Is there ‘Creation’?
Nothing can ever be created. Matter cannot be created.
To say “something is created” is to imply it’s not already within Creation. Which sets up an unsolvable equation; duality (dvaita). For example, if matter was created, that means THIS Creation (which you and I find ourselves in), would have to borrow matter from some other Creation.
So then, where did that other Creation get it’s materials from? From some other Creation. Etc. We get into an ad infinitum without possibility of resolution.
In which case, we’re all eternally doomed and moksha (Liberation) is only relative to the Creation we’re speaking about. Because how do we know WHICH Creation is TRUE, and which is FALSE, since there are infinite Creations.
In other words, this kind of dualistic or dvaita (also called dvaita-vedanta) thinking is flawed. It gives birth to concept of “Heaven/Hell” after death as prevalent in mainstream Religions and 99% of spirituality… always trying to get to some BETTER Creation then the present.
And if Hell is all fire, then how can it sustain oxygen, since a world of “all fire” isn't conducive for oxygen production; you need an ecosystem, trees. But they're all burned to ashes due to excess fire! So I guess Hell needs Heaven's holy water! 😀
In fact, dvaita (notion that there is difference between THIS and THAT) contradicts itself. Because it fails to acknowledge the substratum which “joins” the many.
Follow the logic below…
If there are many Creations (plural), then by what principle do they all relate?
For example, sound coming out of my mouth is picked up by your ears, only because of principle of air. For example, in vacuum we can’t relate.
Thus there’s a joining principle because of which relating between two people is possible, being Air. In other words, each person (Creation) is different. Up to this point, Dvaita-Vedanta stops.
Now, Advaita Vedanta corrects: There is a “joining”, non-perceivable, non-interfering, substratum which allows two people to communicate.
Just like mere existence of a page (substratum) allows “joining” of alphabet letters to form words. The page remains non-interfering. It doesn’t need to move, nor instigate, nor coerce the letters to form words or meaningful sentences. Page remains pure, completely uninvolved of the world of letters and words.
Conclusion: Dvaita (duality) is impossible. It’s possible to a mind which gives reality only to what it can perceive through 5 senses. Basically dvaita is like saying, just because I don’t see with my eyes ultra-violet light, it doesn’t exist!
DOUBT COMES UP: Upanishads say that Creation (srishti [sṛṣti]) came out of Brahman. How can that be when Brahman is akarta (non-doer), nirguṇa, and Brahman cannot create, nor can the world come out of Brahman by itself. However, a world (Creation) is seen and experienced. How is this explained?
PLEASE REPHRASE THE DOUBT: If all is Brahman (Consciousness), which is a non-doer and free of guṇa, then it can’t create. But Creation is experienced. To experience Creation is to say “There is Creation”, yet you’re saying “There is no creation”. Reconcile this contradiction.
RECONCILIATION: The very ‘existence’ of world (Creation) is the existence of Brahman alone. That is what Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita ‘aham visrjami’ – ‘I’ manifest as the creation.
Brahman is both the upādāna (material cause) and nimitta-kāraṇam (intelligent/efficient-cause). Everything exists in Him and everything came out of Him.
Brahman is there in various names and forms (nāma-rūpa). Logically, if a pot is analyzed, clay alone is there, in the shape of a pot.
So, the existence of pot gets dismissed. Pot is only called “Creation” if I don’t acknowledge the Clay.
Similarly, clay itself is various molecules put together. So, clay also gets dismissed. Then molecules are various atoms. So molecules get dismissed. Atoms are sub-atomic particles. So atoms get dismissed. Etc.
In this manner, everything in the world (Creation) gets dismissed – and ultimately what is left is Brahman. So, the Creation in essence is Brahman only. And there is only one Brahman. Thus there is only ONE Creation. Yes, we can say there are creations within creations. Just like there are smaller units within bigger units. But they all belong to one same Existence.
Meaning, Creation always exists either in unmanifest or manifest form, as the world (jagat). Whatever is seen and observed is only a manifestation.
Māyā and māyā-kārya (effect of Maya) both belong to vyāvahārika-sattā (empirical reality) and hold good only at the vyāvahārika (empirical) level. They do not have absolute reality.
That is why we say everything seen and experienced including our body/mind are nothing but Brahman only with different names and forms.
Therefore, in the view of an uttama-adhikārī (highly qualified person), there is no creation at all. There is only THIS.
—
Article inspired by Swami Paramarthananda
Dear Andre,
May I translate your articles to Turkish and share them with people who would learn a lot from them? Of course I will cite your name and web page. What do you think?
As wish Gizem.
There are still questions with advaita.
“In this manner, everything in the world (Creation) gets dismissed – and ultimately what is left is Brahman”. The gradual progression towards dismissal leads to a nothingness but not Brahman. We just cannot suddenly say what is left is brahman. Because then we are just giving a name to this inexplicable nothingness and the logic doesn’t hold.
In advaita tradition the explanation of gold and ornaments, clay and pot, wood and table, water and sea wave have one common deficiency and that is the fundamental force.Atoms are bound by a fundamental force which forms the molecules. Molecules are bound by a different level of fundamental force and they create structures. Water and sea waves are different. Water the fundamental consciousness and sea waves are images in that consciousness (water) it is because of this illusion it is experienced. So the illusion and the fundamentals(source of illusion) are two separate thing phenomenologically. Which the force that is making this change, what is driving consciousness to view itself as this illusory experience.
Explaining the same with “LILA” or “Joy/exuberance of brahman” is just not enough. These analogies have serious limitations.
Hi Subhadeep,
====================
We just cannot suddenly say what is left is brahman.
====================
What is Brahman? You. You can’t negate yourself. Try!
Where does it say that Brahman means “inexplicable nothingness”? You have created a misunderstood definition of Brahman, then you’re dismissing your own definition.
====================
In advaita tradition the explanation of gold and ornaments, clay and pot, wood and table, water and sea wave have one common deficiency and that is the fundamental force.
====================
Incorrect. You’re taking those examples literally. You think it’s referring to forces of nature. They are metaphors meant to convey an understanding. They are IMPLIED meanings (tatastha-lakshana).
Literal meaning is TOTALLY different from implied meaning.
Example of implied meaning: If someone says, “He is a lion!”, the implied meaning is “He is a brave person”. Has nothing to do with animals, 4 legs or carnivores.
Similarly, your argument of “Atoms are bound by a fundamental force which forms the molecules…” clearly indicates that you are taking Advaita examples of wave/wood/gold as forces of nature. When they have NOTHING to do with such.
======================
Molecules are bound by a different level of fundamental force and they create structures. Water and sea waves are different. Water the fundamental consciousness and sea waves are images in that consciousness (water) it is because of this illusion it is experienced. So the illusion and the fundamentals(source of illusion) are two separate thing phenomenologically. Which the force that is making this change, what is driving consciousness to view itself as this illusory experience.
======================
What is the argument in a single line? Is it about water, illusion, consciousness, images or phenomenology.
brilliant article! no doubt the advaitan perspective is the most logical one, and definitely there is evidence of the advaitan vision of Oneness even in the religions mentioned above; eg “in Him we live and move and have our being” (BIBLE/ Acts 17:28) and “God is present everywhere and filling in everything” (Creed) — which remind “Brahman is both the upādāna (material cause) and nimitta-kāraṇam (intelligent/efficient-cause). Everything exists in Him and everything came out of Him.” and “Brahman is the substratum of existence”
Logic of non-duality (Advaita), and why can’t have two, is also explained end of video at https://www.yesvedanta.com/advaita-vedanta-melbourne/lesson-38/
Thank you for your interesting article.
At the top, you state: “…if matter was created, that means THIS Creation (which you and I find ourselves in), would have to borrow matter from some other Creation.” If God created the world ex nihilo (“out of nothing”), the world would not need to borrow matter from anywhere, since the matter itself would have been created by God out of nothing. Further, stating that something cannot come from nothing is not a good objection. For, in this scenario, the world did not come from pure nothingness, but from God. That is to say, there would be an *efficient* cause of the world (God), but no *material* cause.
My point here is not that God creating the world ex nihilo is a true doctrine (on any level of truth). My point is that I don’t see that it can be rejected on purely logical grounds. One needs to appeal to the testimony of the Vedic scriptures. Do you disagree?
Mark, so question is, “Does this article agree or disagree with ex nihilo?”. Is that right? Wish to be clear first.
Andre, thank you for your response. No, the question is whether creation ex nihilo can be ruled out on purely logical grounds (as this article suggests). I don’t think it can be (as per my argument in my first comment), and one needs to appeal to the testimony of the Vedic scriptures to rule it out. Do you disagree?
Everything already exists.
Nothing is created nor destroyed. Don’t need Vedanta for this. Science tells also.
Even before the big bang, where was the material/intelligence of the universe? In potential.
In potential means it still Exists, but just not perceptible right now.
Just how entire tree is in potential form inside a small seed.
If break down the seed, won’t find the tree. Yet the tree is still there in form of blueprint and necessary matter.
Similarly, when universe comes, it’s not like matter was created. Instead: Potential matter > converts to > Manifest matter.
Just how the entire dream world of time-space-objects is in potential in Mark right now. Tonight, that potential will manifest into a dream universe.
Then suppose Mark and Andre meet in the dream. They have discussions.
Yet the whole thing is pervaded by God and is God (the Waker) alone.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply!
Hey Yes Vedanta
I just read this article, and it is very, very interesting. Hinduism and it’s philosophy is very alluring and always finds a way to pull me back. I had stopped researching Hinduism and spirituality because I felt like I needed to focus on my physical existence more, but I feel like re-learning about Brahman.
Thank you for sharing this very interesting post.
Pleased to hear. Can see video of entire logic here: https://www.yesvedanta.com/bg/lesson-158/