[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: questions
Nachiketa Tiwari wrote:
>You made two points:
>1. According to Hinduism, the universe is without beginning and also
> without an end.
>2. Since Universe has always been there (acc. to Hinduism), the prob
> lem of singularity is solved/avoided.
>I am no expert in affairs of religion and science. But I will like to
>draw your attention to the follwing:
>a) The Nasadeeya Sookta in RgVeda. It approx. says: In the beginning,
> there was nothing. No akaasha, no antariksha, no time, no primal
> water. Darkness covered darkness. Everything was unknown, and
> undivided....... And how did this universe came into being from that
> state? Perhaps the Lord knows it all. And perhpas even the Lord
> does not know know.
>
>b) It is said that at the end of each era, there is a pralaya.
> Everything dissolves. And then a new universe is born. Totally
> independent of the ones which existed earlier.
>
>I am curious as to what do you think of these ideas in the Indian
>thought, and how do these ideas fit into your passage which I have
>quoted above.
--
This is a very interesting question. I will try to answer to the best
of my ability. I will argue that the two points I made and the verses you
quote are consistent with each other.
Firstly let me explain the first statement that according to Hinduism,
the universe is without beginning and without end. You must realize that the
statement means that the universe changes form although it has no beginning
and no end. Sometimes it is latent and sometimes it is manifest. I gave the
analogy of a spider and its web as given in the Upanishads to illustrate this
idea. The universe is like the web projected by a spider. When the universe is
projected by God (like a web projected by a spider) then the familiar space-
time manifold exists. When God withdraws the universe then it may be said to
be latent. The important point is that the universe does not appear from
nothingness or disappear to nothingness but merely changes form. This is what
is meant when it is said that a small part of Brahman becomes manifest and
then unmanifest. The reality of universe is because of the Reality of God. To
put into colloquial terminology the universe came from God and goes back to
God, the source of all Reality, the source of everything. The current version
of the Big Bang theory on the other hand suggests that the universe started
from nothing.
How does my discussion connect with the two verses quoted by you.
The Nasadeeya Sookta is describing the latent state of the universe. Note how
it says that there is no akaasha, no antariksha (no space) and no time. Yes,
no body can describe the universe when it is withdrawn into God or in its
latent state. We are creatures of space and time and it is not possible to
describe or even think of something that is beyond it. If you read "The Gospel
of Sri Ramakrishna" you will see that Sri Ramakrishna tells Vidyasagar that
what Brahman is can not be said or described. One can only experience Brahman
in the state of Samadhi. The universe in its latent state is unmanifest
Brahman and thus forever beyond our understanding. The curious fact is that
when the universe does become manifest then it seems to be describable by the
language of mathematics. Why should it be so? Also, the exact procedure by
which the latent universe becomes manifest is not understood.
The second verse is restating the same idea of the withdrawal of the
universe into God as it says everything dissolves. It describes the process as
a pralaya. Actually nobody knows how it happens. Then a new universe is born
or a small portion of Brahman becomes manifest or God projects a new universe.
This is, however, not creation from nothing.
Pradip
