I have read that Sri Krishna creates jeevas periodically(end of Chatur yuga)
a)There must have been a “first time” when God created the Universe(I understand the verse from Bhagavad Gita
There was no time when neither I ,nor you,nor these kings were present,O Arjuna
As a indication of the Vedantic notion of the eternal nature of the soul(correct me if I am wrong)
For what reason did God Create? Because if he hadn’t,we would have already been merged with him(the outcome of moksha),with actually having to undergo Self Realization,since we are not differentiated from Him/Her.
And it’s not like God required our seperation from Him/Her(like how we require oxygen)
b)During every chaturyuga,a certain number of souls get moksha.Assuming the process(of a chaturyug)continues until the last soul gets moksha,what next? Is that The End?
(I don’t know if there is such a thing called “the last souls gets moksha”,as every chaturyug is bound to have souls like Duryodhan:does this mean very soul born as Duryodhan ,will not get moksha?)
(I have heard that although the events that happen in every chaturyug is same,the souls that execute these actions change,depending on karmic factors)
c)Why do events repeat?
I get that Creation repeats,for whatever reason.
Why can’t God add some variety to it,then?
If in this yuga,Parashuram was born to Jamadagni,then why not he be born,to say,Bhrigu,or Vishvamitra?
If Sri Ram was born to Dasaratha in this chaturyuga,why not he be born to another king,in the next chaturyuga ?
Edit:Let me explain why Inam unsatisfied with the answers I saw.
1)I am requoting Swami Prabhavananda from the answer of “How Universe has no beginning:
To the Hindu, creation is beginningless and endless. That it is beginningless he proves by a simple process of logic. If creation had a beginning, then must the creator also have had a beginning, since until there is a creation there can be no creator; but to admit that the creator had a beginning would be to admit that God had a beginning, since God is not God until he creates—and to think of God as having had a beginning would, to the Hindu, be a manifest absurdity.
“Since until there is a creation there can be no creator”
I find this in wrong order.If I feel like I want to make a machine,and one day I actually do,then by the logic of the above statement,I am non existent until I make the machine.Which is absurd because I am present before the machine.If ,until the machine is made,there is no me,then obviously, the machine won’t be made,because it needs my pre existence for its own creation.
To express the fallacy that I feel:I am putting Creation =baby creator =Mother
“ Since until there is a creation there can be no creator” “ Since until there is a child there can be no Mother”
So until I am born,my mother doesn’t exist.(as per the statement’s logic) (?)
I’d correct the statement in quotes and say:
“Since until there is a creation,there is no sign of the creator”(granted we don’t have other indicators)
2)Now,this point(from the same answer):
Even we can comprehend it logically. If we assume there was first creation of Universe and other living beings (jivas), why some Atmans aquired status of Devas and why some Atmans took birth as humans and Rakshasas during very first birth? Even in Humans, why some Atmans were born as Brahmanas and why some Atmans were Sudras for the first time? This selection can't be random as it violates Law of Karma of Vedas. So, there must be no first birth or first creation to apply law of Karma properly. Our Atman and Supreme Brahman are eternal and Universe is undergoing creation, preservation and destruction since eternity.
So the implied meaning is that “if there is a first time,karma fails”
So there was no beginning.(for karma to work properly,as per this answer)
But we know that karma works on cause and effect. An individual pierced an insect with a thorn,making a number of holes. That individual was born as Bhishma and suffered on the bed of arrows,with an equal number of arrows that pierced him.(an example of karma,this story is a popular tale,don’t know about scriptural validity ) A hunter climbed a tree on a rainy day and ,unknowingly offered bel leaves to a Shivling below;the hunter was born in his next birth as a king,by Shivji’s grace.(another example of karma,don’t know if this tale is true)
So to say that “there was no beginning” would mean that there was no cause,only effect
Which is against the principle of Karma.
3)Quoting Swami Vivekanand (from the same answer)
The Hindus have received their religion through revelation, the Vedas. They hold that the Vedas are without beginning and without end. It may sound ludicrous to this audience, how a book can be without beginning or end. But by the Vedas no books are meant. They mean the accumulated treasury of spiritual laws discovered by different persons in different times. Just as the law of gravitation existed before its discovery, and would exist if all humanity forgot it, so is it with the laws that govern the spiritual world. The moral, ethical, and spiritual relations between soul and soul and between individual spirits and the Father of all spirits, were there before their discovery, and would remain even if we forgot them.
The discoverers of these laws are called Rishis, and we honour them as perfected beings. I am glad to tell thisaudience that some of the very greatest of them were women. Here it may be said that these laws as laws may be without end, but they must have had a beginning. The Vedas teach us that creation is without beginning or end. Science is said to have proved that the sum total of cosmic energy is always the same. Then, if there was a time when nothing existed, where was all this manifested energy? Some say it was in a potential form in God. In that case God is sometimes potential and sometimes kinetic, which would make Him mutable. Everything mutable is a compound, and everything compound must undergo that change which is called destruction. So God would die, which is absurd. Therefore there never was a time when there was no creation.
Again,I find fault (please only consider this as my doubt)
In that case God is sometimes potential and sometimes kinetic, which would make Him mutable. Everything mutable is a compound, and everything compound must undergo that change which is called destruction. So God would die, which is absurd. Therefore there never was a time when there was no creation.
Brahman is always pure and eternal.But it is in His/Her omnipotency that He can create that which is contrary to His nature:Maya. Himself being beyond Maya ,however,He does this.
(The Dakshinamoorthy Stotram highlights these aspects,in some detail)
My point is that yes,God is indeed the source of all energy,but to say “...energy in God”,and then identifying God with that energy are two different things.
You can compress a spring and hold it as such;it now possess potential energy.You let it go,it possess kinetic energy.
But irrespective of whether the spring releases the stored energy or not,the nature of the spring remains the same.
Someone in the comments had indicated the difference of how the head of Ganeshji was separated,in differe kalpas. I don’t know if this was an isolated case of variation in doing the same action differently.But the question on how Hanumanji descended through crack(please check comments),repeatedly every treta yug,still is unanswered.
I have also asked the reason behind projecting (to use the correct word,this time,as per Swami Vishwanandaji’s indication) Srishti. After all,God is not under any compulsion (except maybe to dispense our karma,I guess)
Edit 2:Can someone please explain why my question is being closed for the second time,when there are no comments that clarify ,on the points that the initial edit had posed?Thank you.