There are four types of pralaya, or dissolution, described in the Purāṇas and Vedānta, namely: nitya (constant), prākṛta (total), naimittika (occasional), and ātyantika (ultimate).

Constant dissolution (nitya-laya) refers to the self ’s daily dissociation from gross and subtle forms occurring in deep dreamless sleep. Total dissolution (prākṛta-laya) occurs when Hiraṇyagarbha, or Brahmā, dies at the end of his life span and the whole cosmos is dissolved. Occasional dissolution (naimittika-laya) takes place at the end of Hiraṇyagarbha’s day when the lower planets up to Svarloka are destroyed. Ultimate dissolution (ātyantika-laya) transpires when a person becomes liberated through Brahman realization or by becoming free of avidyā, the very root cause of the universe.

In the traditional Indian philosophical system of argumentation, the general procedure is to first name the object (uddeśa), give a definition (lakṣaṇa), and then examine the definition for any defects (parīkṣā); trividhā cāsya śāśtrasya pravṛttir uddeśo lakṣaṇaṁ parīkṣā ca (Nyāya-vātsyāyana-bhāṣya 1.1.3).

aṇiṁā mahimā mūrter laghimā prāptir indriyaiḥ
prākāmyaṁ śruta-dṛṣṭeṣu śakti-preraṇam īśitā
guṇeṣv asaṅgo vaśitā yat-kāmas tad avasyati
itā me siddhayaḥ saumya aṣṭāv autpattikā matāḥ

Among the eight primary paranormal powers, the three by which one transforms one’s own body are aṇimā (atomization), becoming smaller than the smallest; mahimā (magnification), becoming greater than the greatest; and laghimā (levitation), becoming lighter than the lightest. Through prāpti (attainment), one has the power of acquiring whatever one desires, and through prākāmya-siddhi (wish-fulfillment), one can experience any enjoyable object, either in this world or the next. Through īśitā-siddhi (lordship), one can manipulate the subpotencies of māyā, and through vaśitā-siddhi (mastery), one is unimpeded by the three guṇas of nature. One who has kāmāvasāyitā-siddhi (dwelling in virtual-worlds of desire), can obtain anything from anywhere to the highest possible limit. My dear gentle Uddhava, these eight paranormal powers naturally exist in Me and are unexcelled. (SB 11.15.3–8)

Buddhists and Cārvākas hold to the saṅghāta-vāda, that the whole is an aggregate of its parts and the parts are in the whole.

Long ago Cārvāka, the most famous gross materialist in Indian history, proposed that there is no self and no God in control of existence. The goal of life is to eat good food and enjoy the senses as much as possible. He said that consciousness comes into existence in the body at the time of birth and is finished at death; hence, there is no rebirth. Since this is the only life we live, we must enjoy it to the utmost.

Śaṅkarācārya summarized the view of this school in the following verse:

svargānubhūtir mṛṣtāṣṭir dvy-aṣṭa-varṣa-vadhū-gamaḥ
sūkṣma-vastra-sugandha-srak-candanādi-niṣevaṇam

Heavenly enjoyment means eating delicious food, keeping the company of young damsels, using fine clothes, perfumes, garlands and sandalwood paste. (Sarva-siddhānta-saṅgraha 1.9)

According to Cārvāka, there is no such thing as sin or piety that can give rise to good or bad effects. He said that even though the earth has no specific intoxicating quality, the fruit of the catechu or dhatura plant, which grows in the earth, does. The intoxicating quality comes into existence due to a special combination of chemical elements in the fruit. Similarly, consciousness manifests in the body due to a special combination of material elements.

This philosophy is akin to the modern day evolutionists who have developed elaborate theories on the evolution of consciousness from the body’s inert matter. Yet they themselves are unable to produce even a mosquito. These theories are very fascinating to those who are attached to enjoying the senses. That is why the Indian philosopher was called cārvāka (lit., “beautiful speech”), or one who has a fascinating philosophy.

The relation between a word and its meaning is very deeply discussed subject in Vyākaraṇam, Sāhitya, Nyāya, and Pūrva-mīmāmsa. In brief, there are three types of meanings, called vācya or mukhya (primary), lakṣya (indicatory), and vyaṅgya (suggested).

Naiyāyikas do not accept the third type of meaning. Generally, we accept the primary meaning of a word, and that has further three divisions: yaugika (derivational), ruḍhi (popular), and yoga-rūḍhi (derivational but popular in a specific sense).

However, it is not always possible to use the primary sense of a word because either the primary meaning does not make sense semantically, or it does not convey the true intent of the speaker. The first is called anvaya-anupaptti and the second is called tātparya-anupapatti. The common example of the first one is gaṅgāyām ghoṣa, which literally means “a hamlet in the river Gaṅgā.” This obviously does not make sense. How can a hamlet be in the river? Therefore, the primary meaning of the word Gaṅgā is dropped, and a secondary meaning is given, i.e., the bank of Gaṅgā. Thus, gaṅgāyām ghoṣa means “a hamlet on the bank of river Gaṅgā.” There is a reason why the speaker makes such a statement. He wants to convey that the village atmosphere is clean, that the people are pious, and so on. Such a meaning is called vyaṅgya or suggested. This meaning is not derived from the words directly.

The example of tātparya-anupapatti is given in the sentence kākebhyo dadhi rakṣyatām, “Protect the yogurt from crows.” This is an instruction given by a mother to her young son. Now the question arises, “If a cat, dog, or a parrot comes and wants to eat the curd, should the boy protect it or not?” The answer is that he should certainly protect it. But was he instructed to do that? Yes and no. He was not told so in the literal sense of the word, but such indeed was the intention, tātparya, of the mother. So, in this sentence kākebhyo dadhi rakṣyatām, there is no anvaya-anupapatti, i.e., semantically, the sentence makes sense. If, however, only the primary meaning is taken, then there is tātparya-anupapatti, i.e., the sentence does not convey the true intent of the speaker. Therefore, in such instances the primary meaning is given up and a secondary meaning is taken.

Learn more: The Meaning of the word Anādi

In Tattva Sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī explains that the topic of creation and dissolution are delineated in Śrīmad Bhāgavata in order to help us understand the transcendental Lord. The devotees study the cosmos in order to appreciate Bhagavān’s energies, whereas the atheists study it in an attempt to deny His existence.

To study the internal potency, which is unfamiliar to us, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī first gives a description of the external energy as a basis for comparison. The external energy is dependent on the internal, so if we first comprehend the nature of the material energy, which is an object of our experience, it will be easier to study Bhagavān’s internal potency, which is beyond our sense perception.

In Sarva-saṁvādinī, while discussing the principle of śabda-pramāṇa, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī writes: Although there are ten means of acquiring knowledge, śabda, which is of the nature of authoritative speech, is primary, because it is free from the four human defects.

All other means are prone to the four human defects and are thus observed to be unreliable. For this reason, an ordinary person is unable to determine whether or not the knowledge gained through them is valid, due to the absence of the ultimate validity of those means.

He points out that sense-perception (pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and other such conventional methods of knowing are limited and deficient in regard to the direct cognition of truth (tattva), which lies entirely beyond the scope of empiricism. For this reason, he accepts only the revealed word, śabda, which for him means the Vedas, as the means of valid truth-cognition, since they are devoid of human deficiencies.

Bhagavān is full of bliss, knowledge, energy and opulence, so why is He not perceived by everyone, at all times and in all places? Because the jīvas have embraced the inferior energy, māyā.

Although the Lord is present everywhere, He cannot be perceived through the material senses:

nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ
mūḍho’yaṁ nābhijānāti loko mām ajam avyayam

I am not manifest to everyone, for I am covered by My yoga-māyā. This foolish world does not know Me, who am unborn and infallible. (GĪTĀ 7.25)

Just as the sun is present always in the sky, but is not visible to everyone at all times, so the Lord is visible only when He manifests His pastimes in the cosmos at a specific time. At other times, He remains covered by a veil of māyā, māyā-javanikācchannam (SB 1.8.19). Yet even when He manifests His pastimes, not everyone can recognize Him as the Lord on account of this covering of māyā, just as the sun cannot be seen when clouds cover our vision.

The veil of māyā is a manifestation of the three guṇas. An inferior object is generally used to conceal a superior one. As cloth is used to hide a gem, or an iron strongbox to secure money, similarly, Bhagavān hides Himself with the veil of māyā. This shows not only that He is superior to māyā, but that His abode and attributes are also of the same nature as Himself.

Learn more: The Two Divisions of Pure Bhakti