is met by the entirely analogous case of Kena 31, *tadd ha tad-vanam nâma, tad-vanam ity upâsîta-vyam*; in other respects no alteration would be introduced. According to S'ankara’s view therefore we should have before us already in the name *tajjalân* (= *tad-ja-la-an*) a summarising of the three attributes of Brahman as creator preserver and destroyer of the universe. Whether this is correct, whether in so ancient an Upanishad it is possible to assume already the doctrine of the destruction of the universe, and whether we ought not rather here also to think of a simple destruction of individual beings, will later on become a subject of investigation. Meanwhile we propose to arrange our presentation of the cosmology according to these three attributes of Brahman, and accordingly to treat in order of Brahman as creator preserver and destroyer of the universe. When moreover S'ankara asserts in the passage quoted, and in many others, that the whole doctrine of the creation is not to be understood in a literal sense, but should be employed merely to teach the essential identity of the universe and Brahman, this also needs a fuller investigation and discussion of the question how far a creation of the universe is possible from the standpoint of the âtman doctrine.

c10.s1.t1.2

¹ cp. the consistent explanation which S'ankara gives on Brahmasûtra 1. 2. 1, for which see p. 87 of my translation.

c10.s1.t1.3

² *Berichte der Sächs. Ges. d. W.*, 1896, p. 159 f.; 1897, p. 83.

c10.s1.t1.4

2. The Creation of the Universe and the Doctrine of the Âtman

c10.s1.t1.5

We have above in the first part of our work learnt to recognise a series of descriptions of the creation of the universe from the Hymns and Brâhmaṇas, and to point out as a feature common to many of them that (1) the original principle, (2) creates matter out of itself, and then (3) as first-born enters it. We propose in the first place briefly to survey here the chief passages that set forth this doctrine.

c10.s1.t1.6

Rigv. X. 129:—In the beginning there is only ‘that one’ (*tad ekam*). It exists as a dark undulation, shut in by a shell (*apraketam salilam*), out of which by tapas that one was first born as *Kâma* or *Manas* (that is to say, according to the conception of vers. 4).

c10.s1.t1.7

Rigv. X. 121:—Prajâpati begets the primeval waters, and issues forth from them as golden germ (*hiraṇyagarbha*).

c10.s1.t1.8

Rigv. X. 81, 82:—Vis’vakarman fashions the worlds sunk in the primeval slime, *i.e.* in the primeval waters, and then issues forth from these waters as the primeval germ that conceals all the gods.

c10.s1.t1.9

Rigv. X. 72:—Brâhmaṇaspati fashions the *aditi* (*salilam, uttânapad, sad*), and himself issues forth from it as Daksha.

c10.s1.t1.10

Rigv. X. 125:—It is Vâc’ that at the beginning actuated the father of the universe, and then was again born in the waters of the sea, in order to distribute herself over living beings.

c10.s1.t1.11

Rigv. X. 90:—From Purusha (as *Âdipurusha*, Sây.) is born Virâj, and from the latter again Purusha (as *Nârâyaṇa*, the “son of Purusha,” or “son of the waters,” *i.e. Hiraṇyagarbha*).

c10.s1.t1.12

S'atap. Br. 6. 1. 1 :—Purusha Prajâpati creates the waters, enters into them as an egg in order to be born from them, and issues forth from them as Brahman.

c10.s1.t1.13

Atharvav. 11. 4 :—Prâṇa begets the universe, and issues forth from it as first-born (as apâm garbha, v. 26).

c10.s1.t1.14

Atharvav. 10. 7. 8 :—Skambha, in whom Prajâpati sustained and nourished the whole universe, entered into the universe with a part of himself.

c10.s1.t1.15

Taitt. Âr. 1. 23 :—Prajâpati, building up the worlds, entered as first-born of the creation with his own self into his own self.

c10.s1.t1.16

Vâj. Samh. 34. 1-6 :—The mind (manas) includes all things in itself, and dwells in men as immortal light.

c10.s1.t1.17

The motive of the conception that dominates all these passages may be described to be the recognition of the first principle of the universe as embodied in nature as a whole, but especially and most of all in the soul (the universal and the individual soul). Hence the idea arose that the primeval being created the universe, and then as the first born of the creation entered into it. This traditional view we shall find appearing frequently even in the Upanishads.

c10.s1.t1.18

In what way however is this possible, since the entire doctrine of the creation of the universe and of the entrance of the creator into the universe that he has created is in contradiction to the âtman doctrine of the Upanishads, strictly interpreted?

c10.s1.t1.19

The assertion is frequently made by the Upanishads, as we saw,—and this is involved in the very conception of the âtman,—that the âtman is the sole reality, that there can be nothing beside it, and therefore with the knowledge of the âtman all is known. From this point of view no creation of the universe by the âtman can be taught, for there is no universe outside of the âtman. But the loftiness of this metaphysical conception forbade its maintenance in the presence of the empirical consciousness which teaches the existence of a real universe. It was necessary to concede the reality of the universe, and to reconcile with this the idealistic dogma of the sole reality of the âtman by asserting that the universe exists, but is in truth nothing but the âtman. Even from this standpoint, which declares the identity of the âtman and the universe, no doctrine of the creation of the universe was possible. It was only by making a further concession to the empirical consciousness, and maintaining no more than an actual identity of the âtman and the universe, never carried out in detail, but framed on a causal relation between the âtman as first cause and the universe as its effect,—it was only then possible and necessary to formulate a theory to explain how the universe as effect had proceeded from or been created by the âtman. This step involved a further inevitable consequence. According to the creation doctrine the universe had come forth from the âtman as another distinct from it. It was necessary to secure its return into the âtman if the original fundamental doctrine of the sole reality of the âtman were not to be absolutely rejected. This motive gave rise to the doctrine that the âtman as soul (universal and individual soul) had entered into the universe that it had created, as we find the doctrine set forth in the Upanishads. It was then possible for the authors of the Upanishads side by side with their fundamental idealistic view to maintain in a modified and more developed form the traditional doctrine of the Rigveda, according to which the first principle creates the material universe and then as first-born enters into it. When therefore the professors of the Vedânta, Bâdarâyaṇa,¹

c10.s1.t1.20

¹ Sûtra 2. 1. 14.

c10.s1.t1.21

Gauḍapâda,¹ and S'ankara,² maintain that the sacred writings teach a creation of the universe only by way of concession to man's faculty of understanding, their assertion is not to be entirely rejected. It needs to be modified only in the one point that this is not a conscious but an unconscious concession made to the empirical view that demands a real universe held together by causal connections of space and time ; and with this limitation even the Upanishads, in spite of their âtman doctrine that denies the existence of the universe, teach its creation by the âtman and the latter's entrance into it, as the following passages show :—

c10.s1.t1.22

¹ Mâṇḍûkya-kârikâ 1. 18, 3. 15.

c10.s1.t1.23

² On Brahmasûtra 4. 3. 14, and frequently.

c10.s1.t1.24

Bṛih. 1. 4. 7 :—"The universe before us was once not unfolded ; it was then unfolded in name and form ; . . . that âtman has entered into it up to the finger-tips, as a knife is hidden in a sheath, the all-sustaining (fire) in the fire-preserving (wood)."

c10.s1.t1.25

Chând. 6. 2, 3 :—"Alone existing, my dear sir, was this in the beginning, one only without a second. . . . It proposed :—I will become many, will propagate myself; thereupon it created the heat." From heat water proceeds, from water food (i.e. the earth). "That divinity proposed :—I will now enter into these three divinities (heat water and food) with this living self (the individual soul), and unfold thence name and form."

c10.s1.t1.26

Taitt. 2. 6 :—"He (the âtman) desired :—I will become many, will propagate myself. Accordingly he practised self-mortification. After having practised self-mortification he created the entire universe, whatever exists. After having created it, he entered into it."

c10.s1.t1.27

Ait. 1. 1 :—"In the beginning this universe was the âtman alone; there was nothing else there to strike the eye. He deliberated :—I will create worlds; accordingly he created these worlds, the ocean, atmosphere, death, the waters." Further in 1. 3. 11 :—"He deliberated :—How can this (human frame) exist apart from me? And he deliberated :—In what way shall I enter into it? . . . accordingly he split open the crown of the head, and entered by this door."

c10.s1.t1.28

As far as the relative age of the passages quoted is concerned, the order that I have chosen may be expected to prove the order also of history. Bṛih. 1. 4. 7 is the least developed. Chând. 6. 2, 3 describes the process of creation in detail, but recognises only three elements. Taitt. 2. 1 represents the five elements as proceeding from the âtman. Ait. 3. 3 cites the five elements, and describes them for the first time with the later technical term *pañc'a mahâbhûtâni*; the finished picture moreover in Ait. 1. 3. 11 of the âtman's entering into man by the seam of the skull makes this passage appear as the latest among those quoted.

Linked texts (12)