The Lord has no inclination towards creation, because He has no motive. — 168.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 155 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 1. 32.

न प्रयोजनत्त्वात्॥२.१.३२॥

na prayojanattvāt ..2.1.32..

.. Na, not …. Prayojanavattvat, being endowed with a motive.

32. The Lord has no inclination towards creation, because He has no motive. — 168.

COMMENTARY

The word «Na» is understood in this Sutra from the last one. The word «Na-prayojana-vattvat» is a compound word meaning «because being motiveless». The usual form would have been «Na-prayojana-vattvat». The Lord can have no urging towards creation, because being perfect, He has no motive to create. In the world, every activity is seen to exist on a motive beneficial either for one’s own-self, or for the sake of another. The motive beneficial to His own self, cannot exist in the case of the Lord, because He being perfect, all His wishes are ever fulfilled, as the scripture repeatedly declares. Nor is His motive to do something beneficial to others, because the creation evidently is for the sake of punishing the Jivas, and making them suffer the pains of birth and death. An all-compassionate Lord would not create a universe, merely to punish the erring Jivas for their misdeeds. And no one creates anything without a motive. Therefore, it follows that the Lord has nothing to urge Him to creation.

This objection is answered in the next Sutra.

SUTRA II. 1. 33.

लोकवत्तु लीलाकैवल्यम्॥२.१.३३॥

lokavattu līlākaivalyam ..2.1.33..

… Lokavat, as in the world, as in an ordinary life. … Tu, but, …. Lila, sport, play, .., Kaivalyam, merely.

33. The motive of the Lord in creating the world is mere sport only, as we see in ordinary life. — 169.

COMMENTARY

The word «Tu» removes the above doubt. Though all-full and desiring nothing, yet the motive which prompts the Lord towards the creation of this wonderful world is mere sport only, and has no object beneficial to Him in view. As in ordinary life, men full of cheerfulness, when awakening from sound sleep, begin to dance about without any object, but from mere exuberance of spirit, such is the case with the Lord. This Lila or the sport of the Lord is natural to Him, because He is full of self-bliss. As says the Mandukya Upanishad (Karika):

Some think that the creation is for the sake of enjoyment (of the Creator), while others think that it is for the sake of recreation, (to shake off the lethargy of the Pralaya sleep or the ennui of the solitude of Pralaya). This (act of creation) of God is His nature (without any motive). What motive can there be for one who has all His desires satisfied? (Man., Up., I, 9.).

To the same effect is the Smriti (Narayana Samhita):

The creation, etc., of Hari does not depend on any motive, He does so out of sheer joy, as the drunkard dances through frenzy. He who is full of all bliss can hare no motive whatsoever. When even the Muktas have got all their desires fulfilled through Him, What unfulfilled desire can there be in the ease of the Lord who is the Self of the universe?

But a man intoxicated with drink has no consciousness of what he is doing. Is the Lord also devoid of consciousness, like the drunkard? For then, He would not be omniscient. We do not say so. All that we say is that man does play and become sportive through the mere exuberance of spirit and sheer joyfulness of life; such is the case with Brahman. The Advaitins explain the words «as we see in ordinary life» by the well-known example of respiration that goes on even in deep sleep, and which is altogether involuntary and motiveless. This analogy, however, is open to the objection that that Lord is subject to deep sleep and loses consciousness, as man does. The example given by the Vishishtadvaitins is that of a prince who amuses himself without any motive, at the game of balls. This analogy, however, is open to the objection that playing at a game of balls is not altogether motiveless, for the prince gets some pleasure by the play.

Adhikarana X — The Lord is neither partial nor cruel

The author again raises an objection and then goes on to remove the doubt. The theory, that Brahman is the Creator, is open to the objection that the Lord is either partial or cruel; for He creates Devas and men, some of whom enjoy happiness and others suffer misery. This theory is, therefore, not a congruous one. But the texts say that the Lord is neither cruel nor partial. How can then such a Lord be the Creator? To this objection the author answers by the following Sutra:

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров