Cause of Creation

Vaidya Sundaram Vaidya_Sundaram at HOTMAIL.COM
Fri Nov 15 13:22:46 CST 2002

 I know some of these questions have come up before, but I don't remember
seeing any specific answer. I would appreciate if members could point me in
the right direction.

----- Original Message -----
From: "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at YAHOO.COM>
>.  In
> vishishhTaadvaita this is solved by saying that jiiva although finite,
> enjoys infinte happiness along with the Lord.  In fact he enjoys
> everything with the Lord except of course the creative ability.

On a tangential note, does advaita say the individual upon full
"illumination" become Ishwara Himself? Or does it even matter? That is to
say, does this question even arise in advaita? The way I see it explained in
advaita, when the individual is freed from the cluthes of ignorance, and the
body of such a one is dissolved as well, then it is only us, or the people
who continue to remain in the vyavahaaric sense, who see the loss right? The
sum total Brahman remaining the same, the individual we see having
enlightened himself just goes back to the larger pool, sort of like a water
droplet being assimilated back into the ocean ... so, it is immaterial
whether the enlightened one actually also has the power of creation as well
Is this thinking correct?

> > To claim Lord is antaryaami of prakRti reduces v.advaita to advaita.
> > Then I will take the tiniest of particles and say God is in there? And
> > in which part of it is God -- probably if I keep questioning then we
> > will see God pervades all! There is nothing that is non-God. Only way
> > out is to say prakRti and purushha are different. That is dvaita.
> No, antaryaami - is like space pervading eveything in space, yet space is
> different from the objects in space. - Vishnu is vyaapakatvaat - one who
> pervades - there is antaryaami BrahmaNa discussion in Bri. Up. Dvaita is
> an exclusion. In sadeva smouma prakaraNa - existence alone was there in
> the beginning - but in VishishhTaadvaita - they invoke, not sajaai,
> vijaati bheda-s but swagata bheda-s or internal difference within the
> existence.

I am still not clear. If statement like "yadA hyEvaiSha
yEtasminnudaramantaram kurutE adha tasya bhayam bhavati ( Tai - A - 7 )"
applies to all, then it must apply to visishtadvaita (as much as dvaita) as
well right? If there are intrinsice differences, does it still not engender
a sense of fear ...? How then is the visishtadvaitic position tenable?

> > And by everything arises from brahman and goes back to brahman it is
> > meant that "the state of tangible manifestation of this universe
> > inhabited by jiiva-s comes out of brahman and when brahman choose to
> > withdraw its power of mAyA then this manifestation goes back to him"
> > This does mean the prakRti goes back to him. All jiiva-s and prakRti
> > are reduced to their primal subtle arrested state. Some thing like
> > hibernate mode of laptop (this is just an example -- should not be
> > stretched).
> No Problem Ravi, if you are happy about the explanation.  There is a desha
> kaala vastu parichinnam already formed when something is there other than
> oneself or Brahman.  Brahman is no more Brahman - the infiniteness since
> it excludes something when Maya as you said is withdrawn.

Again, I would like some clarifications in the following context: I have
heard some discoursers give the analogy of a spider spinning a web out of
its own self and then withdrawing the same into itself. Yet, in the case of
the Creator (Ishawara?), there is no grwoing smaller or growing bigger as a
result of this "willful act of creation" - does this analogy apply more to
visishtadvaita than to advaita per se? Or does it apply equally the same to

> hence brahma vit
> braha eva bhavati -says scripture -which is absolutely logical considering
> the nature of Brahman.

Is this the same thing as Poornamadah Poornamidam Poornaad Poornamudachyate;
Poornasya Poornamaadaaya Poornamevaavashisyate ?? The infinite remains the
same whether we take infinity away from it or put infinity into it? Given
this statement, the statement brahmavit brahma eva bhavati is simply a
logical conclusion right?

thanks for your patient explanations.

bhava shankara desikame sharaNam

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list