The Samkhyas,wich influenced every major Hindu theology,asserted a static cause.a static Cause is logically unfathomable,and if it were the case that a static cause could exist,its effect to would be static. in Advaita Vedanta,the idea seems to be that Buddhi is what changes but Atma remains the same. the questions then arise: 1)Did Atma create Buddhi? If so why assert that Atma doesn't change,if all Atma does is create Buddhi you can say Atma has one nature,but then Buddhi would be eternal and could not be discarded etc you couldn't however say Atma is static 2)does Atma control Ishvara and Buddhi? if so why assert that Atma doesn't change and doesn't do the deeds of Ishvara and Buddhi wich are changing in nature and condition etc if contact is two way ,i.e Atma needs Buddhi to be aware of objects(and there is no awareness without objects to be aware of),and Buddhi needs atman to percieve anything then its a two way street and Atma IS affected by Buddhi and experiences what Buddhi experiences.

I am wondering what the Advaita Vedanta answer to this is.the Kashmir Shaivas have their own issue in asserting Prakasha being a static cause giving rise to vimarsha a dynamic entity.in reality it must transform to create vimarsha into vimarsha as production is not established out of nothing.

same for the Advaita Vedantins,they must admit that Atman transforms into Ishvara and Buddhi as production out of nothing is not established,or Buddhi was always there in wich case it is eternal and cannot be destroyed.



You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .