The inherent characteristic of the non-existent creation is only non-existence

[dattaswami]

NON-EXISTENT CREATION EXISTS RELATIVELY DUE TO GOD

Shri Ajay: God is said to be the truth. This does not give any specific information about God. In such case, the statement is useless since the word Truth also does not give any specific information.

Shri Swami: ‘Truth’ or ‘existence’ is a verbal noun that can be projected as subject as per requirement of the statement. If you say ‘he walks’, the word ‘he’ is the subject and the word ‘walks’ is the verb. The verb always needs a subject. If the verb is expressed as subject, such subject is called as verbal noun. The same verb ‘walks’ can be expressed as subject in the statement ‘walk is good’. Similarly, in the statement ‘it exists’, ‘it’ is the subject and ‘exists’ is the verb.

The same verb ‘exists’ can be expressed as subject by modifying the verb as ‘existence’ or ‘truth’ (verbal noun). In the statement ‘truth is good’, the verbal noun has become the subject. If you analyze the verbal noun, it is very clear that the verbal noun means only verb suitably modified for the subjective expression. Therefore, the word ‘truth’ or ‘existence’ expressed as verbal noun stands for and means the verb only. Hence, ‘God is Truth’ means that ‘God is existing’. If I say that the rope is ‘truth’, it means that only the rope is existing and not the serpent as seen by you.

God is the ultimate cause, who is the only existence (Paramartha Sat) like the rope. The Creation generated by God must be different from God and hence, must be non-existent. The non-existent created item is associated with and is based on the ultimate existence of God and such associated existence is the relative existence (Vyavahara Sat). The inherent characteristic of the non-existent creation is only non-existence. When the associated existence transferred from the cause is withdrawn, the non-existing Creation is exhibited along with its characteristic non-existence. You are existing and your imaginary world is non-existent.

When you withdraw your support, the imaginary world loses its basic existence transferred from you. Now, the non-existent imaginary world becomes non-existent along with its characteristic non-existence. Your existence remains always and is the absolute existence. The existence of the imaginary world continues as long it is based on the absolute existence. Such temporary existence of the imaginary world is called as the relative existence.

The Creation has multiplicity due to the chain of cause and effect. You have seen the rope as a stick and some other person has seen the same rope as serpent at the same time. Here, the ultimate cause, the rope is one only and the effects are many like stick, serpent, etc. You may also see the rope as stick for sometime and then you may see the same stick as serpent after sometime. In your case, the stick is the cause and serpent is effect. Thus, in the Creation itself, the chain of cause and effect exists relatively.

The stick and serpent are non-existent but they are not realized as non-existent since they are based on transferred absolute existence of rope. They are realized as existent and hence, you say that the stick exists, the serpent exists, etc. The existence of non-existent items of creation is the same existence of the ultimate cause, God. The stick and serpent exist only because the rope exists. In the absence of the existence of rope, you will say that the stick does not exist; the serpent does not exist, etc. The non-existence of non-existent item is its inherent characteristic. The existence of the same non-existent item is the transferred characteristic from the ultimate cause.

The black color of the mud is transferred quality of the pot from its cause, the mud. The round shape of the pot is the inherent characteristic of the effect, the pot. Even if the pot is destroyed into pieces, these pieces contain the same black color of the mud but the round shape, which is the inherent quality of the pot, also becomes non-existent after the breakage of the pot. Hence, the existence of God is the transferred property that is associated with every item of the Creation and is eternal. Only the non-existent items disappear along with their non-existent inherent characteristics. The pot may become pieces. The pieces may become particles.

The particles may become atoms. The atoms may become energy. When the energy disappears, the ultimate God exists alone. Therefore, the existence never becomes non-existence (Nasato Vidyate Bhaavo… Gita). The reason is that this eternal existence is the same existence of the eternal God. All this is the sequence of the argument of Shankara. Up to this, it is absolutely correct. But, we should not forget that all this logic of the existent God and non-existent Creation is with reference to God and not with reference to an individual soul.

The individual soul being part and parcel of the creation is also actualy non-existent, but having the eternal existence of God associated with it as the base, is said to be existent. All this logic applied to God cannot be applied to the individual soul since every individual soul is not God. God can become an individual soul through human incarnation in which God identifies Himself with a specific human being and such a special human being can be treated as God. Shankara, being such human incarnation is God and hence, could pass through the bolted doors and could drink the molten metal. No other human being could do like that since every human being is not God.
Subjective God Dropped since God is Unimaginable

Shri Swami: God is unimaginable as declared by several Vedic statements and also the Gita. Even the Brahmasutras established the same point in the beginning itself by saying that God is the Creator of this world. The word ‘Creator’ does not give any direct specific information about God and this concludes that God is unimaginable. Therefore, in the statement that ‘God is Truth’ or ‘God exists’, the subjective God is dropped since God is unimaginable. In such case, the verbal noun i.e., ‘truth’ or the verb ‘exists’ alone is left over. Dropping the word ‘God’ indicates that silence is the best expression for God.

If you say that God is unimaginable, there may be a chance to say that you have understood or imagined God as unimaginable. Therefore, the Veda says that in the beginning, before the Creation of this world, only ‘truth’ existed, which means that only ‘existence’ existed. ‘Truth’ or ‘existence’ is verbal noun. Since the verbal noun is the verb itself, this means that ‘exists’ only existed. The word ‘exists’ is a verb and cannot stand as independent subject since the verb always needs a subject. Here, the subject ‘unimaginable God’ is dropped and only the verb ‘exists’ remains. Hence, for a proper expression, the verb ‘exists’ is modified as the verbal noun, which is ‘existence’ or ‘truth’. Therefore, the Veda says that ‘truth’ alone existed in the beginning before the creation of this world (Sadeva Somyedamagra aseet).

The Veda also states that you must understand that God is never understood since God is unimaginable (Avijnatam Vijaanataam). The Veda also states that since the unimaginable God cannot be understood and is dropped, you can understand only the remaining verb ‘exists’ (Asteetyevopalabdhavyah). The ‘truth’ or ‘existence of something can be understood and therefore, the only understandable information about the God is ‘existence’ or ‘truth’. If both God and His existence are not understood, the final conclusion will be that God does not exist. Since, the verb ‘exists’ has to be modified into the verbal noun i.e., ‘existence’ or ‘truth’ due to dropped subject, finally you have to say that ‘truth’ or ‘existence’ alone existed (Sadeva).

The Veda also says that in the beginning before this Creation, the ‘non-existent’ existed (Asat Va Idamagra…). The non-existent cannot exist because its inherent characteristic is non-existence. It should have existed on the basis of the absolute existence of unimaginable God. Since God is unimaginable, you cannot start with God because the sequential chain of cause and effect should have a clear beginning. Therefore, the first creation of God, which is space or subtle energy, can be taken as the ultimate cause based on the existence of unimaginable God. Therefore, philosophy agrees with energy as the ultimate imaginable cause of this Creation, the maintainer and controller of this Creation and the ultimate destroyer of this Creation. All this Creation is generated by the cosmic energy, maintained and controlled by the cosmic energy and finally dissolves in the cosmic energy (ref.: Akashaadhikaranam of Brahmasutras).

But, this cosmic energy cannot be God since it is imaginable and inert. You should not immediately jump to say that the God is non-inert awareness. God is beyond the concepts of inert and non-inert and the awareness of God is due to His unimaginable power and not due to nervous system etc., as in the case of individual soul. Therefore, the cosmic energy is very much similar and escapes the God by very narrow margin. To differentiate the cosmic energy from God, it is addressed as non-existent having the characteristic non-existence. From this non-existent cosmic energy, all the items of the Creation were generated, which are non-existent but exist due to the basic supporting absolute existence. Hence, the Veda says further that later on, the existent was generated (Tato Vai Sadajayata) from the non-existent.

The cosmic energy was said to be non-existent, but at the same time was said to exist. Here, the non-existent nature of the cosmic energy is its inherent characteristic and the verb ‘existed’ indicates the supporting absolute existence. This interpretation belongs to Science with a small modification that the cosmic energy is taken as the ultimate cause, which is stated as the ‘existent’, neglecting God completely. Science does not accept God and treats the cosmic energy itself as the ultimate cause or God. Some Scholars have interpreted this Vedic statement in intellectual way. They said that God can be called as ‘non-existent’ due to the non-existence of the non-existence of non-existing creation. Such intellectual interpretation is not necessary when natural interpretation is available.

Since the Creator, God, is ‘truth’ and since the ‘truth’ or ‘existence’ is the only one entity present in various expressions using the same word ‘existence’, there cannot be two different sub-items in the same main item of existence. This means that the existence has no internal difference. In various expressions like ‘pot exists’, ‘cloth exists’ etc., the common existence is one and the same without any internal difference. The only externally different item to the existence is non-existence.

The pot and cloth differ externally from each other and the pot and cloth also have internal differences like mouth, middle portion, base as in the case of pot and edges, threads, design, colors, etc., as in the case of cloth. Such internal difference cannot exist in the ‘existence’ or ‘truth’, since the ‘existence’ is the only one entity without any division in itself. Hence, the only externally different main item other than ‘truth’ or ‘existence’ can be only ‘non-existence’. When ‘truth’ is the Creator, then the Creation must be non-existence only. If the creation is also the same ‘existence’, the process of Creation did not take place because the Creator cannot create Himself. The Creator must always create something different from Himself.

Shri Ajay: The Creation is non-existent as per Advaita and hence, Creation did not take place. Hence, what is the problem?

Shri Swami: The problem is that if there is no Creation and God alone remained always, the Vedic statement saying that God created this world (Sa Idam Sarvamasrujata) becomes invalid. Moreover, if God alone remained, there is no point of salvation and need of spiritual knowledge since God does not require these. These objections stand even if you assume that you are God as per Advaita. If the Creation exists equally to God, the Creation was not created at all by God because existence is only one entity and the other entity is only non-existence. God, the single absolute truth, cannot create another single absolute truth.

If the second truth was created by the first truth, both the truths cannot have equal status of existence since both are one and the same. If both have equal status of truth, both must be one and hence, there is no creation. You cannot bring something other than ‘existence’ (truth) to associate either of these two to create difference since God is the single absolute truth without any other thing associated due to absence of any internal difference in the absolute existence. The other thing associated cannot also be created by God since the same enquiry comes i.e., whether the other thing is the single absolute truth or not? If it is the single absolute truth, it is not different from God and hence, cannot be created. If it is other than God, it becomes non-existent since it is not the same absolute truth. The conclusion is that God did not create anything other than Himself.

Shri Ajay: In that case, the above Vedic statement stands still invalid and God is also not entertained due to the non-existing creation. The Veda says that God created this world for His entertainment (Ekaki). How do you explain this?

Shri Swami: God can be entertained even by non-existent Creation if He assumes the non-existent as existent. Even a human being is entertained by his imaginary world, which is non-existent, but the entertainment is valid since he assumes the unreal imaginary world as real. Therefore, in reality, the world is unreal for the absolutely real God. The individual soul is a part of this world and hence, this world is real since the status of the world and individual soul is one and the same. Hence, this world has a double status exhibiting reality from the point of the individual soul and unreality from the point of God. It is both real and unreal and there is no self-contradiction here since the reference is not the same and is doubled as God and individual soul. Any concept is stated in general without any reference. In such line, the world is neither real nor unreal, which is different from both reality and unreality expressed as myth (Sadasat Vilakshana Mithya – Shankara).

The Veda says that the absolute truth alone existed before the creation of this Creation (Sadeva Somya …). When you say that a pot alone exists, two entities are referred. One is the pot and the other is its existence. But, here, in the case of God, only one entity is mentioned i.e., the existence of God. The other entity, which is God, is not mentioned because God is unimaginable.

Hence, the total essence of this statement is that some unimaginable entity alone existed. You cannot have something different from unimaginable because there is no second option for a different unimaginable item. There is no internal difference in the unimaginable. You can have options in the imaginable items. If I say that the pot exists, you may say that the cloth exists as another option. Both pot and cloth are imaginable items and are different from each other. In this way, you cannot have the possibility of the existence of two unimaginable items.

Any number of unimaginable items finally becomes one unimaginable item only. Hence, the unimaginable has no second option. Similarly, the existence has no second option. The existence is one and the same whether it is pot or cloth (Patadavapi Sat Buddhi Darshanat – Shankara). Therefore, in the existence of unimaginable God, there is no second option in unimaginable God or existence and the option is always one, i.e., unimaginable and existence. If you bring second option, the unimaginable becomes imaginable and the existence becomes non-existence. Therefore, the unimaginable and existence have no internal difference but have only one external difference as the only second option i.e., imaginable and non-existence. The reason is that you cannot have a second option in the unimaginable and you cannot have a second option in the existence.

Therefore, the existence can create non-existence only since the existence cannot create itself so that you can say that the creation exists. Similarly, the unimaginable cannot create another unimaginable since it cannot create itself. Therefore, in order that the creation must be different from the Creator, we can say that the unimaginable created imaginable and the existence created non-existence. Hence, the creation is imaginable and non-existent and the Creator is unimaginable and existent.

[Baby Augustine]

I will simply point out that to inhere assumes an already-existent being.
1570s, from Latin inhaerentem (nominative inhaerens), present participle of inhaerere "be closely connected with, be inherent," literally "adhere to, cling to," from in- "in" (from PIE root *en "in") + haerere "to adhere, stick"

The argument falls right at the beginning : " The verb always needs a subject." this assumes the distinction between essence and existence that does not and cannot apply to God. And from there it is all downhill.
His nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence. This is the doctrine of divine simplicity