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

[ramesh badisa]

“Please quote shruti reference where it says that:

"The moment you say "one-fourth", you are invariably implying

its finite nature. There is no doubt about it."

Badisa: The moment you give some number, you are limiting it to finite nature. In your respected opinion, the universe is infinite. You have also indicated that a part of infinity is also infinity. Our earth is also a part of the above said supposed infinite universe. But the earth is not infinite. In Ch. Up, under Vaiswarana vidya subject, King Asvapati (5.17.1&2) says that if some one worships a part as a whole, then it would lead to results that are dangerous. One of the sages, who visited the king Asvapati, was worshipping/meditating Earth as the whole of divine. But the king Asvapati said that such meditation would have caused havac on him had he not visited him on time. Now, as per your understanding if quarter purusha is same as complete purusha, or if a part of infinity is also infinity, then, this type of understanding is not correct as per the above sruti declaration. Because, worshipping a part of the whole will not lead for the final ultimate truth but it would rather be
 dangerous, as concluded in this sruti. If a part of infinity is infinity, then worshipping a part of the whole should also be equal to worshipping of the whole. But the above Ch. Up. does not accept it.  This is the sruti praman. I request you to quote sruti reference in your favor.

Sruti is not the only one. Even otherwise, I think Jayanarayanan mentioned a purANa supporting the view point that the universe is infinite. 

Badisa: The views from Purans are accepted only if they are also accepted by sruti. Other wise not. In other words, if Puranas say the same thing as what sruti says, then the puranic views are also well accepted. Otherwise puranic views are only respected. This is generally understood and followed in Vedanta tradition, and is also followed in this list.

“vedAnta also accepts smRti”

Badisa: Yes. Vedanta also accepts smrti, but when it is supported by sruti.    

“So your demands for references are already met”

Badisa: I do not know why it should be viewed as my demands rather than my requests. No body gets any thing on demands here in Vedanta, but every thing may be obtained by requests. However, my apologies if respected members got hurt due to my sruti requests, which are missing in your answers unfortunately.  

“All your quotes from the gItA are statements about the "absolute" or"non-absolute" nature of forms of divinity. they still don't say

anything about "finite" or "infinite"

 

Badisa: I request you to please quote any slokas from Gita to show your point of view. Gita 10/42 was provided earlier to show the finite nature of universe. So where is the question of confusion or misunderstanding regarding finite nature of universe? 

“I have refuted in the mathematical hoopla above, saying that "the universe is infinitely smaller than the nirguNa brAhmaN" does not imply "the universe is finite"

Badisa: Refuting or proving of some point in Vedanta should be done in terms of sruti texts not by maths or pure materialistic plain of examples. If possible please quote the references. 

“Please either give LITERAL refutations of my statements from Sruti, orgive PURELY logical derivations of such refutations from Srutistatements. all else is just your speculation against mine”

Badisa: You haven’t yet provided even single reference from Bhagavad Gita or Uddav Gita, or Vashita Gita or any of the Upanishads or from Brahma Sutras etc scriptures. You first quote the relevant references. Then we may go from there. Please understand that my answers are not intended to hurt anyone, including you.  

“That a quarter of infinity is infinity comes purely from elementary logical considerations, which are a pramANa in their own right. Therefore, creation can be considered to be infinite. 

Badisa: This is only your kind opinion please. I respect it. 

“If you dont agree to this interpretation, you are free to give your own interpretation of the purusha sUkta”

Badisa: I am not giving new interpretation to any scriptures please. 

“I dont have the above said books. I did not find Sankara mentioning there that the created universe is finite”

Badisa: Towards the end of 10/42 sloka, the finite nature of universe is indicated with one of the references from Rig Ved, which was quoted earlier in my answers. 

Previously, it was mentioned by one of the respected members that sri Ramanuja’s teachings would not carry much authority. But now you are asking to look what sri Ramanujam had said in his commentary on Purusha suktam. How come sri Ramanujam’s interpretation on Purusha suktam be acceptable so suddenly now to our respected members? I have already dropped out sri Ramanujam’s issue in my postings. Since it was raised again now, I would like to see what sri Ramanujam says in this regard. I have cut and pasted some of the important points in connection to our current discussion as shown in the web link provided by you:

* “All creation is but a fourth part of him. The rest is unmanifested”  

Badisa: The statement “rest is unmanifested” carries importance here. “Unmanifested” is the one, which is not created or which is left over once the universe is created. If universe is infinite, then it should also include the 3/4th of the remaining unmainfested form. Right? But the created universe does not include unmanifest. As per the above statement, created universe is only equal to fourth part of purusha. This is a clear evidence to show the finite nature of universe.  

* “This world of name and form (nAma-rUpa-bheda- jagat) is but one part of Purusha. 

Badisa: The above finite nature of universe is again confirmed here by saying that name and form only belongs to one part of purusha.

* “Sat (truth), cit (being) and Ananda (bliss) are the other three parts, that rest in Narayana alone, and are eternal in him”

Badisa: The remaining three quarters being sat, cit and ananda, which are eternal to divine alone. This means that these three cannot belong to the created universe. Right? Then what belongs to this world? The answer is given by Lord Krishna in Gita as “dukhum and transcient” 8/15. It means that only name and form of purusha is equal to his one part, and this one part is nothing but the created universe. Thus the conclusion is that the created universe is finite. 

* “All that you see
Is but his glory
He is more
Than all of this
All of creation
Is but a fourth of him.
Three parts eternal
Rest in him alone’

Badisa: This again confirms the finite nature of universe.

* “tripAd Urdhva udait purusha: | pAdo 'syehAbhavatpuna: |

tato vishva.n vyakrAmat | sASanAnaSane abhi || 4 ||

(tripAd) Three parts (purusha:) of the purusha (udait) rise 
above, (Urdhva) above all creation. (pAda:) One part alone
(asya) of his (iha) is here (abhavat) manifested (puna:) again and again. 
(tata) From that part did (sASana - anaSana) beings that eat and eat not,
(vishvak) all of these (abhivyAkramat) did come forth”.

Badisa: Three parts of the purusha are above the creation, while one part is manifested as universe. This again confirms the finite nature of universe. 

* “From Purusha came forth the universe”

Badisa: That means, from one-quarter of purusha (as explained just above), came the finite universe. 

Now, can you tell me what the above points confirm and conclude? Don’t they show the finite nature of universe?  Can anybody go against sruti declarations or Lord Krishna’s teachings? 

Namaste.

 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Make Yahoo! your home page