Is this creation real or unreal?

[Shri JSR Prasad asked:- Sāṣṭāṅga namaskāram Swami. Is this creation real or unreal? It can’t be both real and unreal simultaneously and also it can’t be something, which is neither real nor unreal. -At Your divine holy lotus feet.]

Swami replied:- The entire world is created due to a mere wish of God (Icchā mātraṃ prabho ssṛṣṭiḥ). Though the world is inherently unreal like a daydream (creating an imaginary world in awakened state) for God, the world is gifted with absolute reality by God so that the world can give real entertainment for Him. Therefore, the creation is inherently unreal just like the shape of mud-pot is inherently unreal since the shape of the mud-pot can never exist by itself independently without its causal material that is mud. Since unreal has no birth and no destruction, it is told that the creation is not born at all according to the Ajātivāda of Gaudapaada. This implies that the omnipotent God is unable to create this world for His entertainment and this is not at all acceptable to any theist for whom the omnipotent God exists. Since the shape of the mud-pot does not exist before the generation of mud-pot from the lump of mud, we can say that the pot is not born at all before the pot is generated from the lump of mud. At this stage, the argument of Gaudapaada that “the world is not born at all” is justified.

Any argument gets justified in certain specific stage of time and we shall not say that every argument is eternally justified in all stages of time. The tail of an elephant is like a rope and this should be limited to a specific part of the elephant only. We should not extend this to the entire elephant to conclude that the elephant is like a rope! Hence, the argument of Gaudapaada is confined only to a specific state of creation, where the creation did not exist at all before it was created by God. When a pot is generated from a lump of mud, the shape of the pot gets the reality from the lump of mud and becomes as real as the lump of mud. Hence, Ramanuja says that the creation is true and His argument is true in the second state, where the creation has become real by the gifted reality of God. This is similar to the state of mud-pot, where the shape of mud-pot became real after the pot was generated from the lump of mud. When blind men try to know how an elephant looks like, a concept (that the leg of elephant is like a pillar) is true at one place and another concept (that the tail of elephant is like a rope) is true at another place. The difference is based on the difference in place.

In our subject, one concept (Ajaativaada) is true in a stage of time when the world was not born, another concept (Vivartavaada) is true in another stage of time when the imaginary world of God is in the process of taking birth and some other concept (Parinaamavaada) is true in some other stage of time when the world has already taken birth. The difference is based on the difference in time. Both the simile and our subject are basically having this similarity that the difference is based on either place or time. In the case of the elephant, you are moving from one place to another place, whereas in the case of our discussed subject, you are moving from one time (stage) to another time (stage).

Now, Shankara says that the creation is ‘mithyaa’, which can be told as neither real nor unreal. This argument also applies to the second state only in which the inherently unreal pot (unreal shape of the pot) is generated from the lump of mud and is as real as the lump of mud. The argument in this state is that the shape of the mud-pot is neither real nor unreal. If you say that the shape of the pot is real, a contradicting argument comes saying that how an originally and inherently unreal item (shape) became a real item? The horn of rabbit is originally and inherently unreal and it cannot become real by any process. The shape of pot and the horn of rabbit are unreal if you confine yourself only to the first state, where both did not exist at all before their generation. In that first state, the shape of pot is as unreal as the horn of rabbit because in both cases, the lump of mud and rabbit only exist while the shape of the pot or the horn of rabbit do not exist. Hence, the shape of the pot is inherently unreal only. But, if you say that the shape of the pot is unreal, a contradicting argument comes saying that the shape of pot is real at present since we are able to carry water with the pot and we could not carry water with the lump of mud previously. Therefore, the shape of the pot, which is separately real from the lump of mud is existing at present. Due to all these arguments, Shankara said that the shape of the pot can be told as neither real nor unreal. Shankara’s argument includes Ramanuja’s argument also because Shankara never told that the shape of the pot is always unreal to contradict Ramanuja completely. What Shankara told is that the shape of the pot is unreal in one state and is real in another state and cannot be concluded as one concept in all states.

What about the reality of the creation in the view of the soul? The soul is a part of this creation because soul or awareness is called Paraa Prakruti, which means the best part of the creation. Therefore, the soul being a part of the creation must also be like the creation only. Hence, we can conclude that the soul is unreal in the first state of creation before it was created by God and the soul is real in the second state of creation after God created it and gifted absolute reality to it. In the same second state, the argument of Shankara can be applied to say that we cannot conclude whether the soul is real or unreal. In the first state, both the world and the soul are unreal and hence, the world is real to the soul (because an unreal item is real for another unreal item). In the second state, both world and soul are real and hence, the world is real to the soul (because a real item is real for another real item). Therefore, this world is real to the soul in both the states. Suppose in the dream, a person travelled to Mumbai and played on the sea-shore. Both the journey to Mumbai and his play on the sea-shore are real to each other since both are in the same state of dream. In the second state, the reality of the world and the reality of the soul are established due to the reality of God being gifted to the world and hence, both the world and the soul are real. In the first state, the soul did not exist because the creation itself did not exist at all and hence, both are unreal. Since a real item is always real for another real item and an unreal item is always real for another unreal item, we can conclude that in all the times, the world is real for the soul.

Coming to the point of reality of the world in view of the absolutely real God, this discussion based on worldly logic is meaningless since God is omnipotent unlike the little-potency soul. God created this world for the sake of His entertainment in the highest stature. Since God wants to have real entertainment, unlike the little-potentcy soul having fake entertainment with its own imaginary world, God made this world absolutely real as well as inherently unreal simultaneously. It is like the dual nature of an electron, which shows both wave nature and particle nature simultaneously. The world as absolute reality gives real entertainment to God and simultaneously behaves as unreal based on its inherent unreal nature. Since it behaves as unreal, this opens a clear possibility for God to exhibit miracles. Due to these miracles, we can conclude that God, while being entertained by the real creation, can also do the unimaginable events called miracles simultaneously. Any portion of the world can become unreal due to the wish of God or even the entire world can become unreal due to the wish of God. The former possibility explains how God is doing miracles in the world and the latter possibility explains how God is doing the dissolution of the entire world after each cycle of Mahaayuga. The world is real on one side and simultaneously unreal on the other side and such impossible contradiction is possible for the omnipotent God. Since the world is always real for the soul, the soul cannot do any miracle in this real world because one reality can’t contradict and play with another reality. Since the world is of dual nature having reality (God gifted His absolute reality to the world) and unreality (world is inherently unreal and its reality is not based on itself), the absolute reality called God can get real entertainment (because the world is real) and simultaneously God can do any miracle (new world or a part of new world can appear and old world or a part of old world can disappear as per the mere wish of God) in this world.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★