Nothing becomes everything

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

This nothing is a big deal... In science it just may infact mean nothing - the absence of everything. This we can call a perfect vacuum.

This perfect vacuum we can call out as one of the tattva-s, ākāśa. Yet there is something even finer then pure space & and is the support of space, that is Being. From here all things arise. For things to exist or have room to exist there must be ākāśa. Yet for ākāśa to exist there must be pure existence itself, and this is Being; finer then the finest, stainless, most subtle.

praṇām

[Ananda]

Hello folks,



devotee,

Please see the following text from SubAlopanishad

You will have to forgive me for not making comment on the text you quote from this particular Upanishad, because I restrict my studies to the mukhya Upanishads, so i'm not educated enough with regards to the others to give you a response worthy of your comments on it.

I forgot to mention Taitriya Upanishad which also asserts :

AsdvA idamagra AsIt. Tato vai sadjAyatah.

With regards to this text, a secondary meaning has to be sought after. Since the Chandogya refutes the notion of existence arising from non-existence, and asserts Brahman, an existent (positive) entity- we have to interpret the text in the Taittiriya to have a secondary (or figurative) meaning. Shankara here interprets 'Asat' to mean unmanifested in the sense that prior to the creation of the world 'idam' this was unmanifested (without name and form) Brahman only. The next part of the verse, 'From that alone Sat came into being' - refers to the world (the manifested creation) arising from the unmanifest Brahman- and not that something can be created from non-existence (since this idea, as the Chandogya says, is illogical).

The text also says 'that Brahman created Itself by Itself. Therefore it is called self-created/ the self-creator'. And yet, again, creation from non-existence is not possible; especially something creating itself from non-existence; therefore the terms 'unmanifest' and 'manifest' have to be substituted to make the passages legible and conform to other texts such as the Chandogya ones.

Therefore, it can be said in both ways because of limitations of concepts available (it cannot be expressed and if tried to be expressed then it has to be with some error ... that is the situation ... this error is inescapable) and neither of the explanations is free from error.

The Upanishads certainly deny that Brahman exists in the same way as objects do, but the existence of Brahman itself is never denied (it is never equated with non-existence, either). Brahman is a positive entity. You provided the Taittiriya quote, but the verse previous to the one you gave actually says;

If anyone knows Brahman as non-existent, he himself becomes non-existent. If anyone knows that Brahman does exist, then they consider him as existing by virtue of that knowledge.

Because there are various methods employed in the Upanishads which speak of Brahman as being beyond empirical relationships (ie neti neti etc), the text anticipates the doubt that Brahman would then be considered asat, or non-existence. Shankara says;

"The intellect that is prone to think of existence with regard to only the empirical objects having speech alone as their substance, may assume non-existence with regard to anything that is opposed to this and is transcendental (ie Brahman)... If a man thinks 'Brahman is non-existence' (asat), then that man, because of his faithlessness, the entire righteous path consisting of scheme of castes, stages of life, etc., becomes non-existent inasmuch as that path is not calculated to lead to Brahman. Hence this atheist is called asat, non-existent in as much as he is unrighteous in the world... The purport of this sentence is: Because of this fact, Brahman is to be accepted as surely existing (sat)."

So, as we can see, whilst the Upanishads definitely deny that Brahman exists as an object with empirical relations, they do not equate Brahman with non-existence itself.

I'm confident that both Yajvan and devotee will agree that Brahman is not non-existent, however, this wasn't the primary reason for my posts in this thread.

This nothing is a big deal... In science it just may infact mean nothing - the absence of everything. This we can call a perfect vacuum.

This perfect vacuum we can call out as one of the tattva-s, ākāśa. Yet there is something even finer then pure space & and is the support of space, that is Being. From here all things arise. For things to exist or have room to exist there must be ākāśa. Yet for ākāśa to exist there must be pure existence itself, and this is Being; finer then the finest, stainless, most subtle.

The primary point of my posts in this thread relate to what Yajvan is saying here.

Scientists who are confident enough (many aren't) to assert that there was literally nothing prior to the big bang/creation of the universe rail against the conclusion of the Upanishads and Vedānta in general. Yajvan says 'Yet there is something even finer than pure space and is the support of space, that is Being', and '...there must be pure existence itself, and this is Being'- he also added earlier that with regards to scientists, 'they're not there yet'. These comments, that there must be some existence prior even to space prove what I was originally saying earlier, that 'nothing becomes everything' is false, because Brahman, which is a positive entity, is pure existence- not pure non-existence.

If there is pure existence, then it is not nothing in the sense that the scientists are speculating- it means there is something, a positive entity, though not an empirical object, which is pure existence. This is why I said that it is a stretch to try to connect the two ideas; the absolute nothing, void, of the cosmologists, and the Brahman of the Upanishads; because the former relates to complete non-existence, and the latter to pure existence. The two ideas cannot both be equated- this is what I'm getting at.

Furthermore, to elaborate, if the universe (ie space) requires pure existence in order to exist, then non-existence is impossible; since all things which are said to exist (sat) or not exist (asat) require the substratum of existence. In the ultimate sense, then, non-existence is simply a fancy; only existence 'is' ; and anything that is created or appears does so through existence alone- not non-existence. Therefore, 'nothing becomes everything' cannot be true, and those who assert a void, such as some of these cosmologists, and some buddhists, are barking up the wrong tree.

Science deals only with objects; the observable world readily available to the senses. It cannot go beyond- if it does it creeps into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics; and the vast majority of scientists try to avoid this. It may well be that Brahman will never be corroborated by science, but this won't be surprising, as even the sages of the Upanishads knew that Brahman is beyond empirical dealings; and science is the study of the empirical! Science is fascinating, but we simply don't need it to sure up our confidence with regards to the existence of Brahman or the truth of the Upanishads. Scripture, reasoning, and our own direct experience are more than enough to provide us with all the proof we need.

I hope I made myself a bit clearer now!

[devotee]

Namaste Ananda,

You will have to forgive me for not making comment on the text you quote from this particular Upanishad, because I restrict my studies to the mukhya Upanishads, so i'm not educated enough with regards to the others to give you a response worthy of your comments on it.

I remember some people on Internet have this notion. However, who has decided which are the Mukhya Upanishads and which are not ? Can you please quote some authority ? If Sankaracharya has not commented on some Upanishad doesn't lower its status, imho.

With regards to this text, a secondary meaning has to be sought after. Since the Chandogya refutes the notion of existence arising from non-existence, and asserts Brahman, an existent (positive) entity- we have to interpret the text in the Taittiriya to have a secondary (or figurative) meaning. Shankara here interprets 'Asat' to mean unmanifested in the sense that prior to the creation of the world 'idam' this was unmanifested (without name and form) Brahman only. The next part of the verse, 'From that alone Sat came into being' - refers to the world (the manifested creation) arising from the unmanifest Brahman- and not that something can be created from non-existence (since this idea, as the Chandogya says, is illogical).

Why are trying to take secondary meaning of Taitriya Upanishad based on what is stated in Chhandogya Upanishad ? Does Taitriya Upanishad enjoy a lower status as compared to the Chhandogya Upanishad ? Why not re-interpret Chhandogya with the help of Taitriya ?

The text also says 'that Brahman created Itself by Itself. Therefore it is called self-created/ the self-creator'. And yet, again, creation from non-existence is not possible; especially something creating itself from non-existence; therefore the terms 'unmanifest' and 'manifest' have to be substituted to make the passages legible and conform to other texts such as the Chandogya ones.

Can there be something which is beyond the concepts of Being and also non-Being ?

The Upanishads certainly deny that Brahman exists in the same way as objects do, but the existence of Brahman itself is never denied (it is never equated with non-existence, either). Brahman is a positive entity. You provided the Taittiriya quote, but the verse previous to the one you gave actually says;

If anyone knows Brahman as non-existent, he himself becomes non-existent. If anyone knows that Brahman does exist, then they consider him as existing by virtue of that knowledge.

No one proposed that Brahman was non-existent. Neither the Upanishad nor I. Did I say anywhere that Brahman is non-existent ? It simply said, "In the beginning (i.e. before creation), there was nothing ... from that alone came everything. So, the statement is about "thing" and not Brahman.

If you remember, Brahman is called neither Being nor non-Being.

Anyway, you are free to have your own interpretation/understanding of the Upanishads. I was only trying you to show that your statement that ""Nothing became everything" is not in the Upanishad" is not correct. I was not making any comment on the existence or non-existence of the Brahman which is altogether a different topic.

OM

[Ananda]

Hello devotee,

However, who has decided which are the Mukhya Upanishads and which are not ?

I don't know who decided it, so I can't quote any specific person. Mukhya are generally thought to be the Upanishads which have a commentary by a great authority such as Shankaracharya.

If Sankaracharya has not commented on some Upanishad doesn't lower its status, imho.

No, I didn't say that, or mean to imply that idea. It's a personal choice of mine; the mukhya Upanishads are thought to be the oldest of the Upanishads (thus being free from any possible later sectarian influence), and since they have commentary on them, their import is easier to understand. I don't study the others because they don't have commentaries; their meanings will be cryptic to me, since I don't have a teacher, so I personally choose not to study them (though I do own a few). It would be rude of me to comment on texts from them if I have not studied them myself- my opinion would be of no relevance.

Why are trying to take secondary meaning of Taitriya Upanishad based on what is stated in Chhandogya Upanishad ?

If we take the view of the Chandogya Upanishad that existence cannot come from non-existence, then, logically speaking, we cannot accept a primary meaning for the Taittiriya Upanishad without getting into a contradiction. We can avoid contradictions by resorting to a secondary meaning- the two seemingly contradictory statements from both Upanishads can be reconciled with no damage done to either.

Does Taitriya Upanishad enjoy a lower status as compared to the Chhandogya Upanishad ?

No, although, I'm not really sure what you mean by 'lower status'? The Upanishads teach one consistent idea in many ways; interpreting a text to have a secondary meaning doesn't degrade the 'status' of the text- it simply allows one to read the texts as a coherent whole, which is desirable.

Why not re-interpret Chhandogya with the help of Taitriya ?

The problem with that is that the Chandogya text (VI.1-2) doesn't allow for any other interpretation than the reasoning it sets forth. There's no use of figurative language being used here, it simply presents a prima facie view that existence can arise from non-existence (as the Taittiriya texts appears to say if a primary meaning is accepted) and then goes on to refute it by asking 'by what logic can this be so?'; that is to say, it is not logical that existence can come from non-existence, and so the prima facie view is false. It is a logical argument with no wiggle room- it should be taken as the primary meaning of the text. Therefore, it follows that the Taittiriya text necessarily resorts to a secondary meaning, since the primary meaning has been ruled out on grounds of logic, and the Upanishads seek to convey one consistent idea (ie non-duality) with no internal inconsistencies or contradictions.

My interpretation of the Taittirya text as having a secondary meaning is the logical conclusion of reading both texts side by side, and is in line with Shankara's commentary.

Can there be something which is beyond the concepts of Being and also non-Being ?

Yes, there can be something which is beyond the concepts of Being and non-Being- but what is being asked here is- is that something itself existent or non-existent? If the former, then the statement 'everything comes from nothing' is false, and if the latter, it is true.

It simply said, "In the beginning (i.e. before creation), there was nothing ... from that alone came everything. So, the statement is about "thing" and not Brahman.

If Brahman is not non-existent, then the statement 'In the beginning, there was nothing, and from that (nothing) came everything' is false. I am equating 'nothing' with non-existence (ie a void, asat)- on that basis it is false to suggest that there was nothing and from that arose everything. I do not equate Brahman with 'nothing', since Brahman is a positive entity; it exists, as you and I both agree.

This is definitely an issue of semantics rather than any of us here disagreeing about the ideas themselves.

I was not making any comment on the existence or non-existence of the Brahman which is altogether a different topic.

It's not actually a different topic. When we are discussing the creation and its origin in terms of the nature of the cause as either a positive entity, such as Brahman, or a negative, such as 'nothing' - then Brahman certainly enters the topic.

The discussion I have brought up with regards to ontology and Brahman is pertinent because the OP is related to the origins of the Universe. The cosmologists, some of them, are saying that nothing was there. Nothing is not a positive entity; it is literally nothing at all- not Brahman. The existence of Brahman necessarily refutes the idea that everything comes from nothing, why? because Brahman exists!

Yajvan calls the absolute vacuum of the cosmologists pure space. But, he doesn't stop there- he recognizes that there is a positive existence underlying that void, ' Yet for ākāśa to exist there must be pure existence itself'. What is that positive existence? Brahman, of course. The cosmologists stop at pure space- they cannot go further, because that is the extent of the objective world, and the instruments of science. They stop at the absolute negation of all existence, like some of the buddhists do. Vedānta refutes that idea in such texts as the Chandogya which asks 'by what logic can existence come from non-existence?' and Shankara says 'Brahman is to be accepted as surely existing'. Does the everything come from nothing, then? No;

That is Brahman from which are derived the birth etc. of this Universe

It comes from Brahman, of course.

[devotee]

I don't know who decided it, so I can't quote any specific person. Mukhya are generally thought to be the Upanishads which have a commentary by a great authority such as Shankaracharya.

Shankaracharya nowhere said that he didn't comment upon other Upanishads because they were not PrAmANik. There are 108 Upanishads which have been considered to be "main" Upanishads (this also has come from one of the main Upanishads i.e. Muktika Upanishad). The Upanishad I quoted is one of them.

If being older is the test for being authentic then Mundak and Mandukya Upanishads will fail the test as they belong to Atharva Veda which is the newest of the Vedas.

If we take the view of the Chandogya Upanishad that existence cannot come from non-existence, then, logically speaking, we cannot accept a primary meaning for the Taittiriya Upanishad without getting into a contradiction. We can avoid contradictions by resorting to a secondary meaning- the two seemingly contradictory statements from both Upanishads can be reconciled with no damage done to either.

First of all, the Vedas including Samhita, Brahmana & Upanishads are apparently not consistent on these issues :

a) Whether there was a creation at all
b) Whether there was non-existence to begin with or existence to begin with
if there was a Creation

Why ? It is because of our mental concepts of "nothing" & "everything" .... we think that they are just opposite to each other in essence ... in reality they are not.

That which is Nothing is alone Everything. ... There is nothing like "nothing" or "everything" in reality. There is Only one Self which manifests to us as Nothing, something or everything.

You have to go deep into the making of mental concepts of Nothing, Something and Everything to understand what I am saying. If you see from that perspective ... there is no inconsistency in any of the Upanishads.

OM

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

Unfortunately I would have +rep you Devotee, but I have to spread it around first. Very good informative post on misconceptions about the Dharma.


Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

First of all, the Vedas including Samhita, Brahmana & Upanishads are apparently not consistent on these issues :

a) Whether there was a creation at all
b) Whether there was non-existence to begin with or existence to begin with
if there was a Creation

This is a good point to ponder... within kaśmir śaivism , the Supreme's 5 fold act (pa�cakṛtyavidhiḥ) is outlined as follows. Creation is considered an emission. This does not suggest that the author of this emission is 'used up' in any manner , shape or form.

• sṛṣṭi सृष्टि - letting go or emanation or emission - from this all of creation as we know it unfolds. Note it is an emission of all the tattva's that make up creation.

• sthiti स्थिति - continued existence; continuance in being . We may see this as the maintenance of life or of all creation.

• saṁhāra संहार - contraction; drawing in (like an elephant's trunk); fetching back. Note many like to use the word destruction (vilaya - dissolution , liquefaction , disappearance , death , destruction ) yet this is not what is being communicating here, it is tat of drawing back in.

• tirodhāna तिरोधान - concealing; covering ( like a sheath , veil , cloak ) ; this covering people wish to call māyā, and we have many posts on this subject.
  Yet here in this darśana (view , doctrine , philosophical system ) māyā is the śakti of the Supreme, in this case of śiva. It is His own self-imposed limitation on his own Self.

• anugraha अनुग्रह - grace; showing favor, kindness; This we know as His blessings and the main act that brings one to kevala�

praṇām

words
kevala - simple , pure , uncompounded , unmingled ; the doctrine of the absolute unity of spirit ; some call this mokṣa

[Ananda]

Hello devotee,

Shankaracharya nowhere said that he didn't comment upon other Upanishads because they were not PrAmANik.

I nowhere claimed such a thing, this is a straw man argument.

There are 108 Upanishads which have been considered to be "main" Upanishads (this also has come from one of the main Upanishads i.e. Muktika Upanishad). The Upanishad I quoted is one of them.

I am well aware of this fact. I own copies of quite a few of them. I already gave my reason why I couldn't comment on the text you quoted from;

I don't study the others because they don't have commentaries; their meanings will be cryptic to me, since I don't have a teacher, so I personally choose not to study them (though I do own a few). It would be rude of me to comment on texts from them if I have not studied them myself- my opinion would be of no relevance.

Please do not try to infer or imply from my comments that I only consider mukyha Upanishads as authentic. I never said such a thing, and nor do I even know what 'authentic' means in this context. I don't study the other Upanishads because I don't have a teacher and those texts do not have commentaries- the Upanishads are difficult to understand without either, so I would not presume to speak on them.


Back on topic;

First of all, the Vedas including Samhita, Brahmana & Upanishads are apparently not consistent on these issues :

a) Whether there was a creation at all
b) Whether there was non-existence to begin with or existence to begin with
if there was a Creation

Yes, I'm well aware of this.

Why ?

I take the view that the Vedas give different answers depending on the level of one's intellect. Those who hold on to the idea of a creation understand the texts speaking of creation in a primary sense. Those who believe that something can come from nothing will likewise read the relevant texts in a primary sense, also. If we wish to extract one consistent idea from the Vedas (such as, for example, non-duality), then it is perfectly reasonable to interpret some texts in a primary sense, and others in a secondary sense; that way we avoid the inconsistencies that we find if we read the whole Veda on its face.

That is why I followed Shankara's interpretation of the Taittiriya verse to suggest that the text is not speaking of non-existence in the primary sense, but in a secondary sense; as non-manifested. This way, the text does not contradict the other texts which say that everything was Sat in the beginning, and which describe Brahman, a positive entity, as the cause of creation, or which argue logically against non-existence as a cause (such as the Chandogya verse).

You have to go deep into the making of mental concepts of Nothing, Something and Everything to understand what I am saying. If you see from that perspective ... there is no inconsistency in any of the Upanishads.

This is precisely what I am doing. A literal reading provides contradictions, a deeper interpretation avoids them.

My whole point in posting in this thread, again, is to point out that the non-existence posited by certain cosmologists cannot be squared with non-existence in the sense being given by the Upanishads; why? Because Brahman exists- therefore, it is not non-existence in the same sense spoken of by others. Just as Yajvan has said that even the vacuum has Brahman, pure existence, for its substratum, so to do the Upanishads say it, and therefore, this is not the same as what the scientists are saying. To further illustrate, I am quoting from the Brahma Sutra Bhashya;

26. Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience.

Existence does not come out of non-existence. If something can come out of nothing, then it becomes useless to refer to special kinds of causes, since non-existence as such is indistinguishable everywhere...Moreover non-existence cannot be the source of anything, precisely because it is non-existent like the hare's horn etc. Were existence to arise out of non-existence, all the effects would be imbued with non-existence...Accordingly since nothing that actually exists is seen to result from nonentities like the horn of a hare etc. and since it is seen that from existing things like gold etc. originate existing things like necklace etc., the assertion of something coming out of nothing cannot be substantiated.

-B.S.B- II.ii.26

Shankara here soundly refutes the idea that 'nothing becomes everything', and thus proves that a literal interpretation of Vedic texts such as the Taittiriya verse is unjustified, and a secondary meaning has to be sought. The Upanishads themselves (Chandogya) refute the idea that existence can come from non-existence, so the other texts must be interpreted in the way that Shankara reads them; from the unmanifested comes the manifested.

It is completely illogical, as the Brahma-Sutra explains, to suggest that existence arises from non-existence, since Brahman exists and is uncaused. As you have said, one must resort to a deeper understanding of 'non-existence'; it has to be qualified so that it is no longer taken in the literal sense in the way that the buddhists or cosmologists are suggesting. For that reason, we should not and need not rely on the speculation of their ideas.


To repeat;

The cosmologists stop at pure space- they cannot go further, because that is the extent of the objective world, and the instruments of science. They stop at the absolute negation of all existence, like some of the buddhists do. Vedānta refutes that idea in such texts as the Chandogya which asks 'by what logic can existence come from non-existence?' and Shankara says 'Brahman is to be accepted as surely existing'. Does everything come from nothing, then? No.

[devotee]

You have very strong views, Ananda ! I bow out here.

OM

[Ananda]

Hello devotee,


Thank you for the exchange.