[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Any Reference to Creation of World by Mukund Narsimhan
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Any Reference to Creation of World by Mukund Narsimhan
-
From: drai@ix.netcom.com (DHARMBIR RAI)
-
Date: 19 Mar 1995 20:59:23 GMT
-
From netnews@ix.netcom.com Sun Mar 19 15: 49:55 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Netcom
Mr Narsmhan and all interested:
The subject matter may be of some general interest and therefore I am
posting it instead of replying individually.
The origin of cosmos has been discussed in several places in Vedas and
Upnishads. The first reference is in Rigved in Hiranyagarbh Sukta:
Hiranyagarbhah samavartatagre bhutasya jatah patirek aaseet ---
(10-121-1) - the golden egg first came into existence and from this the
universe was created. Then we find the reference in Nasadiya Sukta
(10-129-1). The subject is also discussed in different Upnishads,
briefly in some and in detail in others (Aitareya 1.1; Brihadaranyak
1.4.3, 4.3; Chhandogya 3.19, 6.2-6). In Bhagavad Gita it is referred to
in various places (7.4-7, 13.5, 15.3) where an attempt has been made to
reconcile the two different views of Samkhya and Vedant philosophies.
According to Samkhya the universe was created through interaction
between 'prakriti' and 'Purush' and both are independent entities.
According to Vedant 'prakriti' is not independent of 'Purush'(Brahman)
but arises from Him. One of the important contributions of Vyas was to
assimilate parts of Samkhya and Yoga philosophies in Vedant.
The next part of the response is subjective. These are my views with no
substantiation from authoritative sources. Bertrand Russel as an
atheist questioned the existence of God or divine will and there are
many things in his writings that I admire. In this particulaar case,
however, the premise of his question is the prevalent but erroneous
notion that death is bad. How do we know that? No one has ever come
back to say "I am dead" and to relate his or her experience. If one
takes the view that the goal of life is to obtain release from 'samsar'
cycle, then death is not bad. There is a verse in Kalidas'
Raghuvansham: "Maranam prakritih sharirinam vikritih jivitam-uchyate
budhaih .. (8.87) - the learned say that death is the normal state for
living beings on which life is but a brief perturbation". There is
ample suppport for this idea even among western thinkers. To quote Carl
Jung: "Life is an energy process. Like every energy process it is, in
principle, irreversible and is therefore unequivocally directed towards
its goal. That goal is a state of rest. In the long run everything
that happens is, as it were, nothing more than the initial perturbation
of a perpetual state of rest which forever attempts to reestablish
itself." The same idea is expressed in Gita (2.28) and again later in
Mahabharat: "Adarshanad apatitah punah-cha-adarshanam gatah, na te tava
na tesham tvam tatra ka paridevana (Stri Parva 2.13) - they emerged from
the invisible and again returned to the invisible. They were not yours
and you were not theirs. Why this lamentation?"
Once we get rid of the notion that death is bad we can look at the
'karma phal' theory. The fruits of action are carried by the soul as
'sanchit (accumulated) karma'. A child has not had the opportunity to
add or detract. But what happens to a child is also related to the
'karma' of the parents. Once a person is born he (or she) loses his
absolute individualism which he regains only in death. The death of
child is not necessarily a consequence of his actions and may not be bad
in itself. Early in Mahabharat the eight 'vasus' were cursed by Vashist
to be born as men. They pleaded with the sage for forgiveness and he
softened a bit sending them to plead with Ganga to become their mother
who could release them from the curse by throwing them into the Ganges
immediately after birth, except for the eldest 'vasu' who would have to
spend full life on earth. The eldest was born last. Shantanu refused
to let Ganga throw him into the river and he lived a full life as
Bhisma.
As to Dr Radhakrishnan's statement I have not read this particular work
but I would imagine that later on in his commentary he has dealt with
the subject in detail. He was known for his terse and precise
statements. What he is saying here is that 'karma' of the man (his
"fall") can not account for imperfections of nature (natural disasters,
epidemics). What Gita discusses is mainly the 'karma' of the individual
and consequences thereof. But the individual is a part of the soceity
which is a part of the nation and so on untill we get to the universe.
So there must be some collective aspect of 'karma' as well that leads to
"the disharmony between the creative purpose of God and the actual
world". When the resulting "imbalance between chaos and order" tends to
get out of control then divine intervention occurs (Gita 4.7-8). The
pain and imperfection are inherent in the creation because of the three
'gunas' - satva, rajas and tamas.
