UNIVERSE IS ONLY A FRACTION OF BRAHMAN

 

The Universe is Only A Fraction of Brahman :

=========== Brahman Transcends The Universe ===========

सभूमिं विश्वतो वर्त्वात्यतिष्ठद दशाङगुलम ||

……. ऋग्वेद १०.९०.१

” Enveloping the earth from all sides, He transcends it by ten fingers’ length. ”

पादो अस्यविश्वा भूतानि तरिपादस्याम्र्तं दिवि ||

~ Rig Ved 10.90.3

” All living beings are a foot (or, a quarter) of His. His immortal three feet are in the bright world (i.e. in their self-effulgence). ”

पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि

~ Taittiriya Aranyak 3-12.

” All beings form His foot. ”

अथवा बहुनैतेन किं ज्ञातेन तवार्जुन ।
विष्टभ्याहमिदं कृत्स्नमेकांशेन स्थितो जगत्‌ ॥

……… गीता १०.४२

” But, of what avail to thee is this vast things being known, O Arjuna? I stand sustaining this whole world by one part (of Myself). ”

ममैवांशो जीवलोके जीवभूतः सनातनः ।
मनः षष्ठानीन्द्रियाणि प्रकृतिस्थानि कर्षति ॥

……… गीता १५.७

” A part of Myself, which though (really) eternal has become Jiva in the realm of embodied beings, draws (to itself) the organs which have the mind as their sixth and abide in Prakriti. ”

न कृत्स्नब्रह्मवृत्तिः सा शक्तिः किन्त्वेकदेशभाक् ।
घटशक्तिर्यथा भूमौ स्निग्धमृद्येव वर्तते ॥

…….. वेदांत पंचदशी २.५४

” Power does not operate in the whole of Brahman but only in a part of it. Earth’s power of producing pots is not seen in all earth but in a portion or mode of earth only, viz., in clay, i.e., earth mixed with water. ”

पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्ति स्वयं प्रभः ।
इत्येकदेशवृत्तित्वं मायाया वदति श्रुतिः ॥

…….. वेदांत पंचदशी २.५५

” The Shruti says : ‘Creation is only a quarter of Brahman, the other three quarters are self-revealing’ (i.e., not dependent on Maya’s effects for its revelation). Thus does the Shruti say Maya covers but a part of Brahman. ”

विष्टभ्याहमिदं कृत्स्नमेकांशेन स्थितो जगत् ।
इति कृष्णोर्जुनायाह जगतस्त्वेकदेशताम् ॥

…….. वेदांत पंचदशी २.५६

” In the Gita, Sri Krishna says to Arjuna: ‘The world is sustained by a part of Mine’, indicating that the world is sustained by a part of the Lord. ”

सभूमिं सर्वतो वृत्वा अत्यतिष्ठद्दशाङ्गुलम् ।
विकारावर्ति चात्रास्ति श्रुतिसूत्रकृतोर्वचः ॥

…….. वेदांत पंचदशी २.५७

” The Shruti supports the same view : ‘The supreme spirit, pervading the world on every side, yet extends ten fingers beyond it’. In the Sutras, too, Brahman is declared to transcend the world of differences. ”

निरंशेऽप्यंशमारोप्य कृत्स्नेंऽशे वेति पृच्छतः ।
तद्भाषयोत्तरं ब्रूते श्रुतिः श्रोतुर्हितैषिणी ॥

…….. वेदांत पंचदशी २.५८

“Shruti, the well-wisher of the questioner, being asked whether Maya pervades the whole or part of Brahman, speaks of the partless as having parts in order to explain the non-dual nature of Brahman, by giving illustrations. ”
__________________________________________

अथवा बहुनैतेन किं ज्ञातेन तवार्जुन ।
विष्टभ्याहमिदं कृत्स्नमेकांशेन स्थितो जगत्‌ ॥

……… गीता १०.४२

” But, of what avail to thee is this vast things being known, O Arjuna? I stand sustaining this whole world by one part (of Myself). ”

Purport :

‘Athava’,or — suggesting an alternative ; ‘kim tatva’, what will you gain ; ‘jnatena’, by having known ; ‘etena’, this ; ‘bahuna’, in extenso, O Arjuna ? ‘Aham’, I Myself ; ‘sthitah’, remain ; ‘vistabhya’, sustaining , or pervading ; ‘idam’, this ; ‘krtsnam’, whole ; ‘jagat’, creation ; ‘ekamsena’, by a part, by a mere portion (of Myself). There is nothing besides Me, as stated in the Sruti,

पादो अस्यविश्वा भूतानि तरिपादस्याम्र्तं दिवि ||

~ Rig Ved 10.90.3

” All living beings are a foot (or, a quarter) of His. His immortal three feet are in the bright world (i.e. in their self-effulgence). ”

I stand sustaining firmly this whole world by one part, by one limb, by one foot ; i.e., one part of Myself constitutes all beings. So says the chant :

पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि (” All beings form His foot. “)

~ Taittiriya Aranyaka 3-12.

So, what is the use of this limited view ? Have only the vision of Myself everywhere. This is the purport.
__________________________________________

It has been said in Gita 15.6 : यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम (‘ to which having gone none return.’)

(Objection) :- But, as everybody knows, going ultimately leads to returning, union to disunion. How can it be said that there is no returning of those who have reached that Abode ?

(Reply) :- Listen, how that may be is thus explained :

ममैवांशो जीवलोके जीवभूतः सनातनः ।
मनः षष्ठानीन्द्रियाणि प्रकृतिस्थानि कर्षति ॥

……… गीता १५.७

” A part of Myself, which though (really) eternal has become Jiva in the realm of embodied beings, draws (to itself) the organs which have the mind as their sixth and abide in Prakriti. ”

Purport :

An integral portion of Myself— of the Supreme Self, of Narayana,—is the eternal Jiva (individual soul) in samsara manifesting himself in every one as the doer and enjoyer. He is like the sun reflected in water ; the reflected sun is but a portion of the real sun; and on the removal of water the reflected sun returns to the original sun and remains as that very sun.

Or, it is like the Akasha (space) in the jar, which is limited by the Upadhi of the jar. This Akasha of the jar is but a portion of the infinite Akasha and becomes one with the latter on the destruction of the jar which is the cause of limitation ; then it returns no more. Thus the statement ” to which having gone none return ” is quite explicable.

(Objection) :- How can there be a portion of the Supreme Self who has no parts ? If He has parts, He would be liable to destruction on the separation of parts.

(Reply) :- Our theory is not open to this objection; for, it is only a portion limited by the Upadhi set up by Avidya ; if is a portion as it were, an imaginary portion.

‘Mama eva amsah’, a part of Myself, of the supreme Self ; which, like a part of the sun in water, or like that of space in a pot, is imagined through Maya even though It is partless, is ‘jivaloke’, in the realm of embodied beings, (i.e.) in the world, like a part, as it were, possessed of a false difference. And that (part), which through the limiting adjunct of being alive, ‘jiva-bhutah’, has become a jiva, has become falsely well known as an agent, an enjoyer, and a worldly being ; is ‘sanatanah’, eternal, because, even when there is a division through the limiting adjunct, it is in reality identical in nature with the supreme Self. Therefore it is logical that, on the cessation of nescience through Knowledge, ‘they’, having attained Brahman which is their own true nature, ‘do not return from That.’
_________________________________________

न कृत्स्नब्रह्मवृत्तिः सा शक्तिः किन्त्वेकदेशभाक् ।
घटशक्तिर्यथा भूमौ स्निग्धमृद्येव वर्तते ॥

…….. वेदांत पंचदशी २.५४

The author’s view is that maya does not work in the whole of Brahman; it is only in certain aspects of Brahman that we can see maya operating. Eka deśa bhāk means ‘located in some part, but not operable everywhere’, just as the capacity of the earth to modify itself into a pot is not to be seen generally in every part of the earth. The potential for the earth to get transformed into a form called a pot is localised in the sense that it requires the assistance of a maker of the pot. Certain other factors are also necessary.

The earth will not automatically rise into the shape of a pot. That is to say, the pot-ness of the earth is not a universal existence; otherwise, everywhere, wherever there is earth, pots will come up. There are certain locations, conditioning factors, where alone the pot can come up out of the earth. And generally, we cannot see the pot form coming up everywhere in physical existence.

In a similar manner, under conditions, maya operates. It does not mean that it is unconditionally operating everywhere in the whole of Brahman, the entirety of the Absolute. In the Purusha Sukta of the Veda it is mentioned that one fourth of the Absolute, as it were, is manifest as this creation.

पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्ति स्वयं प्रभः ।
इत्येकदेशवृत्तित्वं मायाया वदति श्रुतिः ॥

…….. वेदांत पंचदशी २.५५

Metaphorically – not to be construed in a precise mathematical fashion – the Veda mantra, the Purusha Sukta, says that a fraction, one fourth as it were, of the supreme Absolute is all this creation, and three-fourths is transcendent, untouched by maya, the creative process.

पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्ति स्वयं प्रभः

Transcendent radiance is the uncontaminated Brahman, the Absolute, ranging above all creative process; and only one fourth is this whole cosmos. If the whole of Brahman has become the world, assuming that such a thing has taken place – supposing that the maya shakti has pervaded the whole of Brahman, and the entirety of Brahman has become this world – then there would be no Brahman left beyond the world. If that is the case, there would be no such thing as the liberation of the spirit in Brahman, because there is no Brahman at all. It has all become the world. As milk that has become curd cannot become milk once again, the Brahman that has become the world would cease to be Brahman on account of its modification into the names and forms entirely, if we suppose that the whole thing has become the universe.

That doctrine which holds that the entirety of God has become the world is called pantheism. It is a defective doctrine which merges God with the creative process and does not accept another God, transcendent. There is no transcendence of God. There is only immanence of God for the pantheistic doctrine, which cannot be accepted on account of the fact that transcendence is always there and but for which, individuals involved in the creative process will not have an aspiration for God. Our aspiration for the Transcendent Reality is actually an indication of there being such a thing as a Transcendent Being. If such a thing does not exist – if it is all immanence only, and all the parts of God are merged in the parts of creation, including our own selves – we will be like locked-up persons inside a prison, and there would be no consciousness of even freedom from the prison.

पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्ति स्वयं प्रभः ।
इत्येकदेशवृत्तित्वं मायाया वदति श्रुतिः ॥

Sruti is a Veda; it means the Purusha Sukta, which affirms that only a fraction of Brahman should be regarded as involved in creation, not the entirety. In the Bhagavad Gita also, this is confirmed.

विष्टभ्याहमिदं कृत्स्नमेकांशेन स्थितो जगत् ।
इति कृष्णोर्जुनायाह जगतस्त्वेकदेशताम् ॥

“I have enveloped this entire creation,” says the great Lord of the Bhagavad Gita, “and I am sustaining this entire cosmos by a fraction of Myself. I do not involve Myself entirely in the act of creation.”

Even when we work, when we are very occupied with certain works – office work, industrial work, manufacturing work, etc. – we always remain something at the back of this work. We don’t completely merge ourselves and then cease to be what we are, even if the work is very heavy. There is a transcendent element in us, to which we revert after the work is over. If we have merged ourselves in the work, there would be no personality in us; we would be only work.The entire personality would be nothing but the manifestation of work. There is a transcendent background to which we revert when the work is finished, though for the time being it appears that we are immersed in the work. We never get totally immersed in anything; we have a transcendent element in us always. So is the case with God.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavan Sri Krishna says that by a fraction of his power he is able to sustain the whole cosmos. Then Lord Krishna describes to Arjuna the fractional character of creation, even though it appears so large, so big.

सभूमिं सर्वतो वृत्वा अत्यतिष्ठद्दशाङ्गुलम् ।
विकारावर्ति चात्रास्ति श्रुतिसूत्रकृतोर्वचः ॥

…….. वेदांत पंचदशी २.५७

Again the Purusha Sukta is quoted here. Having enveloped the whole
of creation, the entire earth, the whole world, the Supreme Being transcends creation by ten fingers’ length. Even if it is by one inch, it is nevertheless transcendence. It is only to indicate that God is above the world and always maintains His Self-identity in spite of His being immanent in all parts of creation.

The word dasangulam, or ‘ten fingers’, is interpreted in many ways. The word ‘ten’ is a figure which exceeds numerology.There are no ten numbers; numbers are only nine.Ten is nothing but one and zero, so the number ten is indicative of a numberless state of being; and a numberless state of being is infinite being. So to say that God transcends the world by ten fingers is to say that He transcends the world infinitely and there is no end for His transcendence.

सभूमिं सर्वतो वृत्वा अत्यतिष्ठद्दशाङ्गुलम्

The Brahma Sutra also corroborates this view when it says that there is something above all modifications. All these quotations from the Veda, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutra are to suggest that the whole of Brahman is not involved in creation. Maya does not pervade the entirety of the Absolute. It is localised only in certain conditioned parts of Brahman. The transcendence of Brahman is not affected. God remains transcendent in spite of the vastness of creation and the inscrutability of His power, maya.

निरंशेऽप्यंशमारोप्य कृत्स्नेंऽशे वेति पृच्छतः ।
तद्भाषयोत्तरं ब्रूते श्रुतिः श्रोतुर्हितैषिणी ॥

…….. वेदांत पंचदशी २.५८

You may ask the question, “Can you divide God into two parts – three-fourths somewhere, one-fourth somewhere else – transcendence and immanence being two different aspects of God?”

This difference is not a mathematical difference. It does not follow that you can actually divide God into two parts as the transcendent and the immanent. It is only an answer befitting the question itself. The question itself implies the possibility of maya shakti being somewhere or not being somewhere. We have already assumed in our question the location of maya, or the fractional area that is supposed to be occupied by maya.

When we have already assumed this kind of fractional consideration of the location of maya, we have also to give the answer accordingly . So we say it is only fractional, and not the whole of Brahman. Here, the question of the whole and the part should not be taken in the sense of measurement in geometry and arithmetic. Geometry and arithmetic do not apply to God because measurements of every kind and computations of every type refer to things which are in space and in time. Timeless and spaceless Existence cannot be geometrically measured or computed arithmetically. So it does not follow that there is a physically discernable part of God which is transcendent and some physically discernable part which is involved in creation. Our questions and answers are in terms of the manner in which we express ourselves. It is a metaphorical way of speaking.

It is not factually true that there is division of God. It is indivisible Existence – in the same sense as some part of our mind is affected with a certain anxiety, etc., and yet we remain unaffected in certain other aspects of the mind, thereby indicating that we cannot split the mind into two parts. We have an integrated personality. We feel that we are one single whole, and yet many a time we feel that we are little finite fractions in the world of society and engagement. This is a logical distinction that we introduce into our mental operation, and it is not a mathematical distinction. Mathematical parts are different from logical parts. They are conceptually construed for the purpose of the understanding of the spirit involved in the situation. It is not to be understood literally.The fraction that is supposed to be of God manifested in the form of creation is a logical part, and not a mathematical part.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.