Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c5.s3: Atman and the theory of Emanation

A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c5.s3

Language
English

Atman and the theory of Emanation

c5.s3.1

Taittirīyopanishad we have an emantaory theory of cosmogony where we are told that " from the Ātman, in the first instance, proceeded space, from space air, from air fire, from fire water, and from water the earth " (S. 18). This is a complete enumeration of the five different Elements which are described as having proceeded one after another from the primeval Ātman, who, to all intents and purposes, is described in the passage as not playing any very active part in creation. It is important to remember that the expression that is used in the passage to designate the fact of emanation is Sambhutiḥ. From the Ātman emanated Space, and from Space in the course of progressive generation the rest of the Elements. We are not told that the Ātman " created " Space, and from Space created Air, and so on. It is also important to notice in this passage the ὁδὸς ἄνω and the ὁδὸς κάτω. At the time of the origin of the universe, from the Ātman proceeded space, and from space air, from air fire, from fire water and from water the earth : this is the Way Down. At the time of destruction, counter-logically, the earth would be resolved in water, water in fire, fire in air, air in space, and space in the eternal Ātman : this is the Way Up. In general, we may say that the passage from the Taittirīyopanishad which we are discussing is very significant for us, first, as enumerating most definitely for the first time in the whole region of Upanishadic literature the five different Elements ; secondly, for having introduced the Heracleitean conception of the Way Up and the Way Down; thirdly, for the theory of emanation as apposed to creation implied in it ; and lastly, for the realistic trend of its argument which has been a standing crux to all absolutistic interpreters of Upanishadic philosophy, who would try to reduce everything except the Ātman to an appearance or illusion.

c5.s3.2

17. The Muṇḍakopanishad offers a connecting link between such an emanatory theory of creation and a theistic theory as in the Śvetaśvatara which we shall presently discuss by suggesting a personal-impersonal theory of the origin of the universe and telling us that “at the beginning of creation, there existed a heavenly Formless Person who was unborn, without a mind, lustrous, and super-immutable. From him were born life, mind, senses, space, air, light, water, and earth, which last is the basis of the universe.....From him also were born gods of various descriptions, angels, men, beasts, and birds. From him were born rice and barley, penance and faith, truth, celibacy, and religious law .....He was likewise the source of all the oceans and mountains, the rivers which run to and fro, the herbs and trees, and the essence which runs through them, by which verily the inner Soul holds them all together” (S. 19). In this way were all earthly and celestial existences, all organic and inorganic nature, all moral and psychological qualities born from the primeval Person, who is yet described as formless and beyond even what we call the immutable. Even this account of the origin of the universe from the primeval Person is not entirely untainted by mythological considerations; but it stands much higher than any of the afore-discussed theories, and approaches the truly theistic theory of creation which accounts for the creation of all sorts of existences by the primeval Person. The truly theistic tinge, however, is yet lacking, because the passage from the Muṇḍakopanishad which we are discussing describes the Person as impersonal and speaks of emanation (Syandante) or generation (Jāyate) instead of creation proper.

c5.s3.3

18. This entirely personal setting for the supreme Godhead is to be found in the Śvetāśvataropanishad. It is true that the Śvetāśvataropanishad was written in the interest of a Śaivite theory of theism; but if we just divest our minds of this sectarian aspect and equate the god Śiva of the Śvetāśvataropanishad with the supreme Godhead, which has, in fact, been done in many places by the Śvetāśvataropanishad itself, we may see how the Śvetāśvataropanishad tries philosophically to account for the creation of the world by the Godhead by the method of construction through criticism of the various extant opinions on the subject of the origin of the world. The passage from the Śvetāśvataropanishad I. 2 makes a classical enumeration of the various opinions held at the time of the Upanishad on the subject of the origin of the world. "Some people say", says the Upanishad, "that it is Time, others Nature, others Necessity, others Chance, others the Elements, others yet the Person, still others the Combination of these, and yet a few others the Ātman, which is the cause of all things whatsoever" (S. 20. a). The Śvetāśvataropanishad in the course of its chapters criticises all these theories and puts forth a constructive programme of Śaivite theism in explanation of the origin of the universe. We cannot say, says the Śvetāśvataropanishad, that Time is the origin of all things, for, is not God, it asks, the very Time of Time, or as another Upanishad puts it, Death to the very God of Death? (S. 20. b). We cannot try to explain the origin of the world from Nature, says the Śvetāśvataropanishad; for is not Nature itself brought to maturity by the presence of God inside it? (S. 20. c). Nor can we say that Necessity and Chance are the origin of things: they are either too fatalistic or too unphilosophical ways for the explanation of creation. The Ele-

Linked texts (3)