सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् ।तद्धैक आहुरसदेवेदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयं तस्मादसतः सज्जायत ॥ ६.२.१ ॥
In plain words
"In the beginning, my dear, this was Being alone, one only, without a second. Some say that in the beginning this was Non-being alone, one only, without a second, and that from Non-being Being was born.
The commentators
Chāndogyopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 7.153· bhāṣya
सदेव सदिति अस्तितामात्रं वस्तु सूक्ष्मं निर्विशेषं सर्व- गतमेकं निरञ्जनं निरवयवं विज्ञानम्, यदवगम्यते सर्ववे- दान्तेभ्यः । एव-शब्दः अवधारणार्थः । किं तदवध्रियत इति, आह— इदं जगत्, नामरूपक्रियावद्विकृतमुपलभ्यते यत्, तत्सदेवासीत् इति आसीच्छब्देन संबध्यते । कदा सदेवेदमासीदिति, उच्यते— अग्रे जगतः प्रागुत्पत्तेः । किं नेदानीमिदं सत्, येन अग्रे आसीदिति विशेष्यते ? न । कथं तर्हि विशेषणम् ? इदानीमपीदं सदेव, किंतु नामरूपविशेषणवदिदंशब्दबुद्धिविषयं च इतीदं च भवति । प्रागुत्पत्तेस्तु अग्रे केवलसच्छब्दबुद्धिमात्रगम्यमेवेति सदेवे- दमग्र आसीदित्यवधार्यते । न हि प्रागुत्पत्तेः नामवद्रूपवद्वा इदमिति ग्रहीतुं शक्यं वस्तु सुषुप्तकाले इव । यथा सुषु- प्तादुत्थितः सत्त्वमात्रमवगच्छति सुषुप्ते सन्मात्रमेव केवलं वस्त्विति, तथा प्रागुत्पत्तेरित्यभिप्रायः । यथा इदमुच्यते
In plain words
The word 'sat' denotes pure existence—subtle, featureless, all-pervading, one, unstained, partless consciousness known through all the Upanishads. The particle 'eva' is exclusive. What does it restrict? It refers to this very universe, which we now perceive diversified by name and form. It is said to have been 'sat' prior to the creation of the world. Does this imply it does not exist now? No. Why then the qualification? Even now it is truly being, but it is perceived as 'this' because it is clothed in names and forms. Before creation, however, it could be apprehended only through the bare concept of being. Just as a person waking from deep sleep remembers only that pure existence remained, so too is the pre-creation state to be understood. As illustrated here—
Close to the Sanskrit
Being as 'sat', existence-mere, subtle, featureless, all-pervading, one, unstained, partless, consciousness, which is understood from all the Upanishads. The word 'eva' has the sense of restriction. What is restricted thereby, he says—this universe, which is perceived as modified with name, form, and action, that was 'sat' thus is connected with the word 'was'. When was this being alone in the beginning? It is said—at first, prior to the origination of the world. Is not this now existent, by which it is qualified as having been in the beginning? No. How then is it a qualification? Now also this is being indeed, but it becomes 'this' being an object of the word-and-thought 'this' possessing name and form qualifications. But prior to creation, at first it is ascertainable only by the word-and-thought of pure being; thus 'being alone this was in the beginning' is ascertained. For prior to creation, this cannot be grasped as having name or form, like an object in the time of deep sleep. As one risen from deep sleep understands mere existence, that in deep sleep there was only pure substance, such is the meaning regarding prior to creation. As this is stated—
Chāndogyopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 7.154· bhāṣya
लोके—पूर्वाह्णे घटादि सिसृक्षुणा कुलालेन मृत्पिण्डं प्रसारितमुपलभ्य ग्रामान्तरं गत्वा प्रत्यागतः अपराह्णे तत्रैव घटशरावाद्यनेकभेदभिन्नं कार्यमुपलभ्य मृदेवेदं घटशरावादि केवलं पूर्वाह्ण आसीदिति, तथा इहाप्युच्यते—सदेवेदमग्र आसीदिति । एकमेवेति । स्वकार्यपतितमन्यन्नास्तीति एकमेवेत्युच्यते । अद्वितीयमिति । मृद्व्यतिरेकेण मृदः यथा अन्यद्धटाद्याकारेण परिणमयितृकुलालादिनिमित्तकारणं दृष्टम्, तथा सद्यतिरेकेण स्वतः सहकारिकारणं द्वितीयं वस्त्वन्तरं प्राप्तं प्रतिषिध्यते— अद्वितीयमिति, नास्य द्वितीयं वस्त्वन्तरं विद्यते इत्यद्वितीयम् । ननु वैशेषिकपक्षेऽपि सत्सामानाधिकरण्यं सर्वस्योपपद्यते, द्रव्यगुणादिषु सच्छब्दबुद्ध्यनुवृत्तेः— सद्रव्यं सन्गुणः सत्कर्मेत्यादिदर्शनात् । सत्यमेवं स्यादिदानीम् ; प्रागुत्पत्तेस्तु नैवेदं कार्यं सदेवासीदित्यभ्युपगम्यते वैशेषिकैः, प्रागुत्पत्तेः कार्यस्यासत्त्वाभ्युपगमात् । न च एकमेव सदद्वितीयं प्रागुत्पत्तेरिच्छन्ति । तस्माद्वैशेषिकपरिकल्पितात्सतः अन्यत्कारणमिदं सदुच्यते मृदादिदृष्टान्तेभ्यः । तत् तत्र ह एतस्मिन्प्रागुत्पत्तेर्वस्तुनिरूपणे एके वैनाशिका आहुः वस्तु निरूपयन्तः—असत् सद्भावमात्रं प्रागुत्पत्तेः इदं जगत् एकमेव अग्रे अद्वितीय- तरव्यभिचारेऽपि मृत्त्वाव्यभिचारात् । यद्यपि घटः पिण्डं व्यभिचरति पिण्डश्च घटम्, तथापि पिण्डघटौ मृत्त्वं न व्यभिचरतः तस्मान्मृन्मात्रं पिण्डघटौ । व्यभिचरति त्वश्वं गौः अश्वो वा गाम् । तस्मान्मृदादिसंस्थानमात्रं घटादयः । एवं सत्संस्थानमात्रमिदं सर्वमिति युक्तं प्रागुत्पत्तेः सदेवेति, वाचारम्भणमात्रत्वाद्विकारसंस्थानमात्रस्य । ननु निरवयवं सत्, ‘निष्कलँ निष्क्रियं शान्तं निरवद्यं निरञ्जनं दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः’ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः ; निरवयवस्य सतः कथं विकारसंस्थानमुपपद्यते? नैष दोषः, रज्ज्वाद्यवयवेभ्यः सर्पादिसंस्थानवत् बुद्धिपरिकल्पितेभ्यः सदवयवेभ्यः विकारसंस्थानोपपत्तेः । ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ एवं सदेव सत्यम्- इति श्रुतेः । एकमेवाद्वितीयं परमार्थतः इदंबुद्धिकालेऽपि ॥
In plain words
In daily life, a person sees a potter spread out a lump of clay in the morning, intending to make pots. Going to another village and returning in the afternoon, he sees the same clay transformed into various pots and saucers, and realizes: 'What is here now as pots and saucers was simply clay this morning.' Just so, the scripture declares: 'In the beginning, this was pure Being alone—one without a second.' 'One alone' means that nothing else exists apart from it. 'Without a second' means that just as we see a potter distinct from clay acting as an efficient cause, here any second substance acting as an auxiliary cause alongside Being is completely denied. There is no second thing here at all. An opponent may argue that the term 'existent' applies to everything in the Vaiśeṣika view—substances, qualities, and actions alike. That may be true of the present manifested world, but prior to creation, the Vaiśeṣikas do not accept that the effect existed as Being; they hold that the effect was non-existent before creation, nor do they admit that it was one without a second. Therefore, the Being spoken of here is altogether different from the imagined cause of the Vaiśeṣikas, as demonstrated by the example of clay. In this inquiry into the pre-creation state, certain nihilists argue that the universe was merely bare existence before creation. But notice: while a pot may change into a lump and a lump into a pot, neither ever departs from the nature of clay. A horse, on the other hand, is not a cow. Therefore, pots and vessels are mere arrangements of clay. In the same way, this entire universe is simply an arrangement of pure Being prior to creation, since every modification is merely a name born of speech. If you ask how a partless, actionless, and peaceful Being described by scripture can undergo modification, the answer is simple: just as the illusion of a snake is imagined upon a partless rope, these forms are imagined upon Being by the mind. As scripture confirms: 'Modification is merely a name born of speech; clay alone is real.' Thus, pure Being alone is real, one without a second, even when we look at the world right now.
Close to the Sanskrit
In the world, having perceived the clay lump spread out in the forenoon by a potter wishing to create pots and the like, having gone to another village and returned in the afternoon, having perceived there the effect differentiated by many divisions such as pots and saucers, as 'only this pot, saucer and the like was clay in the forenoon', thus here also it is said: 'Existence alone was this in the beginning, one only without a second.' 'One only'—that anything else falling within the scope of its effect does not exist is spoken of as 'one only'. 'Without a second'—by the exclusion of clay, just as an efficient cause such as a potter distinct from clay is seen as a maker through pot-forms, so by the exclusion of Existence, a second substance serving as an auxiliary cause is denied—'without a second', of this no second substance exists, hence it is non-second. If an objection is raised that co-existence with the term 'existent' is established for everything even in the Vaiśeṣika view, due to the persistence of the concept and word 'existent' in substances, qualities, and actions, as seen in instances like 'existent substance', 'existent quality', 'existent action'; true, this may be so now; but prior to creation, this effect is not accepted by Vaiśeṣikas as having existed as Being, because the non-existence of the effect prior to creation is accepted, nor do they accept that it was one alone and non-second prior to creation. Therefore, a cause other than the Being imagined by the Vaiśeṣikas is spoken of as this Being, from the examples such as clay. There, in this investigation of reality prior to creation, some nihilists say, investigating reality: 'This universe was merely existence prior to creation, one alone in the beginning...' Even when there is deviation from the more non-second, there is no deviation from the nature of clay; although the pot deviates from the lump and the lump from the pot, nevertheless lump and pot do not deviate from clay-ness, therefore lump and pot are mere clay. A cow deviates from a horse, or a horse from a cow; therefore pots and the like are merely arrangements of clay. Thus, everything is merely an arrangement of Being, so it is appropriate that prior to creation it was 'Being alone', since a modification-configuration is merely speech-initiated. If it is objected: Being is partless, according to scriptural passages such as 'partless, actionless, peaceful, flawless, unstained, divine, indeed formless, the Person with exterior and interior, indeed unborn'; how can a modification-configuration be established for partless Being? This is no fault, because modification-configurations are established for partless Being through intellectually imagined parts, just like the snake-configuration and the like from the parts of a rope. According to the scriptural text: 'Modification is speech-initiated, a name, only clay is true', thus Being alone is true, one alone and non-second from the ultimate standpoint, even at the time of the cognition of 'this'.