Monday, September 25, 2006

Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva

Much of the discussion on this blog has centred around structure and how that relates to freedom of expression or freedom of enquiry. The thought arose a while ago as to whether 'preservation' can or should exist in isolation from creation and dissolution? Is Vishnu 'preserver' or does he use all three aspects of creation, preservation and dissolution in order to 'preserve' ?

The Shankaracarya gives the analogy of the Ganges flowing down through the Himalayas towards the sea. The mountains are said to be the religions. How do they become mountains? By preserving themselves and not flowing? How do we become rigid? How do we dissolve and become creative again?

Gita, Ch4, V8 is really intriguing with regard to this question, containing all three aspects:

'To protect (preserve) the righteous, to destroy (dissolve) the wicked, and to establish (preserve) the kingdom of God, I am reborn (create) from age to age.'

(look up the sanskrit if you're so inclined!)

So the question is:

- are creation, preservation and dissolution three separate things or
- is the true 'preservation' the interaction of these three forces?

The latter definition allows for a tradition to:

a) be revitalised, re-invigorated, re-energised, re-formed (creation)
b) throw away what has become habitual, mechanical etc (dissolution)
c) protect what is 'established wisdom' (the usual definition of preservation)

and then the true 'preservation' results from all three, wisely used.

(In fact in writing the above three 'categories' it becomes difficult to separate them – dissolving and revitalising are the same thing in the same way as cleaning a window involves removing the dirt. And is preservation something separate from these apparent two? If so, what?)

1 comment:

Kevin said...

I suppose all I would say is that watching the play of the gunas (or these representative gods) is about having no preference, and also not interfering.