[Advaita-l] Re: Universe finite or infinite?

Aditya Varun Chadha adichad at gmail.com
Fri Apr 22 01:21:42 CDT 2005

Here are my last two cents on this topic

I find even the following quote quite inconclusive about the
"infinity" of the universe (although it does seem to leave very little

Gita 11/10-11/11

sarvascarya-mayam devam 
anantam visvato-mukham


Arjuna saw in that universal form unlimited mouths and unlimited eyes.
It was all wondrous. The form was decorated with divine, dazzling
ornaments and arrayed in many garbs. He was garlanded gloriously, and
there were many scents smeared over His body. All was magnificent,
all-expanding, unlimited. This was seen by Arjuna.

Notice the word "anantam" in the last line. it literally means without
end or unending or unlimited or without limits or infinite. So this
viSvarUpa after all does have something "infinite" or "unlimited"
about it. This is what I would call "literal quote" supporting a

Sri Badisa has been repeatedly referring to 10/42 to support his point
that "the universe is finite". Here is that verse:

Gita 10/42
atha va bahunaitena 
kim jnatena tavarjuna 
vistabhyaham idam krtsnam 
ekamsena sthito jagat


But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With
a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire

I do not see what Sri Badisa is talking about when he says that this
verse indicates the finite nature of the created universe. I guess it
has to do with the part that "With a single fragment of Myself I
pervade and support this entire universe". But please understand that
there is no indication whether this "single fragment" is finite or
infinite. in fact, reinforced by 11/10-11/11 which I have quoted
above, this just says that "although the universe is supported by a
single fragment of Me, the universe, or my "viSvarUpa" is itself
infinite". So it says that "the universe is 'anantam' and yet it is
but a fragment of Me, so behold my Vastness!". Concluding that the
universe is finite from this verse is pure misinterpretation.

I have quoted from Sruti, although I do agree with Sri Kalyan and the
others that Sruti as a whole is not required to substantiate simple
facts like "a constant fraction of infinity is infinity".

The only point that Sri Badisa is trying to make is that "as soon as
one associates a number or fraction with something, one indicates that
thing's finite nature". No Sruti quote has been given by him directly
supporting this. And I am of the opinion that Sruti does not bother
itself with these things because these are easily verifiable things
from the other pramANas.

Anyway, I hope that in me last couple of mails I failed to offend
anyone. I shall not be posting to this thread any more.


Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad at gmail.com

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list