Analysis of creation theories

The kārikās (6-9) deals with the variety of creation doctrine. These kārikās can be seen as a commentary on mantra 6 of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (eṣa sarveśvaraḥ eṣa sarvajña eṣo’ntaryāmy eṣa yoniḥ sarvasya prabhavāpyayou hi bhūtānām). This Upanisadic mantra refers to sarveśvara or the Lord and identifies Him with Prājña the experiencer in the deep sleep state.^[1] Gauḍapāda states that not realizing the fact that non-origination is the ultimate truth, disputants engage in debating on different theories about the origin of the universe. The disputants while seemingly seeking support of the Śruti texts distort and misinterpret the text to suit their own views. He begins by saying: “that there is an origin for all existing things is very evident” i.e. ‘whatever exists must have a source’.

Gauḍapāda describes nine different theories of creation. They are:

1. prāṇavādins,
2. puruṣavādins,
3. vibhūtivādins,
4. svapnamāyāvādins,
5. icchāvādins,
6. kālavādins,
7. bhogavādins,
8. kridāvādins,
9. svabhāvavādins.

The first theory posited is that of prānavādins; their view is that prāna manifests all inanimate objects (sarve janayati prāṇa). The Puruṣavādins believe that puruṣa creates all sentient beings (jīvas).

According to Gauḍapāda all positive entities ought to have a cause. If universe exists then it too ought to have a creator. Śaṅkara in his commentary on this (I:6) kārikā says: The creation/manifestation of Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña is possible only because they exist as avidyākṛtanāmarūpamāyasvarūpeṇa^[2]. All manifestations are essentially of the nature of error (avidyā) possessing names and forms caused by illusion (māyā). Gauḍapāda discusses this later in kārikā (3:28), that absolute nonentities like the son of a barren woman have no origin, neither in truth nor in appearance. While elaborating on this Śaṅkara highlights the central feature of Advaita Vedānta that every illusory appearance ought to have a substratum. Further, Śaṅkara also maintains that if things came into existence without a substratum, in a vacuity, then one can never infer the existence of Brahman. A creation/origination of absolutely non-existent entities from nothing would leave us with no reason to infer the existing source, the Brahman. The world seen by us supplies us with the hetu/ reason for knowing Brahman. The Absolute non-phenomenal (avyavahārya) Brahman can be inferred only from the phenomenal creation (vyavahāra). It has been seen that the illusory snake too requires an adhiṣṭhānam, the substratum rope for its very ‘existence’. No one experiences/perceives a rope-snake or a mirage without a substratum.

All positive entities before their manifestation certainly have their existence in a cause. In this context it has to be the prāṇa. For this reason, the Śruti also says, “All this (the phenomenal universe) is Brahman” (Muṇḍ U 2.2.11)^[3]; ‘In the beginning, all this was ātman, the Self, alone’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 1.4.1)^[4].

Prāṇa manifests all inanimate things while Puruṣa who is predominantly of the nature of Consciousness, creates jīvas like the rays of Consciousness. This is like the reflections of the sun in the water. The Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña in various physical forms of gods, animals, etc. are manifested as a reflection of Consciousness/ Puruṣa. The living beings are different from inanimate objects, they have the same characteristic of Consciousness/ Cidātmā comparable to the sparks that emanate from fire, which are similar to fire. The inanimate objects are created by the prāṇa, which is called the causal self or the bījātmā. This is how the prāṇavādins contend that the animate (sentient) and inanimate (insentient) world is created. When Brahman appears to manifest the sentient beings, he is called Puruṣa and when he appears to manifest insentient objects he is said to be prāṇa. This creation is of the nature of an illusory appearance and this is due to ignorance, but it does not really exist in its substratum Brahman. The prāṇavādins quote the authority of the Muṇḍaka and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣads which are as follows: ‘As a spider spins out and withdraws its thread, as herbs grow on earth, and hair on head and body of living man, so from the imperishable is born this universe’ (Muṇḍ U 1.1.7)^[5] and ‘As tiny sparks spring forth from fire, so from this ātman spring forth all breaths, all worlds, all gods, all beings’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 2.1.20).^[6]

The objective of the first line of the kārikā 6 is to demonstrate that no causal relation can be predicated to Brahman unless we admit the positive existence of the world.

In kārikā 7, the theologians (Vibhūtivādins) attribute creation to the glory (vibhūti) of God. In other words, the creation of the universe is due to the supernatural power of the Lord. The universe is an indicator of the glory of the creator. Gauḍapāda coins the word sṛṣṭicintakaḥ or the extroverted deliberators on creation for those thinkers who are absorbed in creation doctrines. They take it for granted that there is a creation (sṛṣṭi); they are only concerned about the origin and the process of creation.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā says that the seers of truth (paramārthacintakānāṃ) have no interest (na ṣṛṣtvādarah) in any theory of creation for there is neither a creation nor any process resulting in creation. The Śruti declares that ‘Through māyā, Indra, the Lord, appears manifold’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 2.5.19).^[7] The second line of the kārikā highlights the position of “others” who consider creation as unreal like a dream perception or magic. This is an interesting position wherein one is preoccupied with the magic and not with the magician, the illusion rather than the truth behind it. Śaṅkara elucidates the above point using a brilliant analogy of magician and his extra ordinary feat called the magician’s rope-trick. The magician throws a rope in the sky, climbs up, armed with weapons, reaches a height and disappears from sight. All of a sudden the audience sees him engaged in a severe fight, with his dismembered limbs etc. falling on the ground. The audience also sees him getting up intact from the ground. The onlooker, though witnessing the trick engages in the trick and not on the trickster/magician who was all the while on the ground. It was the magic that appeals to the audience and so the magic of creation appeals to the ṣṛṣticintakāh.

The appearance of Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña can be compared to the magician’s fictitiously climbing up the rope to reach the sky. However, it is just an appearance for the magician has not mounted the rope. The real Self (Turīya) has neither moved nor changed, even as the magician has not left the ground. The Self is unchanging, immutable.^[8] The noble people, those who long for liberation are interested in the contemplation of Turīya alone, but not in the creation which serves no purpose. The second line of the kārikā, ‘still others imagine it is like dream and magic’ (svapnamāyāsvarūpa) clearly brings out Gauḍapāda’s disassociation from this kind of speculation.

There are other doctrines of creation which are described in the following kārikās: According to some, creation happens by the mere will (icchā) of the Lord (lcchāvādins) because they firmly believe in actual creation. As they say that the will of the all powerful Lord can never fail to materialize, i.e. God’s will is always fruitful. The creation cannot be unrelated or external to God’s will.

Some say that creation is brought about by Time (Kālavādins). According to Ānandgiri, the Tikākāra^[9], kālacintakās are the astronomers and astrologers. Bhattacharya says that kālacintakās are astronomers. The Svetāśvatara Upaniṣad (1.2) refers to kāla (kālaḥ svabhāvo niyatir yadṛcchābhūtāni yoniḥ puruṣa iti cintyā). Atharvaveda (XIX, 53, 54) and the Mahabharata (XII. 224,227) also refer to these philosophers. Karmarkar says that it is wrong to call them astronomers.^[10]

Gauḍapāda now shifts his discussion from the cause (cosmological) to the reason (teleological) behind the creation for the sṛṣṭicintakās. According to him some believe that creation is meant for the enjoyment (bhogārtham [bhogārtha]), while others are of the opinion that the creation is just for the sport of the lord (kridārtham [kridārtha]). Others maintain that it is the very nature (devasyaiṣa svabhāva) of the Lord to create, and they argue that it must be so because the Lord can have no unfulfilled desires. Creation happens because of the creative power inherent in God.

Gauḍapāda in one stroke refutes the following four positions in the last part of the kārikā by quoting the Śruti passage “āptakāmasya kāspṛhā”?

1. Creation as the manifestation of divine power,
2. Creation as an illusory manifestation,
3. Creation as proceeding from Time,
4. Creation as proceeding from the divine will.

One could also interpret that all the theories of creation are refuted by asserting, ‘what desire can one have whose desire is ever fulfilled’ (āptakāmasya kāspṛhā)? The exertion made by God in the form of willingness etc. is meaningless because by nature and definition God is ever free from desires. Śaṅkara attributes ignorance (avidyā) as the sole cause for creation. The nature of avidyā is to display things which are not actually existent in that locale. The perception of snake on the rope is a classic example. Why does a rope appear as a snake? There are two reasons given by Gauḍapāda, in later kārikās (13-15): the non apprehension (agrahaṇam [agrahaṇa]) and misapprehension (anyathāgrahaṇam [anyathāgrahaṇa]) of the Reality.

The central doctrine of Gauḍapāda is the ananyatvam of the universe with its source, the Brahman. The perception of the world begins in the universe-free-Brahman like the perception of snake which begins in snake-free rope. Brahman alone exists and one sees the multiplicity that is nonexistent in it. What we call as the universe is nothing but names and forms and they appear and disappear in the non-dual Brahman. That one perceives the world of duality instead of the non-dual Brahman and seeks its origin/source due to ignorance (avidyā).

Some tend to see the statement that “others look upon creation as comparable to a dream or magic” as Gauḍapāda’s own view. Karmarkar^[11] and others however, are of the opinion that Gauḍapāda is here referring to the view of the Mahayana Buddhists, as expressed in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, and he considers all the theories of creation to be those of Gauḍapāda’s opponents.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Prājña has been described as ‘the source of all’ (yoniḥ) and ‘the place of origin and dissolution of all the beings’ (sarvasya prabhavāpyayau hi bhūtānām MāṇḍūkyaUpaniṣad. 6). Here several theories of creation are enumerated and rejected in favour of a non-origination Turīya or Pure Consciousness.

[2]:

Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad, Gita Press, 46.

[3]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, 197.

[4]:

Ibid.

[5]:

Ibid.

[6]:

Ibid.

[7]:

Ibid., 202.

[8]:

Śaṅkara’s commentary on Gauḍapāda Kārikā 1:7.

[9]:

Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad with Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā, Śaṅkara’s Bhāṣya and Ānandagiri’s Tīkā. (Poona: Ānadāśrama Sanskrit Series, No. 10, 1897), 36.

[10]:

Karmarkar, Gauḍapāda Kārikā, 62.

[11]:

Karmarkar, Gauḍapāda Kārikā, 61.