01 Jun 2013
Swami replied: Your question indicates that God is defined as omnipotent. In fact, we define God so. For example - Assume that we have given a statement that a particular king can punish any citizen in his kingdom. You may put the same question, 'Can that king punish a citizen, whom he cannot punish?' Anybody can understand that this question is meaningless based on crooked logic. Logic can be good or crooked. We should base all the questions and statements on good logic. Here, we have defined the king as omnipotent limited to a particular context in punishing any citizen existing in the kingdom. In such case, a citizen, who cannot be punished cannot exist in the kingdom. A non-existent person cannot become the basis of your question. Similarly, any stone created by God must be lifted by God to prove that God is omnipotent. In such case, a stone that cannot be lifted by God should be created by somebody other than God. Since God alone is the creator of this entire universe, this possibility cannot exist. Since God could not create a stone that cannot be lifted by Him, the omnipotence of God is contradicted. If God creates a stone that cannot be lifted by Him, the inability of God to lift such a stone also contradicts the omnipotence of God. This is called as mutual contradiction (Anyonya Vyaaghaata) in logic. Such a mutual contradiction does not exist by itself since it is created by your crooked intelligence only. When your question is based on good logic and the answer given by us is based on crooked logic, then, you can criticize us. Now, the situation is reverse and we have to criticize your crooked logic only. The reason is that the mutual contradiction is created already by yourself in your question itself and such mutual contradiction is not created by us in our answer. Hence, there is no need of giving defectless answer to a defective question. If you still insist, we can give the answer based on the same mutual contradiction. You should not find fault with the mutual contradiction existing in our answer since your question also contains the same defect.
The suitable answer for your question is: God can create a stone that cannot be lifted by Him and God can lift any stone. You have to satisfy with our defective answer for your defective question. The blind bride should be married with the blind bridegroom. You cannot point out at the blindness of the bride or groom since both are blind. The answer without any defect for your defectless question like 'Can God create a stone that cannot be lifted by any living being other than Him?' would be that God can create any stone that cannot be lifted by any other living being. The human beings also create a house, but, such house cannot be lifted by the same human beings. Therefore, the human being is not omnipotent. Since God is omnipotent such type of possibility will not arise in the case of God. Lord Krishna, God in human form, created this entire universe, which contains Govardhana Mountain. This mountain was lifted by God Krishna, which cannot be lifted by any other human being. Therefore, we say that Krishna is God in human form whereas other human beings are not God. Hence, we should base the subject of philosophy related to God on good logic, which is scientific and systematic without defects like mutual contradiction, ad-infinitum etc.
The example for ad-infinitum is that an endless chain is created in statements like 'which is the cause for God?' In the analysis of creation, you may go on stating the cause for every cause. You may say that the cause for earth is water. The cause for water is fire. The cause for fire is air. The cause for air is space. The cause for space is God (Atmana Aakashah... Veda). You should stop at a particular cause, which has no cause. If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa). To remove this defect, we have to stop at some cause, which is called as the ultimate cause i.e., the God. Hence, the subject of philosophy (Vedanta) should be always based on good logic (Sat tarka) only. Shankara told this point that bad crooked logic should be stopped and good logic should be followed in any discussion (Dustarkah suviramyataam shrutimatah tarkonu sandhiyataam...).
★ ★ ★ ★ ★