|
In order to elaborate a bit more about religious concerns that have led
to different usages of the idea of beginning in religious discourses, let me
now go back to the question that I alluded to earlier, viz. why in the Indian
Vedic tradition, in which schools and sub-schools have freely constructed
alternative models of metaphysical structures and formulated different notions
regarding being and non-being, space, time and causality etc., why has no
theistic school dealt with the idea of creation ex nihilo?
Interestingly, a reference to such a conceptual possibility of a first
creation by God is made in a well-known compendium of diverse views. The position is called Iśvaravāda, i.e. Godism. This position, however, did not find much
support and was repudiated by the theists themselves. However, note that the reason that is given against such a view
is not as the Greek thinker Lucretius said viz. Nothing is ever produced by divine power out of nothing but on
ethico-religious grounds. The argument
goes that had this been the case, the accountability for all the disparities
and differences that are undeniably present even at the very moment of birth
would lie in, Almighty God. In other
words, the theists were reluctant to maintain the idea of a first creation as
it . would imply, - they thought - an unjust and a cruel creator who bestows
favors on some and deprives others of the same. Focusing on ideas of divine compassion, mercy and justice the
theists insisted that what lies at the core of differences is not the wielding
of an arbitrary power by an all powerful external agent. They claimed that human condition is
determined by human actions. Now we are
back again to Karmavāda that projects the view that actions are
efficacious, that these are not without consequences. Note that this position seeks to avoid on the one hand
[Niyativāda] fatalism, predestination etc. and on the other hand
[Yadŗcchavāda] the view that events occur arbitrarily, capriciously
without rhyme or reason. The idea of
human responsibility and freedom as well as the inevitability of having to reap
the fruits of ones actions are all woven together in this idea of Karma. It is evident that based on such a reading,
one cannot project a view of first creation with an absolute beginning. It is also obvious why in such a scenario
the idea of rebirth is seen as a necessary sequel to the idea of Karma. It may
be noticed here that despite divergences on other matters, reflections on
disparities and inequities of various sorts at birth itself have lead not only
the theistic schools but also non-theistic schools in Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina
traditions to adhere to a similar network of ideas. In short, the ideas of Karma, rebirth and that of a
beginningless world-process remain pan-Indian concepts.
Contributed by: Dr. Anindita Balslev
|
