CREATION THEORIES IN ADVAITA VEDANTA - Article

[V Subrahmanian]

https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/creation.html

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste.

With reference to DSV/EJV, I have seen two specific mentions in VivaraNa which is a much prior text to Vedanta siddhAnta Muktavali.

If needed, I will share them.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

On Tue, 17 Mar, 2026, 5:36 pm V Subrahmanian, <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/creation.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2MYm5SVOcEKO%3DR6uSPsw%3DcwDAAMMtMqJ9aHCVMidiuXg%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Can we say DSV and Vijnanavada are same in saying cognition=creation but they differ in the affirmation (DSV) vs negation/non-affirmation (Vijnanavada) of Brahman as adhishtanam ("eka-Jiva") for that cognition?

I was reading BSB II.ii.29 where it seems Shankara opposes Vijnanavada by taking the SDV position, including differentiating the nature of dream and waking, and affirming the existence of external objects. This contrasts with the Mandukya karika where dream and waking are considered equivalent. Maybe I have to read further, but it is not clear why he would oppose Vijnanavada on these grounds (which he himself upholds in MK) rather than only pointing out the issue of Brahman as adhishtanam/Reality (where DSV and SDV oppose Vijnanavada approach).

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Putran ji.

Can we say DSV and Vijnanavada are same in saying cognition=creation but they differ in the affirmation (DSV) vs negation/non-affirmation (Vijnanavada) of Brahman as adhishtanam ("eka-Jiva") for that cognition?

VijnAnavAda's cognition is also kshaNika, momentary. If we apply mind, we cannot actually describe what a moment it.

DSV accepts srishTi either as drishTi or co-temporaneous as drishTi. There is no requirement of momentariness of drishTi.

This is a crucial distinction.

The similarity between V and DSV is that both are unanimous in asserting the negation of external objects (bAhya-artha-vAdi-paksha-pratishedha). विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धस्य वचनं बाह्यार्थवादिपक्षप्रतिषेधपरम् आचार्येणानुमोदितम् । (Mandukya)

Apart from that, there is not much similarity. V is rejected by AchArya by SDV as well as DSV.

I was reading BSB II.ii.29 where it seems Shankara opposes Vijnanavada by taking the SDV position, including differentiating the nature of dream and waking, and affirming the existence of external objects.

True. That is keeping the position of manda-adhikArI.

Elsewhere also, he did not elaborate upon DSV. Advaita Siddhi, BAlabOdhinI says -- भाष्यकारस्तु दृष्टिसृष्टिपक्षं नातिस्फुटयन् इमं ग्रन्थं व्याचख्यौ, मन्दाधिकारिजनानुजिघृक्षया इति न भाष्यादिविरोधः । [BAlabOdhinI, p. 1051]

This contrasts with the Mandukya karika where dream and waking are considered equivalent.

You are right. 

Maybe I have to read further, but it is not clear why he would oppose Vijnanavada on these grounds (which he himself upholds in MK) rather than only pointing out the issue of Brahman as adhishtanam/Reality (where DSV and SDV oppose Vijnanavada approach).

That is for मन्दाधिकारिजनानुजिघृक्षया. There is no other reason. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram,

A couple of interesting online posts feature a collection of references from various great masters. I found the references very helpful.

https://tomdas.com/2019/09/12/ramana-maharshi-three-theories-of-reality-shristi-dristi-vada-dristi-shristi-vada-ajata-vada/
https://tomdas.com/2024/09/26/does-the-liberated-jnani-or-sage-see-the-body-the-mind-the-world-or-the-3-states-of-deep-sleep-waking-and-dream-according-to-sri-ramana-maharshi-and-sri-adi-shankara-advaita-vedanta/

prostrations,

Vikram

[Bhaskar YR]

I was reading BSB II.ii.29 where it seems Shankara opposes Vijnanavada by taking the SDV position, including differentiating the nature of dream and waking, and affirming the existence of external objects. This contrasts with the Mandukya karika where dream and waking are considered equivalent. Maybe I have to read further, but it is not clear why he would oppose Vijnanavada on these grounds (which he himself upholds in MK) rather than only pointing out the issue of Brahman as adhishtanam/Reality (where DSV and SDV oppose Vijnanavada approach).

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

It is an age old declaration of some nireeshwara vAdins (nAstika vAdins) that ‘ it is all mere conditioned mind game’ there is nothing outside, Ishwara is just the product of thick and dense avidyA ( I was really shocked reading this 9type of statements about Ishwara in some vyAkhyAna quoted in this very forum).  They simply think that their logical mind would solve all the problem and fetch them the mOksha without Ishwara kAruNya and guru anugraha.  But when we look at the bhagavatpAda’s bhAshya, we understand how bhagavatpAda builds his edifice of AV purely on theistical grounds.  If the creation and related shruti is just big illusion there was no need to convince the creation by bhAshyakAra to pUrva meemAmsaka-s, there was no need for him to say : ishwara is the main cause of creation and accepting it is vedAnta maryAda.  (parasmAccha brahmaNaH praNAdikaM jagat jaayate eti vedAntamaryAda).  if this various creation theories are mere waste and there is absolutely no value in it then more than 60-70% of shruti vAkya-s will gone waste and serve no purpose at all.  Yes creation theory, its order etc. are not the main intention of shruti-s, it is just because what is there in us and what is there outside of us are nothing but brahman.  To draw our attention to this vedAnta siddhAnta shruti talks a lot about jagat and its creation.  For that matter, just to understand brahman is prajnAna ghana and nirupAdhika (adjunctless) shruti provides us Ishwara srushti and vociferously announce this nAma rUpa of jagat does not exist apart from THAT.  Those who want to know the bhAshyakAra-s intention behind explanations about Ishwara’s creation can refer the sUtra bhAshya (1-4-14).  Sorry I don’t have much time to write about it in detail. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Below observation in bhAshya would throw more light on creation theory & its purpose :

 

// quote //

 

It can be concluded that all theses details of creation etc. in intended to teach the NON-DIFFERENCE of the effect from the cause by means of the illustrations of clay etc.  Accordingly those that are well acquainted with the tradition of Vedanta say : the creation which is taught in various ways by means of illustrations like that of clay, metal and sparks, is only a device for the purpose of leading the mind to the truth; there is no diversity on any account.

 

// unquote// (taken the wordings from one of the English works written by Sri SSS) 

 

So from the above, the purpose of the creation statements in the veda is quite evident that it is meant to convey the idea of immutable (kUtastha) brahman. This purpose is served when we understand brahman through the jagat-brahman non-difference (abedha) relation and not by giving up the Jagat itself by saying that it is conditioned jeeva’s mind game/creation!!  Shruti spends hell a lot of time on explaining about the nature of jeevaatma, his / her bandhana-mOksha, its janana-maraNam, karma, paapa-puNya, sAdhana, mOksha, deva-loka, pitru loka, deva-devata, etc. all these presuppose Ishwara’s creation.  If one denies this,  he is simply denying the very fundamentals of our sanAtana dharma and its dictums.  And he is certainly a nireeshwara vAdi.  The relation between jagat and brahman is vAgartha.  There is no shabda form in the artha. The same artha can be conveyed through different shabda forms of a different language but there is no chance of grasping this artha through any other means other than vAk. The lesson about brahman, srushti, Ishwara etc.  is taught by the Guru to his shishya only through the vAk (speech). It would be foolish on the part of disciple to reject his guru’s speech itself by saying that ‘guru vAkya’ is itself as illusory, because then it is not possible for him at all

to know the artha that his guru wants to convey. We have seen arguments like this by our dry logician prabhuji-s and ironically they themselves quoting their teachers’ quotes to substantiate their claims.  The point to be noted here is like vAgartha sambandha, without jagat existence it is impossible to know Brahman and his svarUpa.  If the name & forms are rejected as illusory, there is no place for Ishwara in AV, there is no pApa-puNya, there is no place for sAdhana -moksha sAdhana etc.  Yes these things are mute when you realize that you are secondless.  But to realize that also you need that Ishwara anugraha, guru kAruNya and shAstropadesha.  The nAma & rUpa are the vAk to convey the artha  i.e. brahman and Brahman is their very meaning.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

हरे कृष्ण Bhaskar prabhu ji.

Explain the following from bhAshya:

Who is referred by the word "manda" by BhAshyakAra?

यदा मन्दबुद्धिप्रतिपिपादयिषया श्रुत्या आत्मनो जातिरुच्यते जीवादीनाम् , तदा जातावुपगम्यमानायाम् एतत् निदर्शनं दृष्टान्तः यथोदिताकाशवदित्यादिः ॥

यदि हि पर एवात्मा नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभाव एकः परमार्थतः सन् ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । २) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः, असदन्यत् , किमर्थेयमुपासनोपदिष्टा ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । ५) ‘य आत्मापहतपाप्मा’ (छा. उ. ८ । ७ । १) ‘स क्रतुं कुर्वीत’ (छा. उ. ३ । १४ । १) ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (बृ. उ. १ । ४ । ७) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः, कर्माणि चाग्निहोत्रादीनि ? शृणु तत्र कारणम् — आश्रमाः आश्रमिणोऽधिकृताः, वर्णिनश्च मार्गगाः, आश्रमशब्दस्य प्रदर्शनार्थत्वात् , त्रिविधाः । कथम् ? हीनमध्यमोत्कृष्टदृष्टयः हीना निकृष्टा मध्यमा उत्कृष्टा च दृष्टिः दर्शनसामर्थ्यं येषां ते, मन्दमध्यमोत्तमबुद्धिसामर्थ्योपेता इत्यर्थः । उपासना उपदिष्टा इयं तदर्थं मन्दमध्यमदृष्ट्याश्रमाद्यर्थं कर्माणि च । न चात्मैक एवाद्वितीय इति निश्चितोत्तमदृष्ट्यर्थम् । 

समाचारात् वर्णाश्रमादिधर्मसमाचरणाच्च ताभ्यां हेतुभ्याम् अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् अस्ति वस्तुभाव इत्येवंवदनशीलानां दृढाग्रहवतां श्रद्दधानां मन्दविवेकिनामर्थोपायत्वेन सा देशिता जातिः तां गृह्णन्तु तावत् 

मन्दमध्यमधियां तु प्रतिपन्नसाधकभावानां सन्मार्गगामिनां संन्यासिनां मात्राणां पादानां च क्लृप्तसामान्यविदां यथावदुपास्यमान ओङ्कारो ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तये आलम्बनीभवति । तथा च वक्ष्यति — ‘आश्रमास्त्रिविधाः’ (मा. का. ३ । १६) इत्यादि ॥

Regards 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625422E7322B6CEA6B4150F844EA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Balagopal Ramakrishnan]

Hari Om 

Isn't the very purpose of creation theories in Vedantha to comfort the manda madhyama mumukshus as a first part of the 'adhyaropa apavaada' prakriya. To get to the ultimate cause, karana, and then explain the inherence of cause in the effect, perform the 'apavaada' part of the prakriya, leaving the enquirer with the doubtless knowledge that the ultimate cause Brahman alone is everything and hence the prathyabhijna, oh! Aham brahmasmi, and happily chant - 'mayyeva sakalam jaatam...'

This is my understanding about the topic.

Regards 

Balagopal 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCi7ayv%3Dejf_DF0cxmyWQptGYUgipJa76mWNFqWHcBNVw%40mail.gmail.com.