PDA

View Full Version : Prakriti and creation of lives



Viraja
17 July 2012, 02:23 PM
I have a question - it is said Prakriti is the reason lifeforms are created. Does this mean creation is thus a means to lend Prakriti a chance for evolution, instead of existing as mere atoms or molecules or whatever form Prakriti is supposed to be? Also, when viewing that creation vastly differs - some suffer, some are devoted, some are bad, many are ordinary, some are animals, it appears Prakriti is divided into these types as and when she is even before creation.. is this correct? Does anyone have a view that one can narrate in simple terms for me? Thank you.

wundermonk
17 July 2012, 03:59 PM
This is a topic properly meant to be in the philosophy subforum because different schools (mostly Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta) partake of Prakriti/related ontology slightly differently...in any case. Here are some thoughts.

Firstly, for anyone trying to understand Prakriti/Purusha, etc. it is good to begin at the beginning - Samkhyakarika (SK) of Ishvara Krshna - Rs. 25 (half a dollar) available from Sri Ramakrishna Math - www.sriramakrishnamath.org

Now, onto your questions.


it is said Prakriti is the reason lifeforms are created. Does this mean creation is thus a means to lend Prakriti a chance for evolution, instead of existing as mere atoms or molecules or whatever form Prakriti is supposed to be?

If you could, do provide the source for your first sentence above. In general, creation and evolution of Prakriti is expressly for the sake of Purusha. In fact SK 17 provides the syllogism that anything composite (which every evolute of Prakriti is) is for the benefit of something else. Applying this syllogism, SK argues that there must be an entity devoid of attributes/gunas - the Purusha for whose benefit Prakriti evolves.


Also, when viewing that creation vastly differs - some suffer, some are devoted, some are bad, many are ordinary, some are animals, it appears Prakriti is divided into these types as and when she is even before creation.. is this correct?

Before creation, Prakriti is in the unmanifest state (its gunas - Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are changing but changing homogeneously within themselves only...they are believed to be in equilibrium).

kallol
17 July 2012, 08:19 PM
Dear Aspirant,

Prakriti cannot be and should not be seen in isolation. It is not an independent existence. It's existence is dependent upon the Purusha or consciousness.

The prakriti goes through cycles of manifestations and unmanifestations and thus is the creation and un-creation.

It is like the waves of the ocean - goes up and down. When going up sometimes - sometimes it has froth on its top. So not all wave will have froth on top. Similarly not all creations may lead to human level. The creation evolution is a wave - depending on its inherent internal capability it pushes for greater numbers of stars and planets, which in turn hasve more probability of having right temperature, right water and right air. Then only it becomes fit for life. But then again only few of these lead to have life on them.

Prakriti also includes the subtle matters apart from gross matters. So the lifeforms, the minds would get attached to will depend on the state of the mind - karmaphal. This karmaphal comes from past life.

This is a crude explanation. It would be good to study or hear a lot on the total subject to grasp the finer points. :)

Viraja
19 July 2012, 08:02 AM
Friends,

Thanks for the clarification. I understand Prakriti manifests on account of the desire of Purusha (or in order to benefit Purusha, whichever is applicable...)

Wundermonk, my statement came from the time I read somewhere that the turbulence in Prakriti or mother maha-maaya is the reason for creation - can't recollect where I read it. Thanks for the book suggestion, I have decided to buy and read it for better grasp of the subject.

Kallol, thanks for the clarification, as you said, there seems to be many finer points that I am still trying to grasp to get the whole picture as otherwise it is quite a profound philosophy, even with your explanation, to understand. :)