Indian Philosophy v2.c26.s5.3

v2.c26.s5.3

The attempt at a more adequate definition of the causality of Brahman (brahmakāraṇatā) leads to divergent views. Śaṃkara argues that Brahman produces the world without undergoing any substantial change, Rāmānuja and Vallabha believe that the world is the actual product of Brahman, i.e. Brahman is really transformed into the world. Again, Bādarāyaṇa says, though Brahman is in the individual soul, still, there is no pollution of Brahman by the defects of the individual on account of the difference in nature between the two.² He asserts both identity and difference between Brahman and the individual soul. There is no logical statement of this position. Śaṃkara finds it impossible to make the Sūtrakāra’s ideas of Brahman applicable to the nirguṇa, nirviśeṣa Brahman of the Upaniṣads, while the other commentators are willing to take the Sūtrakāra’s definitions as relevant to the highest Brahman. The latter argue that the Sūtrakāra is unaware of the theory of a twofold Brahman or of the unreality of the world. The author of the Sūtra could not have refuted the Sāṃkhya and discussed the theories of creation so seriously, if he had held that the world was an appearance, in which case its creatorship was out of the question. It may well be that Bādarāyaṇa believes in a really changing aspect of the Divine nature, a svagatabheda, which enables Brahman to manifest itself in various objects and under the limitations of individual life. A clear statement is, however, lacking.