THE CREATIVE PRINCIPLE..

and the Different

Schools of Hinduism
By Acharya Santoshananda

The creative aspect of the Absolute has been conceived of with slight differences, yet with an underlying similar framework, in the different philosophic and religious schools of Hinduism. It is termed as prakti in the sakhya philosophy, which being one of the earliest and influential philosophic schools of India, its technical terms and basic metaphysical ideas were widely borrowed by the many schools that followed, albeit with some, more or less, modification. In Tantric Philosophy the creative principle is known as Shakti, and in Vedanta is known as my, although both theses traditions also use the term prakti. These terms are, in Sanskrit grammar, feminine, and in Hindu Mythology are regarded as the Goddess counterpart of God. Prakti is generally translated as nature. Etymologically, the prefix pra means forward, before, forth, filling, and kt means making, doing, the English word create, which even sounds the same as kt, is descended via Latin, from the root k, and the word procreate from prakti. The ruti, or the revealed authoritative scriptures, have declared the immutability of the Absolute, thus, the different schools have adopted various ways of explaining a creation, by or from, an ultimate reality which is ever unchanging in nature. Classical sakhya has adopted duality, having two ultimate reals, purua, the conscious principal, and prakti, the matter principle. This form of sakhya was nontheistic, not seeing the need for a creator God, but rather relegating creation to karma, the mechanistic cause and effect actions of nature. Here, purua was merely an immutable witness to the ever-changing flux of prakti. Other earlier forms of sakhya were theistic and non-dualistic, such as the sakhya of the Bhagavad Gita, the Mahbhrata, the Puras, and the Yoga Sutras. To these, both purua and prakti were regarded as different aspects or natures of ivara or God. This was very similar to the Tantric scheme of God and His creative power, akti. The tantric view was that the power or ability and the source, the holder of the power or ability, were non-different. Here the power, which in essence is non- different from the Absolute, creates, while the Absolute itself, although emitting the creative force, remains unchanged, being infinite. In this way both the integrity of immutability and non-duality were maintained. Vedanta, as interpreted by akarcrya, opted for the doctrine of superimposition, where an illusionary reality is projected upon the Absolute, as the misapprehension of a snake is superimposed upon a rope. This illusory nature, being termed both as my (illusion) and avidy (ignorance), was designated as anirvacanya or unutterable and indescribable, and was said to be without beginning and neither existent nor non-existent. It solved the problem of creation while maintaining an immutable real, as well as, due to being beginningless, the problem of how the individual enmeshed in and having the illusion, was without origin. For the Absolute itself could not be the one under the illusion as it was by definition pure knowledge. Since both the phenomenal individual, as well as all other appearances, were illusionary, non-duality was preserved. In all three schools, the creative principle had three modes to its being, in sakhya and Vedanta they were the three guas. These were the modes of sentience or clarity, force or energy, and inertia or momentum, also explained in psychological terms as goodness, passion, and ignorance. In the Tantric systems these modes were, on their higher level , explained as the power of will (icch), knowledge (jna), and momentum (kriy), and further evolving in manifest nature as the guas resembling those of the sakhyans. The characteristics of the sattva are clarity, lightness, illumination, and revealing, rajas is excited, forceful and dynamic, while tamas is dull, inert and lazy. These three modes are in a continual flux of one dominating, and the other two being suppressed, giving rise to an ever changing variety of phenomenal manifestations, from the most subtle to the most gross, and a beginningless chain of creations preservations and destructions.

This manifestation of prakti, or my, was not without purpose. It possessed the teleological end of providing experience and emancipation for unchanging consciousness, the subjective and inherent aspect of the Absolute (or, for the classical form of sakhya, the innumerable individual subjective monads). Through casting the illusion of many and diversity, and a sense of otherness, and especially for the classical sakhyas, a mistaken identity of Self and not self, experience was provided. Then through providing true knowledge of Self, liberation from illusory conception was accomplished. In Theistic Vedanta these two functions of my, which was considered a potency (akti) of God, were termed mahmy and Yogamy, respectively. The Self, in all but the theistic vedanta, was understood to be an unqualified and immutable witness to the ever changing subtle and gross manifestations of the objective phenomena, while it was the prakti itself that performed, through the mechanism of cause and effect (Karma), the duties of providing experience and liberation. The subtle manifestations included the citta, ahakara, Buddhi, and Manas, and were referred to as the antakaraa, the internal organ. But it must be remembered that some of these systems would use these terms rather loosely as synonyms, as well as reducing the number of these terms for this internal organ to three, two or even one, such as simply the citta or mind, which would be understood to mean the complete mind with its numerous aspects and functions. The grosser levels of manifestation progressed through the tanmtras or Quantum Data Bytes, also referred to as the subtle elements, to the gross form of the five elements known as the mahbhtas, and then to the organs of knowledge, the five senses or jnendriyas, and the five organs of action, the karmendriyas. In the classical sakhya system, these principles evolved from subtle to gross, in a cause to effect scheme, in which, according to the doctrine of sat-krya, the effect preexists in its cause in a subtle form. Nothing is ever truly created or destroyed, but is an unfolding of what exists in subtle or potential state, and again, in cosmic dissolution, winds back in to the potential. There were 24 principles or tattvas (depending on whether buddhi was equated with mahat or if citta was included as a tattva) giving rise to manifest existence. In the theistic sakhya the two cosmic aspects of the Absolute Godhead, consciousness (purua), and the objective potentia (mlaprakti), were not themselves regarded as tattvas, but through theyre proximity to each other gave rise to the disturbance in the equilibrium of the guas, which then was the initiating cause of the manifestation of the tattvas, this taking place at regular cosmic cycles of creations, preservations and dissolutions, one great cycle being known as a mahkalpa, or life of Brahm. There were lesser cycles within the greater, called a kalpa or a day of Brahma, with partial dissolutions, as well as even smaller cycles within theses, the mahyuga and its four sub yugas. At the end of a mahkalpa the proximity of purua and prakti comes to end

and there is a complete dissolution, whereas at the end of the lesser cycles, the proximity endured and it was a predominance of the mode of inertia (tama gua) that was responsible for a partial dissolution of the lower, grosser levels of manifestation. This proximity should not be
conceived of as taking place in time and space, but rather an interfacing of their abilities of being a perceiver and a perceived. In the absence of this proximity or interface, of course, no creation would

take place. Classical sakhya, with its concept of a multitude of unqualified conscious monads

(puruas), envisioned this proximity as taking place between each monad and theyre common cosmic object of consciousness, material nature.
The first tattva to evolve from this interface (sayoga) which triggers the flux of the three modes, is the cosmic I-AM-NESS (mahat tattva), which is the causal state of buddhi (determining faculty). Here, the mode of clarity, or sattva, is totally predominate. The next evolute (vikti) to arise is the ahakara, the mutative ego or false identifying principle, which is qualified according to the three modes. This, through its mode of clarity or sattva, propelled by force or rajas, gives rise to the data receiving aspect of mind (manas) , the five knowledge obtaining instuments (jnendriyas), and with further force of rajas, the five intruments of action (karmendriyas), while through the tamas mode of ahakara, also propelled by rajas, the five tanmtras or quantum data bytes arise, leading to further manifestation, with the aid of the subjective potential of the ahakara and a further push of rajas or force, to the five great elements, the mahbhtas. One mode (gua) can never accomplish any manifestation or evolute to arise on its own, but always does so in a ratio relationship of mutual suppression and dominance with the other two, and with rajas always being the impelling force.

In classical sakhya the mlaprakti, the unevolved, un-manifest (avyakta) objective potentia, is strictly an evolvent, which the technical term for what evolves or expands a further evolute is prakti, the evolute being known as a vikti. Mahat, the cosmic mind stuff, the first evolute, is both a vikti and a prakti, as not only does it evolve from the infinite un-manifest state of the creative energy, but itself gives rise to further evolutes. Its direct evolute is the ahakara, also a vikti and prakti. Its evolutes, from the tama gua side, is the five tanmtras, which are also both viktis and praktis, as they themselves have further evolutes, the five mahbhtas, which having no further evolutes are viktis only, as are the evolutes of the sattvic ahakara, the five jnendriyas and the five karmendriyas. The sattvic evolving ahakara is called vaikrika and the tamasic is called bhtdi. The rajasic form of ahakara is called taijasa, and is the impelling force for the other two. The five quantum data bytes (tanmtras) of sound (abda), tacticity (spara), form (rpa), flavour (rasa), and odour (gandha) are the subtlest pieces of sense datum perceivable by yogic perception, or cognition arising from a super conscious state (praj). These atoms of information are undiversified. A single byte of sound information would be undistinguishable from another byte of sound information, the same being true for the other four. It is like a very small bit of a jagged pencil line, diversified by peaks and valleys, being magnified, and seeing that it is only line-ness, and the same as every other small bit of the jagged line. It is the interaction of the five different types of tanmtras that gives rise to the endless diversity of phenomenal sensory experience as the five elements. These tanmtras evolve in a simultaneous interdependent relationship with the manas, the recording faculty of the mind, theyre subjective counterpart, and the mahbhtas arise interdependently with the five jnendriyas and karmendriyas, forming the grossest and most diversified level of manifestation.

The five jnendriyas are the ears (rotra) for hearing, skin (tvak) for touching, eyes (caku)

for seeing, tongue (rasan) for tasting and the nose (ghra) for smelling. Theyre objects of knowledge are the tanmtras. Each tanmtra is a dominant quality of its corresponding element. Sound being the predominant, and only, quality of space or ether (ka). Tactility is the predominant quality of air (vyu), and sound is the secondary quality. Visual form, the effect of light and color, being the predominate quality of fire (agni), with sound and tactility being its secondary qualities. Flavour is the predominant quality of water (ap), with sound, tactility and form, its secondary qualities. And earth (pthv) has all five qualities with odour the predominant. In other words, space can be heard, air can be felt and heard, fire can be seen, felt and heard, water can be tasted, felt, seen and heard and earth may be smelt, felt, seen, tasted and heard. Each sense instrument exists in a relative and interdependent relationship with the corresponding quantum data byte and element. The karmendriyas are the larynx (vk) for speech, hands (hasta) for grasping, feet (pda) for locomotion, genitals (upastha) for procreation, and anus (pyu) for evacuation.

In the different Tantrik philosophies and systems, in addition to thirteen more tattvas, making a total of thirty six, the twenty three tattvas of sakhya are seated in the seven chakras. The twelve additional tattvas are most commonly listed, in descending order, as the five uddha tattvas or pure tattvas: iva tattva (subjective I-ness), akti tattva (objective I-ness), sadiva tattva (I-ness in thisness), vara tattva (thisness in I-ness), and uddha vidy tattva (I-ness in I-ness--Thisness in thisness). The six kacukas (coverings): my tattva (illusion of individuality), kal tattva (limition of power), vidy tattva (limitation of knowledge), raga tattva (limitation of attachment), kla tattva (limitation of time), niyati tattva (limitation of place). Then the purua tattva (ego connected with subjectivity as opposed to ahakaraego connected with objectivity) and the prakti tattva (nature). These final two are not considered tattvas in the classical sakhya, as the tattvas are tattvas of prakti.

By way of cause and effect, known as Karma, manifest nature evolves the different life forms, from simple to complex, culminating in the human form of life, the optimum form for providing experience (bhoga) to spirit. The doctrine of sat-krya, which held that the effect (krya) pre-exists (sat) in its cause, cemented the teleological character of the creative force. All effects and results are enfolded in the first cause. Prakti is for the purpose of purua, this is called pururtha, and it does so by providing bhoga and apavarga (experience and absolution). This purpose is the end result and guiding principle, in all respects, to the unfolding of prakti. In Aristotelian terms, the fulfillment of this purpose is the final cause. The Internal Organ, with the gross body as its vehicle, upon tiring (due to karma) of the ongoing suffering of experience, slowly becomes attracted to spiritual practises leading to liberation (apavarga). It must be noted that karma, which literally means action, and is from the root k (to make), and which is the root of kti, is the mechanism by which prakti (pro-creative- force) performs everything, including the actions and endeavours of pursuing liberation. In actual fact the conscious principle, the Self (tman) is neither ever in bondage to experience, nor is ever liberated, but is merely a transcendental witness to these events within material nature. In theistic vedanta, prakti , while functioning in the predominantly passionate and inertial modes of manifestation, giving the illusion of

experience and thus bondage, is called mahmy, while the functions of the modes guided by goodness or clarity (sattva), giving the illusion of pursuit of liberation, is called Yogamy, these being symbolically personified as different Goddesses. It is the function of Yogamy, (through the modes and theyre Karmic flux), which manifests, microcosmically and psychologically, the will to pursue liberation, and macrocosmically, the outer events, paraphernalia and personages, i.e., situations, scriptures, temples, saints and gurus, leading one to this event. Here, in theistic vedanta, upon liberation, the sattwa continues in its pure or uddha state, providing the devotee with continued contact and pastimes with the Lord. Thus the Yogamaya manifests an ojective reality where the Absolute contacts (yoga) or relates (rasa) and knows itself as the personel God, through its perfected jiva-part and parcel portions, the pure devotee. If material nature is the actual agent of all action, and the Self is simply an immutable witness, then where is freewill? In Dualistic sakhya this question was not directly addressed, but the implication of destiny (karma) was left hanging, as an explanation. While in non-dual forms of Vedanta and theistic sakhya, different approaches to this problem were supplied, according to the form of nondualism subscribed to, these being unqualified non-dualism, qualified non-dualism or simultaneously dual and non-dual, known respectively as nirviea-advaita, viia-advaita, and dvaita-advaita or bheda-abheda. Unqualified non-dualism, with its doctrine of complete illusion of all manifestation, with the unqualified Absolute being the only reality, declared its doctrine of two truths, an ultimate truth and a conventional or relative truth. Theyre definition of truth lay in the concept of constancy, truth was unchanging. What went through changes was false, or at least not the reality of what it really was. This is related to the modern scientific idea of the conservation of mass and energy. Nothing really ceases to exist, but merely goes through continual mutation, thus the changing appearances are not the reality of what is. This unchanging reality, of what is, was the unqualified ground of all appearances, the Absolute Truth (sat). The ever changing appearances were relegated to a lower form of non-ultimate truth or relative truth. Non-ultimate truth could still meet the parameters of constancy required for the definition of truth, while still being transitory, by being subservient to relative conditions. For instance, if water, at standard pressure, the pressure of the earths atmosphere at sea level, is brought to the temperature of 100 degrees Celsius or 212 degrees fahrenheit, then it will boil. As long as these relative conditions are met this result will always be obtained. This is a relative truth. In transference of this concept, loosely, over to the perceptual arena, it meant that from the conditional point of view of individual subjective consciousness, and given that the divine technology of the Lord (ivara, bhagavn), His creative potency (my), is perfect, freewill was virtually real. In other words, it is virtually impossible for an individual to discern anything other than first person agency for his actions, and under the conditions of self-identification (ahakara) of individual subjectivity, this will always be the case. So for the illusory individual, freewill will always be intact, whereas from the Absolute point of

view, consciousness is merely an unchanging observer, and it is only false appearances which act by way of karma, or another words, destiny (daiva, dia). Qualified non-dualism assigned the agent of action to what it regarded as the real individual, despite the testimony of ruti. While the dual non-dual school attempted to both have its cake and eat it too, claiming simultaneous difference-in-identity as being equally and absolutely true, thus proclaiming the free will and agency of the individual self, as well as an Absolute Will governing all, for not even a blade of grass moves but by the will of God. Ultimately this may also be construed as a two truths doctrine similar to that of unqualified nondualism, although both versions of truth were given equal reality, whereas for the former, one truth was relative and the other absolute.