God: The Origin of Even Space

Invocation

(Kaivalyakalpadruma on Svārājyasiddhi, Prakaraṇa 2 )

[May Goddess Sarasvatī, whose lotus-like lovely hands with gem-studded bracelets munificently bear the signs of granting boons and freedom from fear, a book and a rosary, who is an unmatched beauty in a white attire, is charmingly complexioned like jasmines and pearls and whose face resembles the moon, reside in our organ of speech.]

I have been presenting the thrust of the Upaniṣads that the God is the source of the universe. I took up several objections that have been raised against this and their rebuttal by Bhagavatpāda in His Brahmasūtrabhāṣya.

Creation primarily involves the genesis of the five great elements, which are pṛthvī (earth), āpas (water), tejas (fire), vāyu (air) and ākāśa (space). Other objects are products of these five primary elements.

Objection: Space’s Origin is Unaccepted by a Śruti

I shall now take up for analysis, an objection raised by an opponent about the creation of space. While he accepts that God created earth, water, fire and air, he does not admit that God is the maker of space. In his view, being eternal, it is created by none. When detailing the creation of the elements, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad¹ does not list space. So, he concludes, God did not create space.²

Response: Śruti Declares that Space has Originated

The Vedāntin responds that the objection is invalid as an Upaniṣad specifies that space arose from the Supreme.³

(Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1) [It is from Brahman, which is this Self, that space arose.]

Counter Objection: Mention of Space’s Origin is Figurative

The opponent counters: Though a śruti says that space stemmed from God, still, that does not stand to reason. One cannot accept as factual whatever is said in the Veda as it does contain even patently weird statements.

[The sacrificial post is the sun.]

This Vedic statement is contradicted by perception; the sacrificial post and the solar orb are decidedly different. While the Veda’s authority is unassailable, passages such as this should not be understood literally. Similarly, scriptural passages about space originating from God should be understood, not literally, but figuratively.¹

He then explains as follows why space cannot be made. Raw materials, their mutual contact and a manufacturer are needed for producing a product.² For example, for a cloth to come about, threads, contact between them and a weaver are essential. As regards space, which is homogeneous, raw materials and their conjunction are inconceivable and a maker has no role. So, space’s origin is impossible and the text about it must be figurative.

Vedāntin: Reason to Deny Space’s Origin is Invalid

The Vedāntin responds that while the triad spoken of by the opponent as vital may be so for certain products like pots and cloth, all created objects do not require the conjunction of the basic raw materials used. In some cases, the very raw material comes to be called an effect when it attains a new state with certain characteristics. Milk, for example, itself attains a different state with some new properties and, thus, turns into its product, curd. So, space’s origin cannot be ruled on the said ground.

View that Space is Eternal will Contradict the Śruti

The Vedāntin confronts the opponent with the following passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad:

[(Before creation, this was Existence,) one alone, without a second.]

According to the śruti, only Brahman was there before creation; there was nothing else. If it be said that space too is eternal like Brahman, then, it being an additional entity present prior to creation, the śruti’s affirmation that there was just Brahman then would be contradicted.

Opponent’s Analogy to Account for the Śruti’s Words

The opponent responds to the Vedāntin’s challenge thus:

A person went to a potter’s house and found some clay kept there. He paid a visit to the place on the subsequent day too, but this time, he beheld earthenware items, such as pots. He exclaimed, ‘Only clay was here yesterday, but now, in its place, there are various earthen utensils.’ When the visitor said, ‘Only clay was here,’ he did not imply that nothing at all was present other than clay, for the potter and his aids, such as a wheel and a rod, to make the clayey products were also perceived by him. The import of his statement is just that no products of clay were there earlier. Likewise, the Vedic teaching that in the beginning there was Brahman alone should be understood, in a secondary sense, to mean that prior to creation, not a single effect of Brahman was present. The existence of space in addition to Brahman is not denied as it is not a product of Brahman.

Vedāntin’s Response

We cannot interpret precise Vedic passages in the light of informal worldly usages. As for the Vedic passage, it has, not one but three words - ‘ekam, one’, ‘eva, alone’ and ‘advitīyam, without a second’ – though every one of them is capable of pointing out that only Brahman existed prior to creation. It thereby unconditionally rules out everything other than Brahman. Hence, space must have an origin, as, otherwise, this declaration of the śruti would be contradicted.

All Effects are Non-different from Brahman, the Cause

The Vedāntin also points out that in several Upaniṣads, it is proposed that upon knowing one entity, Brahman, all becomes known. A query in the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad is:

(Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.3) [On knowing what does all this becomes known?]

The answer to the question, “On knowing what does all become known?” is then given as the Supreme.

A related example given in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad is:

[Just as by knowing a single lump of clay, all products of clay become known.]

On knowing clay, the material cause, all modifications of clay, such as earthen pots, become known as, ‘These are but clay.’ Because every effect is non-different from its material cause, it is known by knowing the latter. Only if Brahman is the material cause of all can everything be known by knowing It. Were space not an effect of Brahman, it will not become known when Brahman is realized. The vital proposition of the Upaniṣads about the knowledge of Brahman resulting in the knowledge of all would then become falsified. The validity of the śruti is, however, not disputed even by the opponent. So, it must be admitted, that even space originates and has Brahman as its source.¹

Vedantin: What is Seen to be Separate is a Product

Bhagavatpāda has explained as follows another reason given by Sage Vyāsa in support of the origin of space.² It is observed that whatever is an effect is distinct from something else; an earthen pot, which is an effect, is, for instance, seen to be different from an earthen cup and from a cloth. Earth, water, fire, air and space are known to be separate from one another (and from time). So, even space should be something caused.

The opponent protests, ‘Brahman is separate from space. So, by your rule, It too must be an effect. This is absurd.’ The Vedāntin points out that as Brahman is the cause of all and is the very basis of their existence, there is never any real separation between anything and Brahman. An earthen pot, for instance, owes it very existence to and is not other than clay, its cause, and, as such, there is no real separateness between the two. Thus, the rule that every effect is separate from something has no bearing upon Brahman. As for space, since it is separate from entities like the earth, it must, going by the rule, be an effect and, so, must have an origin.

Opponent: Brahman’s and Space’s Eternality Similar

The opponent now raises another objection. It is said:

Brahman is said here to be all-pervasive and eternal like space. Only if space were timeless, it could have been so presented as an exemplar. Hence, it is wrong to hold that space arose from Brahman.

Vedāntin: Space is Long-lasting, not Absolutely Eternal

Bhagavatpāda has countered the opponent’s view thus: Whenever an analogue is given to explain something, full equivalence between the exemplar and the exemplified is unmeant. Only certain aspects of the analogue need to match what is being illustrated.

A person said that the sun moves fast. When asked to elaborate, he stated that the sun speeds like an arrow from Lord Rāma’s bow. The idea is that the sun travels very swiftly and not that its speed and that of Rāma’s arrow are equal. Similarly, when the scripture teaches that the Supreme is all-pervasive and everlasting like space, the aim is not to equate Brahman and space but to bring out that Brahman is everywhere and timeless. As for space, it is spoken of as ‘eternal’ not because it is literally so but because it outlasts all the other elements that constitute the cosmos. During cosmic dissolution, the earth perishes first, then water, then fire, then air and only then does space perish.

The celestial devas are said to be eternal since they live very much longer than us. A year of our life is just a day for them; a year of theirs corresponds to 365 years of human life. Because they persist for lakhs of our years, they are called immortals. Some of names by which these gods are known are, as listed in the lexicon, Amarakośa:

[Deathless, never aged, gods, immortals, nectar-eaters.]

We read in the Rāmāyaṇa that Daśaratha, a human like us, said that ‘Rāma was born to me after 60,000 years.’ Many may not believe this but I, who have faith in the text, do. The duration of Rāma’s rule was 11,000 years.

[Having ruled for eleven thousand years, Rāma will go to the realm of Brahman.]

The lifespan of humans extended then to thousands of years. The devas, however, live very much longer. That is why they are called immortals and not because they are unconditionally so. Similarly, when space is said to be eternal, it is because it exists for a very long time relative to other entities. But it does originate and end. The creation of space has been clearly spelt out in the śruti. As seen, the Yajurveda’s Taittirīya Upaniṣad says:

[From that Brahman, which is this Ātman, space arose.]

The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad of the Atharvaveda states:

[From It arises prāṇa, the mind, all the organs, space, air, fire, water and the earth, which bears all.]

So, it is improper to conclude that space is uncreated.

Difference Between Before and After Space’s Origin

The opponent poses yet another objection: ‘None of the attributes of an effect are present before its origin. For instance, before a pot is created, no activity such as fetching water in the pot would be possible. Before curd is formed, a related transaction such as the partaking of curd is not possible. What is it which was not there before space’s origin and which came about after that?’

The Vedāntin’s response is as follows: ‘As space exists now, we are able to move around. Prior to the creation of space, no movement was possible. Regard this as a space-related distinction.’

Passages about Space’s Origin are not Figurative

The opponent had suggested that the śruti passage, ‘आकाशः सम्भूतः [Space was born (of Brahman, the Self) ]’ be interpreted figuratively as in the case of passages like, ‘आदित्यो यूप: [The sacrificial post is the sun].’ Figurative interpretations are called for in the case of ‘arthavāda-vākyas, corroborative passages’ such as the latter whose purport contradicts perception. The Upaniṣadic passage in question about space’s origin is, however, not an artha-vāda; it is not contradicted by any means of knowledge nor is it a restatement of something known through them. So, its primary meaning must be accepted.

Conclusion

If we accept the origin of space from the Supreme, we would reap the twin benefits of having subscribed to the proposition of the Upaniṣads that upon knowing the Supreme everything, without exception, becomes known and to the scriptural position that God is the creator of the entire cosmos. It would be inapt to repudiate the origin of space merely because it does not accord with one’s mundane reasoning. Accepting as we do, the validity of the Vedas, let us readily admit the origin of space.

We should understand the true purport of the Upaniṣads properly, cogitate on it and attain the summum bonum of life. Sage Vyāsa and Bhagavatpāda have expounded the true purport of the Upaniṣads and bountifully graced us. Let us venerate them.