Creation theories (was Re: What is the exact meaning/significance of this?)

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- Vidyasankar <vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Well, it doesn't. "ajaatasyaiva bhaavasya jaatimichchhanti vaadinaH"
> In the
> case of a pot, the material of the pot was not non-existent before,
> and will
> not be non-existent after. The space enclosed in the pot remains
> unchanged
> throughout. What has happened is that we have given the name "pot" to
> a
> shape, that is all. And although a particular pot may acquire its
> "potness"
> at one instant of time, and lose its "potness" at another instant of
> time,
> the concept of "potness" itself has not been created anew nor
> destroyed.

Vidya - I see fallacies in the arguments.

Even the conventional Advaita also says that creation is only name and
form anyway- vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - since the
substantive is only Brahman and attributes have no real existence.
Potness cannot exist without a pot and pot without a potness (if there
is such an attribute!). If potness is not created new then we have
eternal potness that is different from Brahman that violates Advaita.
one cannot also say that there no pot now there since it is perceived
and has a definite utility - mitya with vyavahaara satyam appears to be
more appropriate- If ajAtavAda accounts existence of potness, then there
is jaata of that potness when pot came into existence. One can deny its
absolute existence since it is praagaabhaava or uttaraabhaava or both.
If ajaata vAda cannot account the relative existence then how does it
account the appearances of objects with sajaati, vijaati swagata
bheda-s? I can not see how Shree Goudapaada just ignores vyavahaara
completely.  I can see existence cannot be created but existence as -
pot vs. other forms, which are experiential, can be ruled out completely
without bringing maayavAda - apparent existence with Brahman as
substantive. How can the appearence can be ajaata. Pushing the arguments
to a dialectic level - the very initiation of the theory comes under the
category of jaata since that theory was not eternally existent!

Hari OM!
Sadananda





> >what way the vAda differs from any other advaitic theory of creation
> -
> >where the creator is defined by yatova imaani ....
>
> Gaudapada has an answer for this too, after mentioning a whole list of
> creation ideas - "devasyaishha svabhaavo 'yam aaptakaamasya kaa
> sp.rhaa"
>
> Vidyasankar


=====
What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com