Dianand vs thomas

1

Refutation of Impossibility of Creation Ex Nihilo in Sathyarath Parakash by Summa Theologica Ancient Philosophers and some Muslim Philosophers believed that the word is Eternal which implies that the things which constitute the world are also Eternal . But Pandit Dianand believed that The things which constitute the world are Eternal but world is not.

The arguments of these Philosophers were more complex and strong. Pandit Dianand only used a Single Argument that is the basis of his believes . This is that it is impossible that some thing can be created from nothing.

Aquinas Thomas(1225EC-1273 CE) found a number of such arguments

Pandit Dianand Sarsut [Diannand (a)Saraswati] (1824 CE-1883 CE) has argued that Deity cannot Create anything out of nothing. He clamed that Deity would have been Powerless to Make the World if any one of the Eternal elements of the world required to build it did not exist Eternally.

His basic argument is that this is impossible. Yet he does not provide any proof for this claim.

8. But we believe that God can do whatever He likes. There is no one above Him. A.- What does He like? If you say that he likes and can do all things, we ask - "Can God kill Himself?" Or "can He make other Gods like Himself, become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like? Or can He be unhappy?" Your answer can only be in the negative, as these things are opposed to the nature and attributes of God; hence your contention, that God can do all things, does not hold good. Our meaning only, therefore, of the word All-powerful is true.

Chapter seven Sathyarath Parakash.

7. Is God All-powerful or not?

A.- Yes, He is, but what you understand by the word All- powerful is not right. It really means that God does no require the least assistance from any person in all His works such as Creation, Sustenance and Dissolution of the 1

2

Universe, and administration of Divine Justice. In other words, He does all His works with His own infinite power.

Q12. If there can be no effect without a cause, what is the cause of the first cause then?

A.- Whatsoever is an absolute cause, can ever be an effect of another, but that which is the cause of one and the effect of another is called a relative cause. Take an example. The earth is the cause of a house but an effect of liquids (Liquids are the causes of solids as they precede them in the order of formation. The earth is solid), but the first cause, prakriti (matter) has no other cause, viz., it is beginningless or eternal. Says the Saankhya Darshana, 1: 67 "The first having no cause is the cause of all effects." Every effect must have three causes before it comes into existence; just as before a piece of cloth can be made, it must have three things - the weaver, the thread and machinery, in the same way the creation of the world presupposes the existence of God, the prakriti, the souls, time and space which are all uncreated and eternal. There would be no world if even one of them were absent.

Ch8 9. God being Omnipotent can he not create matter and soul?

Q9 - God being Omnipotent, He can also create prakriti - the primordial matter - and the soul. If He cannot, He cannot be called Omnipotent.

A.- We have explained the meaning of the word Omnipotent before. But does Omnipotent mean one who can work even the impossibilities. If there be one who can do even such impossible things as the production of an effect without a cause, then can He make another God, Himself die, suffer pain, become dead and inert, inanimate, unjust, impure and immoral or not? Even God cannot change the natural properties of things as heat of the fire, Fluidity of liquids and inertness of earth, etc. His laws being true and perfect, He cannot alter them. Omnipotence, therefore, only means that He possesses the power of doing all His works without any help.

But Thomas as if he anticipated Arya Samajis and Dianand in Summa Theologica has devoted a full question for the Creation . QXLV 2

3

One of the Most Relevant Objection and its Answer is as follow:

QXLV Article 2 Objection 1 Because according to Philosophers, the ancient Philosophers considered it common concept of mind that “No thing can be made from Nothing. But the Power of God Does not Extend to Contraries of the first principle ; as for insane as God could not make Whole less than its parts , or Affirmation and Negation both true at same time ,Therefore God Cannot make any thing from nothing or Create.

Reply to The Objection The ancient Philosophers as is said above (QXLIV,A,2) considered only emanation of particular effect from particular causes ,which necessarily suppose something in their action, fromthis came came their common opinion that nothing is made from nothing.

But this has no place in the first emanation from the universal principle of things.

However we also find some more sentences which signifies the problem in detail:= I answer that, Not only is it impossible that anything should be created by God, but it is necessary to say that all things were created

by God, as appears from what has been said (Question 44, Article 1).

For when anyone makes one thing from another, this latter thing from which he makes is presupposed to his action, and is not produced by his action; thus the craftsman works from natural things, as wood or brass, which are caused not by the action of art, but by the action of nature. So also nature itself causes natural things as regards their form, but presupposes matter. If therefore God did only act from something presupposed, it would follow that the thing presupposed would not be caused by Him. Now it has been shown above (Question 44, Articles 1,2), that nothing can be, unless it is from God, Who is the universal cause of all being. Hence it is necessary to say that God brings things into being from nothing.

Queston 45 ,Artcle 2. Whether God can create anything?

The portion after objections.

Comments: There are several objections and their answers but the basic problem of Dianand is that he consider a number of things impossible and he includes the Creation Ex Nihilo as 3

4

impossibleHe includes it in Impossible Divine Acts like Himself die, suffer pain, become dead and inert, inanimate, unjust, impure and immoral or not?

This is the basic reason that he is compelled to believe that there are some Eternal things from which Deity composed or manufactured this universe.

Dianand Sarsuti did not attempt to prove the Impossibility of Ex Nihilo Creation but took its Impossibility as an Axiom of his system of theology. https://besturdubooks.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/mubahisa-eshahjahanpur/ In Mubahisa e Shah Jahanpur [Gtreat Debate of ShahJahanpur 1877-78 CE]Pandit dianand did npt provide any additional proof for the Impossibility and Absurdity of Creation Ex Nihilo but presented an Analogical Proof. He gave the example of a Vessel made of Mud or Clay.

He said that as a Vessel can not be made with out Clay, the universe requires some Material from which it must be constituted.

But his analogy is considered as weak which cannot prove the absurdity of the claim of Ex Nihilo Creation.

So it is evident that Pandit took it as a Axiom and did not provided any proof.

He only included it in a set of Impossibilities like Death Of God, Committing of Sin by Deity etc.

But this is not a proof. As Aquinas Thomas said that the claim of Absolute Absurdity of Creation Ex Nihilo is just a groundless supposition See QXLV Article 2 Objection 1, it is very clear that Thomas refuted the argument of Dianad Sarsuti long before since he faced the arguments of Philosophers like Ibn Ar Rushd and Ibn Si:na: .

If Dianand had read Summa Theologica he must not have tried to repeat his unproved claim of Impossibility of Creation Ex Nihilo.

It may be noted that Aquinas Thomas did a great job by refuting Ibn Rushd’s Principle arguments. In this regard he served not only Catholism but also Judaism and Islam against the objections of Philosophers. So he faced more problems then those who faced Pandit Dianand who was unaware of the works of Philosophers and their refuters like Aquinas Thomas etc. It can be shewn the language of Aquinas Thomas is for more purified and scholarly then the language of Dianand whose abusing language is complained by all religions and other sects of Hinduism alike . (1)

4

5

Books: Theologica Summa by Aquinas Thomas Sathyarath Parakash by Dianand Sarsuti Mubahisa e Shah Jahanpur by Maulana Fakhrul Hasan Hudoos e Vede by Maulana Sanaullah Amrith Sari

Foot Notes (1) Language of two persons are found very abusing. 1] Dianand Saresuti 2] Ahmad Rada of Bans Barili.

In his book Subhaan Assubbuh the latter attempted to refute the Divine Omnipotence over Falsehood but in his zeal he used a very abusing language.

There are books on the topic from either side with scholarly languages. .

5