Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Minor Religious Systems v2.c13.348.2

v2.c13.348.2

and Śaṃkarācārya himself acknowledges at the end of his comment on II, 1, 14 that the author of the Sūtras follows the Pariṇāma doctrine, though to save his theory he imagines without any grounds that Bādarāyaṇa has in view the ordinary or illusory condition of things in doing so. Śaṃkarācārya’s Vivartavāda it was which the later schools of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism contended against; for even according to him it leaves no scope for the relation of the ruler and the ruled, i. e. God and the devotee in the condition of reality when all illusion is dispelled and one spirit alone exists (II, 1, 14). Most of them adopted Bādarāyaṇa’s Pariṇāmavāda, but the distinctness of God, man and the world, which was necessary for the validity of their doctrines of worship and devotion, they secured by qualifying the mode of development. By this qualification they also steered clear of the inconsistency pointed out by Bādarāyaṇa in II, 1, 26, so that his mode of satisfaction was not necessary for them. Rāmānuja lays down that the rudiments of the individual souls and of the insensate world exist in God himself as his characteristics or body, and with these he develops into the world, thus giving rise to the three distinct substances, the material world, the individual soul, and God as the controller.