The Chandogya Upanishad : CH-2, SEC-2. THE PRIMACY OF BEING-1., POST-6. Swami Krishnananda.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, August 31, 2020. 05 : 50.AM.
Chapter Two : Uddalaka's Teaching Concerning the Oneness of the Self
SECTION 2: THE PRIMACY OF BEING-1.
Post-6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.
There was one Being alone in the beginning. It is not true that there is a variety of beings.

"Sad eva, saumya, idam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam, tadd haika ahuh, asad evedam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam, tasmad asatah saj jayata."

"My dear boy, there was only a single Reality existing in the beginning. The so-called variety was not there. It was one; it was without a second. There was nothing outside it; nothing external to it, to compete with it, to equal it or to be different from it. There is no conceivable reality in this world of this nature.

Whatever be the stretch of your imagination, you cannot conceive of something outside which nothing is. At least space would be there, time would be there, something would be there. But even space and time are objects, externals, effects that came afterwards in the process of creation. And, therefore, they too are negated in the case of this reality.

That alone was. There was absolutely no differentiation whatsoever, originally. There was neither external differentiation nor internal variety. In scriptural language, there was neither sajatiya bheda, nor was there vijatiya bheda, nor svagata bheda."

2.
These are the stock words in Vedanta philosophy which make out that differences of three kinds are observed in this world, which are not there in Reality. There can be internal variety or difference, like the difference observed among the branches of a tree. The tree is one but the branches are many. Even so, there is internal differentiation or variety in a single body.

The right hand will be different from the left hand, one finger is different from another finger, one part of the body is different from another part of the body. This is svagata bheda-difference within one's own self, one's own body. Though the object is single and is a unity in itself, yet there is an internal variety of this nature. There was no such variety in the Absolute Being, originally. There is also another kind of difference that we observe in this world. One human being is different from another human being. Though everyone is a human being, human beings are different from each other.

One cow is different from another cow. This is sajatiya bheda, or difference in a single species or a category of the same kind. Even that kind of difference was not there. Vijatiya bheda is the third kind of difference.

A tree is different from a stone, a man is different from an animal. This is the difference of different kinds of species. That also was not there.

3.
So the absolute reality was completely free from all these three possible differences. It was a tremendous unity inconceivable to the human mind.

Kutas tu khalu, saumya, evam syat, iti hovaca, katham, asatah saj jayeteti, sat tu eva, saumya, idam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam.

There are some people who think that, originally, Non-Being was—not Being, but Non-Being. Non-Being is sometimes regarded as an origin of things under peculiar conditions.

How is it possible that Being can come from Non-Being? Has anyone seen such a phenomenon?

Something can produce something; how can nothing produce something? We have never heard of such a possibility.

So Uddalaka says : "My dear boy, though it is true that there are people who hold the doctrine that Non-Being was, originally, and Being proceeded out of Non-Being as an effect, this is not a practicability. It is inconceivable. Non-Being cannot be the cause of Being. Nor can we say that Being is the cause of Being. It is a tautology of expression. 'A is the cause of A'-you cannot say that. It is a meaningless way of speaking. If Being is not the cause of Being, then what is the cause of Being?

Non-Being? Not possible! Non-Being cannot be the cause of Being. Being also is not the cause of Being. Then what is the cause of Being?

No cause. There cannot be a cause for Being. So it must be a causeless Being. If it has a cause, we must explain what that cause could be, and the cause should be either Being or Non-Being. There cannot be a third thing. Being cannot be the cause of Being; Non-Being also cannot be the cause of Being, so there is no cause for Being. It is causeless existence. It is useless and pointless to say that Non-Being can be the origin, in any manner whatsoever, of Being.

Kutas tu khalu, saumya, evam syat, iti hovaca,: How is it possible? It is an aged doctrine, a humorous saying indeed, to hold that something can come out of nothing.

Katham, asatah saj jayeteti : How can Being come from Non-Being? Sat tu eva, saumya, idam agra asid: Now please listen to my conclusion. I hold that Being alone was, and not Non-Being.

To be continued ...

================================================================