more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
In the beginning there was Existence, One only, without a second. Some say that in the beginning there was non-existence only, and that out of that the universe was born. But how could such a thing be? How could existence be born of non-existence?
Gist of Idea
Originally there must have been just Existence, which could not come from non-existence
Source
Anon (Upan) (The Upanishads [c.950 BCE], 'Chandogya')
Book Ref
'The Upanishads', ed/tr. Prabhavananda /Manchester [Mentor 1957], p.68
A Reaction
A very rare instance of an argument in the Upanishads, arising out of a disagreement. The monotheistic religions have preferred to make God the eternal element, presumably because that raises his status, but is also explains the start as a decision.
| 8154 | Originally there must have been just Existence, which could not come from non-existence [Anon (Upan)] |
| 1746 | The parts of all things are susceptible to change, but the whole is unchangeable [Anaximander, by Diog. Laertius] |
| 420 | The cosmos is eternal not created, and is an ever-living and changing fire [Heraclitus] |
| 456 | Nothing could come out of nothing [Melissus] |
| 16595 | If each thing can cease to be, why hasn't absolutely everything ceased to be long ago? [Aristotle] |
| 5083 | Do things come to be from what is, or from what is not? Both seem problematical. [Aristotle] |
| 20827 | The cosmos is regularly consumed and reorganised by the primary fire [Stoic school, by Aristocles] |
| 5694 | Nothing can be created by divine power out of nothing [Lucretius] |