CREATION contd...

Dayanand discards the Vedantic concept of God being the efficient as well as the material cause of the universe, as for example, a spider weaving a web from its own body. His argument is that if we accept this God would be insentient, false and devoid of bliss. Brahman is limitless, while the world is limited. If we believe substances like earth etc., are produced from God, the same lifeless quality would have to be believed to reside in him also. And if we insist that God is sentient, such lifeless things as earth, stones and so forth, would also have to be so. In both cases we reach an absurd conclusion.

Apparently Dayanand could not rise to the level of the concept that there could be fullness even if something was taken from it. As for example the rivers flow down from their sources in the mountains and even though continually discharging their water into the sea, are never empty. Water forms clouds and that water comes from the ocean, yet the ocean is always full. The snow melts on snow-clad peaks, yet they are always clad in snow. The wind blows and blows and never exhausts itself, and fire is always latent and comes into existence just by striking a match stick on a match box. Despite being eternally produced it never exhausts itself.

As the Upanishads put it: purnamadah purnamidam purnat purnanamudachayate purnasya purnamadaya purnamevavashishyate. From the full take the full and yet the full is lef behind; for this is full and that is full, and in the full we fullness find'. Dayanand does not depict his usual clarity on this point, perhaps because he could not effectively refute the Vedantic stand. He harnesses the Vedantic metaphor of the spider and the web to his own advantage, saying that apart from the spider there is no other creature which can produce the substance which makes the web from its own body. He is not even factually right, as he forgets creatures such as bees which convert pollen into honey and then deposit the honey into honeycombs.

However, the conclusion he ultimately reaches is almost the same as that of the Vedanta: 'In the same way the pervasive Brahman has made the gross universe from Prakriti and the infinitesimal atoms (paramanus) existing in him; and making it thus gross-shaped, himself pervading it, enjoys bliss as a witness looking on. This has an Upanishadic ring "Two birds, always united, of equal name, dwell upon one and the same tree. The one of them enjoys the sweet fruit of the tree, the other looks on as a witness'. Besides, if the paramanus exist within Brahman the argument about Brahman being gross if it is considered to be the material cause of the universe, is not forceful at all. Dayanand goes on to say that God can't be said to have any desire for gaining reputation by producing the world, for any advantage to be so gained in creation will be of no account when pralaya or destruction overtakes the worlds.

Why Creation ?

Answering a hypothetical question, why should there be creation at all, Dayanand answers, why not? The Vedanta considers Brahman's creative activity as mere sport (Iila). It is not any desire or motive, which makes him create the world. It is just his pastime, as a rich man or prince would do something just to amuse himself, or as children play for mere fun. This is much like Shakespeare's famous lines.
                     'As flies to wanton boys are was to the gods;    They kill us for their sport'.

Nonetheless a man's deserts are according to his deeds. Dayanand denies that the world was created for letting human beings experience joy and sorrow. What sorrow or joy exists to creatures in pralaya (the world's destruction), he asks? Besides joy is many times more than sorrow. Many persons of pure souls try for emancipation, achieve it, and with it, bliss [contrast this with his view that the emancipated soul cannot bear the burden of supreme bliss]. God has created the world for perfecting mankind. Human beings get sorrow or joy according to their deeds. God does not give it to them arbitrarily. One might as well ask, what is the use of eyes? The answer would obviously be, for seeing. So what can be God's purpose in creating the world by his power, act of creation and his knowledge, except to bring if forth?

There can be on other reason. And God's qualities of justice, mercy and so forth can only made manifest when there is creaion. His eternal power lies in creation of the world, its existence, its destruction and in its organisation. As the inherent quality of the eye is to see, God's purpose in creating the world is to give countless gifts to human beings and thus bring about their redemption.

Dayanand says that the cause precedes the effect as the seed is cast first and then grows into a tree. When the questioner says, "When God is all-powerful why can't he create the two [cause and effect] simultaneously"? Dayanand's answer is that being all-powerful does not imply that one can accomplish even that which is impossible. So God is not all-powerful in that sense. He cannot produce sentient things from what is insentient, or the other way about. He cannot produce another God and then himself 'die' [i.e. cease to exist]. God's ways are perfect and true, and he cannot act otherwise. Being all-powerful only means that God can carry all his tasks unaided, and by his own self - alone.