Cause of Creation
Dr. P.K. Nair
pnair at VVM.COM
Fri Nov 8 20:13:37 CST 2002
Is it not all explained by the Rg Vedic Statement: Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudhah Vadanthi?
----- Original Message -----
From: Prakash Babu
To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Cause of Creation
I have something to add in support of this question. Many puranas explain the process of creation of this universe. For example the Bhagavatam explains that Brama was created by vishnu. Other puranas extoll the deity concerned and puts forth that this universe was created by that deity and that deity is supreme. Shiva purana states shiva created this universe and he is supreme (i have't read this purana but for small snipets), elsewhere it is stated that Goddess shakti creates everyone (Brahma vishnu shiva), Ganesha purana states Ganesha created everyone, similarly other puranas .
In reality only one of these can be true (how can all the statements can be true), then on the other hand if one is true then others become false, propogating wrong thories. This make us to loose faith in the puranic scriptures.
Can anyone please explain this inconsistancies between the puranas. It would be of great help in understanding things clearly.
Vaidya Sundaram <vaidya_sundaram at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
I am interested in knowing what the dvaitins and visishtadvaitins postulate
as the cause of creation. Any pointers or brief writeups would greatly help.
Thanks in advance.
bhava shankara desikame sharaNam
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Weekly page from Hindu Dharma: Cause of Creation
> This week's page from Hindu Dharma (see note at bottom) is "Cause of
Creation" from "Nyaya". The original page can be found at
> Our acarya says: "There is neither arambha-vada nor parinama-vada here.
It is the Brahman, with its power of Maya, that appears in the disguise of
creation. For the potter who is the Paramatman there is no other entity
other than himself called clay. So the arambha-vada is not right. To say
that Paramatman transformed himself into t he cosmos is like saying that the
milk turns into curd. The curd is not the same as the milk. Would it not be
wrong to state that the Paramatman became non-existent after becoming the
cosmos? So the parinama-vada is also not valid. On the one hand, the
Paramatman remains pure jnana, as nothing but awareness, and, on the other,
he shows himself through the power of his Maya as all this universe with its
living-beings and its inert objects. It is all the appearence of the same
Reality, the Reality in various disguises. If a man dons a disguise he does
not become another man. Similar is the case with all these disguises, all
this jugglary of the univ
> rse. with all the apparent diversity, the one Reality remains unchanged. "
This argument is known as "vivarta-vada".
> There is vivarta in the phenomenon of a rope appearing to be a snake. The
upadana-karana(material cause) that is the rope does not change into a sna ke
by nimitta-karana(efficient cause). So the arambha-vada does not apply here.
The rope does not transform itself into a snake; but on account of our
nescience (avidya) it seems to us to be a snake. Similarly, on account of
our ajnana or avidya the Brahman too seems to us as this world and such a
vast plurality of entities.
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list