by Karna Cruz
            Plato’s Timaeus and Hindu cosmology center on the need for learning what humans’ relationship to the universe was and how it related to the perception of god and heavenly attainment.  These two great philosophies, or ideas seem to come together more often than they conflict.  General principles of the Plato and Hindu creation theories are similar.  However, Plato’s and Hindu cosmology differ in the way everything was created. Although, emphasis is placed upon mathematical order within both theories, yet they were shown in different areas of creation.  Regardless of the differences between the two beliefs, both are similar in the belief that there was a purpose to creation.

            Plato’s ideas of creation differ with Hinduism when introducing the beginning of creation.  Plato begins his story of creation by introducing the concepts of Being and Becoming.  He describes Being as “that which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state” (Tim.28).  This is his definition of reality, while Becoming is that of opinion and sensation (Tim. 28).  Therefore, Becoming is not real, thus it is imperfect.  It is within this concept of reality, “likeness … which is apprehended by reason and mind,” that Plato believes the world was created (Tim. 29).  This proves that the universe is constant and good.  Plato went even further in his theory of creation by stating that everything created must have a cause (Tim. 29).  Although he was hesitant to expand on this, he did believe that God was the “best of causes” (Tim 29a-b).

 Hindu beliefs in cosmology were actually a blend of several different views.  However, there seemed to be agreement that god’s spirit or essence was always in existence.  Both the Puranas and the Satapatha-Brahmana tell of three worlds encased within darkness, in which god slept within an endless ocean (Classic Hindu pgs.30-33 and Hinduism 84-86).  These are ancient texts of Hindu literature and the Absolute reality of the “indivisible and eternal unity of all things” (Mystics 35).  The significance of Hindu creation lies in its belief that the universe was created through reproductive form. That is, every potential of creation was already present inside a cosmic egg, which represented Prakrti and Purusa, or reproduction (Classical Hindu pgs. 16-18, 31).  God lived within this cosmic egg; upon agitating it, the egg was cracked open and creation began.  The physical characteristics of earth were presented in the afterbirth while the womb water became the oceanic bodies.  The creation of the universe seemed inevitable. 

Both Plato and Hinduism do agree that in being just and good, god wanted to bring order to chaos (Tim.30b and Classical Hindu 32-34).  However, it was Plato’s belief that god was free of jealousy, and was perfect (Tim.30a-b).  The Hindu beliefs were differing in this respect.  The Hindu Creation God is represented in three forms, which support the major themes of their culture as well as a living cycle. First, god took on the personification of Brahma, the creator; followed by Visnu, the sleeper.  As Visnu, God represented inaction.  Finally, he became Rudra, or destruction (Classical Hindu pgs. 20-23).  Within Plato’s theory, god, being perfect, placed reason and intellect within the soul, and the soul within the body.  Therefore, the universe was created (Tim. 30c-d).  The idea of soul was profound and complicated in Plato’s Timaeus.  Soul was the essence of everything, and touched everything.  It was living and comprehensible, and represented only one heaven (Tim. 34c-36).  Within Hinduism was the representation of seven heavens, seven netherworlds, and countless hells (Classical Hindu pgs. 24-27, 46-52).

In the creation of earth, the cosmological ideas of both Plato and Hinduism agreed upon the activity of elements within creation.  While Plato thought the elements were compounded together to create earth, Hindu beliefs represented the earth as being hidden within the spheres of the elements, protected within their layers (Tim. 31b-34 and Classical Hindu pg.31).  Another major difference between Plato’s theory of creation and Hinduism was the rotation of the cosmos.  This was a major component in Plato’s account of the universe and earth being self-sufficient.  Great thought was given to the shape of the world and its form. The world was thought to be perfect and equal in shape, explained by the sphere (Tim. 33-35).  The outer spheres were then created to house and rule over the world (Tim. 35b-36d).  Plato’s Timaeus and Hindu cosmology coincided with the idea that earth was at the center of everything and the cosmos rotated around it.

According to Plato, God needed to create a method that the universe, earth, and the planets could continuously exist in.  To do this, he created an “image of eternity” (Tim. 37d).  Plato went into complex detail and numerology in order to explain this.  However, Hinduism went even further than Plato.  Great detail was given not only to numerology, but to the lives of Brahma, eons, mantas, the four ages, and Manvantaras, as well (Classical Hinduism pgs. 19-24, 36-44).  There seemed to be no simple way of breaking these concepts down.  According to the Hindu Classical Dictionary, the four ages represented the lives of the gods and were in accordance with certain virtues.  As each age diminished, other virtues came forth (pgs. 381-83).  This was much like the practice of astrology and magic in Plato’s time.  The idea of Manvantaras and their origins are still very much disputed today (Classical Hindu23-24); however, they are thought to represent rulers in the classical Hindu period.  Both systems shared their knowledge of arithmetic and cosmic rotation with the discussion of time.  This suggested that reason and intellect was of great importance to both cultures.  Plato made this more apparent by stating, “time… and then heaven came into being at the same instant in order that… if ever there was to be a dissolution of them, they might be dissolved together (Tim. 38c).”

In Plato’s Timaeus, time and planetary rotations coincided directly with each other with everything connected through the world soul, which basis was the intellect and reason in which everything was formed and created.  Hindu ideas of space were different.  Dhruva, which was the heavenly form of Hari, a lesser god, was made of the stars, which the planets, moon, and sun revolved around (Classical Hindu pgs. 45-55).  The phases of the moon were explained as the gods’ nectar, which they drank, causing the moon to diminish.  What was left nourished the earth until the sun came to replenish everything (Classical Hindu pgs. 45-46).  It was also within this space that the seven realms of the heavens, netherworlds, and hells resided.  It was through the descriptions of hell that the importance and relationship of humans was found.  However, first came the creation of the lesser gods and humans.

There were various ways in which Timaeus and Hinduism differed in the creation of humans.  However, they were similar in one characteristic, the lesser gods were responsible for their creation, well being, and nourishment (Tim. 41a-d Classic Hindu pgs. 33-35).   Plato’s reasoning suggested that since god created everything perfect, the lesser gods had to create humans so mankind would not be of the same rank of the gods (Tim. 41c-d).  Timaeus further told of how god molded and shaped beings into lesser gods, water species, birds, and pedestrian and land animals (Tim. 40a).  The elements were mingled with the soul and diluted, in order to create humans (Tim. 42).  This imperfection of soul presented many trials for humans in the name of free will.  The creation of humans and the lesser gods were quite different in Hinduism.  Hindu beliefs brought three more elements or qualities in: tamas, the darkness from which demons were created, sattva, the tranquility or light from which the lesser gods and Fathers were created, and rajas, the passion from which humans were created Classical Hindu pg. 33).  Unlike Timaeus, the Hindu system told of Brahma taking each of these forms to birth his creations.  Afterwards, each form was cast off to create night, day, and twilight (Classical Hindu 33-34).  Regardless of the differences in Hindu and Plato’s cosmologies, both theories were focused on a common goal, which was to provide mankind with a thriving world so that they could grow spiritually.

Plato’s Timaeus was similar to Hindu myths and beliefs in another way, as well.  Both cosmologies illustrated the belief in the transmigration of souls.  Plato believed mankind was deliberately created imperfect and the human soul was at first without intelligence so that humans could evolve through their reason and intellect (Tim, 44b).  The human path toward righteousness took many attempts and many lifetimes (Tim, 44b).  Hindu beliefs also see the human soul as imperfect (Bailey, 87).  The search for righteousness in both Plato’s Timaeus and Hindu mythology eventually becomes attained by self-restraint, which allows knowledge and understanding to enter the soul (Tim, 44b-d; Sircar, 202-03).  The search in both cosmologies spans lifetimes.

The ideas behind the cosmology beliefs of Plato in Timaeus and in Hindu mythology and mysticism have never died.  Purpose and truth not only guided these cosmology beliefs, but formed them, too.  Both work towards the idea that everything has a purpose.  This belief is widely held within the current world beliefs.  Both theories reflect upon the idea of the continuity of life.  Regardless of whether Plato is preferred over Hindu mythology, or vice versa, the ideas of spiritual immortality are present in both.  The idea of spiritual immortality is still widely believed today.  It is a belief that has spanned across many cultures and touched every race.  The idea of purpose has been and still is a strong binding force in not only religion, but philosophy, as well.

Works Cited

Bailey, Greg.  The Mythology of Brahma. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1983

Dimmitt, Cornelia and J.A.B. van Buitenen, eds., Classical Hindu Mythology: A      Reader in the Sanskrit Puranas.  Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978

Dowson, John, M.R.A.S., A Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and Religion, Geography, History, and Literature (1913)

Plato: Collected Dialogues, Timaeus (Pgs. 1160-1177)

Renou, Louis, Great Religions of Modern Man: Hinduism (1961)

Shastri, Hari Prasad, translator, The Ramayana of Valmiki (1962)

Sircar, Mahendranath.  Hindu Mysticism.  New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1974.