{"id":384,"date":"2012-09-01T05:54:36","date_gmt":"2012-09-01T03:54:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=384"},"modified":"2012-09-01T05:54:36","modified_gmt":"2012-09-01T03:54:36","slug":"creation-stories-the-cosmogony-account-from-the-pura%e1%b9%87as-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/creation-stories-the-cosmogony-account-from-the-pura%e1%b9%87as-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Creation Stories: The Cosmogony Account from the Pur\u0101\u1e47as"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part 2. \u201cIn the Beginning\u201d as Derived from the Original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em><\/p>\n

The first verse of the actual creation or emanation (sarga) account from the V\u0101yu<\/em> and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> pur\u0101\u1e47as is repeated in so many other sources that we can feel sure it is from the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>. The initial nine lines of this account are repeated in enough other pur\u0101\u1e47as that we may assume all nine are from the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>. These nine lines describe the stage \u201cin the beginning\u201d (agre), before creation or emanation has begun, directly parallel to stanza I of the \u201cBook of Dzyan.\u201d As we know, the pur\u0101\u1e47as have undergone revision, in many cases extensive revision, and this account found in them is no exception. When following this account from one pur\u0101\u1e47a to another, we see things changing, until it says something entirely opposite of how it started out. Like a drama or mystery novel, in which we never know who did what to whom, so we never know what to expect in any given pur\u0101\u1e47a as to what emanated from what and by what. It may therefore be worthwhile to start introducing the cast of players.<\/p>\n

The pur\u0101\u1e47as follow a S\u0101\u1e43khya model of cosmogony overall, so that two of the main players will be puru\u1e63a and prak\u1e5bti, often translated as \u201cspirit\u201d and \u201cmatter.\u201d This \u201cmatter\u201d is not physical matter, as \u201cmatter\u201d has now come to be understood, but rather is an unmanifest something that manifests as everything from the principle of intelligence (buddhi) to the principle of self-consciousness (aha\u1e43k\u0101ra) to mind or thought (manas) to the sense-faculties (buddh\u012bndriya) to the great elements (mah\u0101-bh\u016bta), included in which latter is physical matter. I will therefore translate prak\u1e5bti as the slightly better \u201csubstance\u201d rather than as \u201cmatter,\u201d although we still must remember that it is unmanifest \u201csubstance\u201d; and that when it does manifest, we must remember just how non-physical most of its manifestation is. A much-used synonym of prak\u1e5bti is pradh\u0101na, meaning \u201cprimary,\u201d so I will translate pradh\u0101na as \u201cprimary substance.\u201d Another common synonym for prak\u1e5bti (\u201csubstance\u201d) and pradh\u0101na (\u201cprimary substance\u201d) is avyakta, the \u201cunmanifest,\u201d often seen in the phrase, vyakt\u0101vyaktaj\u00f1a, the \u201cmanifest\u201d (vyakta), the \u201cunmanifest\u201d (avyakta, i.e., pradh\u0101na or prak\u1e5bti), and the \u201cknower\u201d (j\u00f1a, i.e., puru\u1e63a). It is this term, \u201cunmanifest\u201d (avyakta), that begins the first verse of the creation or emanation (sarga) account from the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>. Here is that verse, as found in the V\u0101yu<\/em> (4.17 or 4.18-19) and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> (1.1.3.8-9) pur\u0101\u1e47as:<\/p>\n

avyakta\u1e43 k\u0101ra\u1e47a\u1e43 yat tu nitya\u1e43 sad-asad-\u0101tmakam |<\/p>\n

pradh\u0101na\u1e43 prak\u1e5bti\u1e43 caiva yam \u0101hus tattva-cintak\u0101\u1e25 || 4.17 ||<\/p>\n

\u201cThe unmanifest (avyakta) is the cause, eternal, and of the nature of existence and non-existence. Those who contemplate the principles of reality call it primary substance (pradh\u0101na) and substance (prak\u1e5bti).\u201d<\/p>\n

The first verse of stanza I of the \u201cBook of Dzyan\u201d begins: \u201cThe Eternal Parent (Space), wrapped in her ever invisible robes, . . .\u201d Blavatsky comments (The Secret Doctrine<\/em>, vol. 1, p. 35): \u201cThe \u2018Parent Space\u2019 is the eternal, ever present cause of all . . . .\u201d Here, \u201cparent\u201d clearly corresponds to the \u201ccause\u201d of the pur\u0101\u1e47a verse, and both call it \u201ceternal\u201d (nitya). Blavatsky continues: \u201c. . . whose \u2018invisible robes\u2019 are the mystic root of all matter, and of the Universe. . . . Thus, the \u2018Robes\u2019 stand for the noumenon of undifferentiated Cosmic Matter. It is not matter as we know it, but the spiritual essence of matter, and is co-eternal and even one with Space in its abstract sense. . . . The Hindus call it Mulaprakriti, and say that it is the primordial substance, . . .\u201d Here again, \u201cinvisible robes\u201d clearly corresponds to the \u201cprimary substance (pradh\u0101na) and substance (prak\u1e5bti)\u201d of the pur\u0101\u1e47a verse.<\/p>\n

The unmanifest primordial substance is called \u201cabsolute abstract Space\u201d in the explanation of the first fundamental proposition of the Secret Doctrine (The Secret Doctrine<\/em>, vol. 1, pp. 14-15). Along with \u201cabsolute Abstract Motion representing Unconditioned Consciousness\u201d (i.e., spirit or puru\u1e63a), it is one of the two aspects under which the \u201cone absolute Reality,\u201d the \u201cInfinite and Eternal Cause,\u201d is symbolized. When symbolizing it thus in our dualistic thought, we are asked to note that (p. 15): \u201cSpirit (or Consciousness) and Matter are, however, to be regarded, not as independent realities, but as the two facets or aspects of the Absolute (Parabrahm), which constitute the basis of conditioned Being whether subjective or objective.\u201d This is exactly how the S\u0101\u1e43khya ideas of the pur\u0101\u1e47as differ from those of the S\u0101\u1e43khya philosophical system as it is now known. Rather than taking puru\u1e63a and prak\u1e5bti as two distinct ultimate principles, the pur\u0101\u1e47as unite them in the absolute brahman. As Fitzedward Hall observed long ago: \u201cAnd still different are the Puranas, in which the dualistic principles are united in Brahma, and\u2014as previously remarked\u2014are not evolutions therefrom, but so many aspects of some supreme deity\u201d (The Vishnu Purana<\/em>, trans. H. H. Wilson, vol. 1, 1864, p. 22 fn.). The next seven lines of the creation or emanation account from the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> in fact equate the unmanifest cause found in the first two lines, there called primary substance (pradh\u0101na) and substance (prak\u1e5bti), with the highest (para) brahman. Here are all nine lines as found in the V\u0101yu<\/em> (4.17-21 or 4.18-22) and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> (1.1.3.8-12) pur\u0101\u1e47as:<\/p>\n

avyakta\u1e43 k\u0101ra\u1e47a\u1e43 yat tu nitya\u1e43 sad-asad-\u0101tmakam |<\/p>\n

pradh\u0101na\u1e43 prak\u1e5bti\u1e43 caiva yam \u0101hus tattva-cintak\u0101\u1e25 || 4.17 ||<\/p>\n

gandha-var\u1e47a-rasair h\u012bna\u1e43 \u015babda-spar\u015ba-vivarjitam |<\/p>\n

aj\u0101ta\u1e43 dhruvam ak\u1e63ayya\u1e43 nitya\u1e43 sv\u0101tmany avasthitam || 4.18 ||<\/p>\n

jagad-yoni\u1e43 mahad-bh\u016bta\u1e43 para\u1e43 brahma san\u0101tanam |<\/p>\n

vigraha\u1e43 sarva-bh\u016bt\u0101n\u0101m avyaktam abhavat kila || 4.19 ||<\/p>\n

an\u0101dy-antam aja\u1e43 s\u016bk\u1e63ma\u1e43 tri-gu\u1e47a\u1e43 prabhav\u0101pyayam |<\/p>\n

as\u0101mpratam avij\u00f1eya\u1e43 brahm\u0101gre samavarttata || 4.20 ||<\/p>\n

tasy\u0101tman\u0101 sarvam ida\u1e43 vy\u0101ptam \u0101s\u012bt tamomayam |<\/p>\n

4.17. The unmanifest (avyakta) is the cause, eternal, and of the nature of existence and non-existence. Those who contemplate the principles of reality call it primary substance (pradh\u0101na) and substance (prak\u1e5bti).<\/p>\n

4.18. It is without smell, color, or taste, devoid of sound or touch, unborn, constant, imperishable, and always remaining in itself.<\/p>\n

4.19. The unmanifest was assuredly the womb of the world, the great element (or great being), the everlasting highest (para) brahman, the embodiment of all beings.<\/p>\n

4.20. In the beginning there was brahman, without beginning or end, unborn, subtle, having the three qualities (gu\u1e47a), the origin and cessation [of the cosmos], timeless, and unknowable.<\/p>\n

4.21ab. All this [universe], consisting of darkness, was pervaded by its [brahman\u2019s] self (\u0101tman).<\/p>\n

The last line immediately reminds us of verse 5 of stanza I of the \u201cBook of Dzyan\u201d: \u201cDarkness alone filled the boundless all, . . .\u201d With \u201cdarkness\u201d we have an obvious terminological parallel; with brahman in verses 19 and 20 we have a less obvious but philosophically profound parallel. In this account from the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>, the absolute, the highest (para) brahman, is clearly and unambiguously equated with primary substance (pradh\u0101na) and substance (prak\u1e5bti). We do not see this in other Hindu texts, and it became modified in a number of the pur\u0101\u1e47as. We recall the rather startling statement by the Mahatma K.H. in Mahatma letter #10, \u201cwe believe in matter alone.\u201d This, too, it seems, was hard to accept, and it became displaced in Theosophical writings by more familiar teachings. Yet, that this was the actual teaching of the Theosophical Mahatmas was understood by their highly regarded chela, T. Subba Row.<\/p>\n

As we saw in the comparison of the Book of Dzyan with the Mok\u1e63op\u0101ya<\/em>, Subba Row wrote: \u201cThe Arhat<\/em> Cosmogony accounts for the evolution of the manifested solar system from undifferentiated Cosmic matter, . . .\u201d He was distinguishing this from the much more well-known teachings of Advaita Ved\u0101nta. He continued: \u201c. . . and Adwaitee<\/em> Cosmogony accounts for the evolution of Bahipragna<\/em> from the original Chinmatra<\/em>.\u201d Here, the absolute brahman is equated with pure consciousness (cin-m\u0101tra). For Subba Row, the two systems are complementary, and \u201cThe eternal Principle is precisely the same in both the systems.\u201d<\/p>\n

In standard Advaita Ved\u0101nta, however, unlike in Subba Row\u2019s esoteric version of it, primary substance (pradh\u0101na) was demoted to the status of illusion (m\u0101y\u0101). This occurred when the \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101c\u0101rya who lived around the eighth century C.E. wrote the now extant Brahma-s\u016btra-bh\u0101\u1e63ya<\/em>, in which he refuted the then prevalent S\u0101\u1e43khya teaching that equated brahman with primary substance (pradh\u0101na). He defeated the S\u0101\u1e43khya school so thoroughly that it died out as an independently existing philosophical school. Where S\u0101\u1e43khya teachings are found, they are now interpreted to mean that their eternal puru\u1e63a, \u201cspirit,\u201d is equivalent to brahman, and hence is above primary substance (pradh\u0101na). The two are no longer taken as equal and eternal twin principles, as the S\u0101\u1e43khya school of philosophy had taught. This \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101c\u0101rya also equated brahman with God (\u012b\u015bvara), and this idea soon became the dominant one.<\/p>\n

The same thing happened with the pur\u0101\u1e47as, too, as they were revised over the centuries. The creation or emanation account from the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> equated the highest (para) brahman with primary substance (pradh\u0101na), as had the so-called Arhat system of the Theosophical Mahatmas. The \u201cgreat\u201d principle (mahat) arose from it, and the world arose from the \u201cgreat\u201d principle. So the \u201cgreat\u201d principle (mahat), as the pur\u0101\u1e47a account says, is also known by many other names, including Brahm\u0101, the creator god (not to be confused with the absolute brahman), and God (\u012b\u015bvara). But as the idea of God (\u012b\u015bvara) came into prominence, and the idea of an ultimate primary substance (pradh\u0101na) fell into disfavor, the original account of creation or emanation was reversed in some of the pur\u0101\u1e47as. Some of the pur\u0101\u1e47as now have God (\u012b\u015bvara or mahe\u015bvara) creating primary substance (pradh\u0101na), rather than arising from primary substance. This is despite the fact that primary substance is described as being eternal, so could never be created. The attempt to trace the cosmogony account from the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> through its changes in the now extant pur\u0101\u1e47as is interesting, but that is another story for another day.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Translation Note:<\/p>\n

4.17a. The words avyakta\u1e43 k\u0101ra\u1e47a\u1e43 are often translated as the \u201cunmanifest cause,\u201d where avyakta\u1e43, \u201cunmanifest,\u201d is taken as an adjective. I have taken avyakta\u1e43 as a noun, \u201cthe unmanifest,\u201d on the basis of its usage as a S\u0101\u1e43khya technical term meaning pradh\u0101na or prak\u1e5bti, and on the basis of parallels in the M\u0101rka\u1e47\u1e0deya-pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> 45.32ab (pradh\u0101na\u1e43 k\u0101ra\u1e47a\u1e43 yat tad avyakt\u0101khya\u1e43 mahar\u1e63aya\u1e25), where primary substance, the cause, is called (\u0101khya\u1e43) the unmanifest, and in the Li\u1e45ga-pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> 1.70.3ab (avyakta\u1e43 ce\u015bvar\u0101t tasm\u0101d abhavat k\u0101ra\u1e47a\u1e43 param), where the unmanifest was (abhavat) the highest cause.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Part 2. \u201cIn the Beginning\u201d as Derived from the Original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101 The first verse of the actual creation or emanation (sarga) account from the V\u0101yu and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da pur\u0101\u1e47as is repeated in so many other sources that we can feel sure it is from the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101. The initial nine lines of this account are repeated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-creation-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}