Jinasena on God the Creator

Namit Arora Avatar

In 9th century CE India, a Jain teacher called Jinasena composed a work called Mahapurana. The following is a quote from it.

Slug-cartoonSome foolish men declare that [a] Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected. If god created the world, where was he before creation? If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now? No single being had the skill to make the world—for how can an immaterial god create that which is material? How could god have made the world without any raw material? If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression. If you declare that the raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, for the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have risen equally naturally. If god created the world by an act of will, without any raw material, then it is just his will made nothing else and who will believe this silly stuff? If he is ever perfect, and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could. If he is formless, actionless, and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything. If you say that he created to no purpose, because it was his nature to do so then god is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble. If he created out of love for living things and [in his] need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune? Thus the doctrine that the world was created by god makes no sense at all.

One thing led to another, as it often does on the web, and I ended up ordering Primal Myths: Creation Myths Around the World.


Reader Comments


2 responses to “Jinasena on God the Creator”

  1. Namit, can you help me understand this line of reasoning –

    If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now?

    How does the existence of creation affect the previous answer – that god is transcendent and needed no support – ? The above question seems to suggest that existence of creation affects that answer in some way. I don’t get how.

  2. Vinod,
    Good point. It’s possible that something got lost in translation. It would make more sense if that sentence was something like: “You might say that he was transcendent then, and needed no support.”

Leave a Reply to VinodCancel reply

Contact us:

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Discover more from Shunya's Notes

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading