The 'but' indicates the change of view (introduced in the present Sûtra).
The assertion that Brahman cannot be the material cause of the world
because the latter differs from it in essential nature, is unfounded;
since it is a matter of observation that even things of different nature
stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect. For it is
observed that from honey and similar substances there originate worms
and other little animals.--But it has been said above that in those
cases there is sameness of nature, in so far as the relation of cause
and effect holds good only between the non-intelligent elements in both!--
This assertion was indeed made, but it does not suffice to prove that
equality of character between cause and effect which you have in view.
For, being apprehensive that from the demand of equality of character in
some point or other only it would follow that, as all things have
certain characteristics in common, anything might originate from
anything, you have declared that the equality of character necessary for
the relation of cause and effect is constituted by the persistence, in
the effect, of those characteristic points which differentiate the cause
from other things. But it is evident that this restrictive rule does not
hold good in the case of the origination of worms and the like from
honey and so on; and hence it is not unreasonable to assume that the
world also, although differing in character from Brahman, may originate
from the latter. For in the case of worms originating from honey,
scorpions from dung, &c., we do _not_ observe--what indeed we _do_
observe in certain other cases, as of pots made of clay, ornaments made
of gold--that the special characteristics distinguishing the causal
substance from other things persist in the effects also.
7. If it be said that (the effect is) non-existing; we say no, there
being a mere denial.
But, an objection is raised, if Brahman, the cause, differs in nature
from the effect, viz. the world, this means that cause and effect are
separate things and that hence the effect does not exist in the cause, i.
e. Brahman; and this again implies that the world originates from what
has no existence!--Not so, we reply. For what the preceding Sûtra has
laid down is merely the denial of an absolute rule demanding that cause
and effect should be of the same nature; it was not asserted that the
effect is a thing altogether different and separate from the cause. We
by no means abandon our tenet that Brahman the cause modifies itself so
as to assume the form of a world differing from it in character. For
such is the case with the honey and the worms also. There is difference
of characteristics, but--as in the case of gold and golden bracelets--
there is oneness of substance.--An objection is raised.
8. On account of such consequences in reabsorption (the Vedânta-texts
would be) inappropriate.
The term 'reabsorption' here stands as an instance of all the states of
Brahman, reabsorption, creation, and so on--among which it is the first
as appears from the texts giving instruction about those several states
'Being only was this in the beginning'; 'The Self only was this in the
beginning.' If we accept the doctrine of the oneness of substance of
cause and effect, then, absorption, creation, &c. of the world all being
in Brahman, the different states of the world would connect themselves
with Brahman, and the latter would thus be affected by all the
imperfections of its effect; in the same way as all the attributes of
the bracelet are present in the gold also. And the undesirable
consequence of this would be that contradictory attributes as predicated
in different Vedânta-texts would have to be attributed to one and the
same substance; cp. 'He who is all-knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'Free
from sin, free from old age and death' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 5); 'Of him
there is known neither cause nor effect' (Svet. Up. VI, 8); 'Of these
two one eats the sweet fruit' (Svet. Up. IV, 6); 'The Self that is not a
Lord is bound because he has to enjoy' (Svet. Up. I, 8); 'On account of
his impotence he laments, bewildered' (Svet. Up. IV, 7).--Nor can we
accept the explanation that, as Brahman in its causal as well as its
effected state has all sentient and non-sentient beings for its body;
and as all imperfections inhere in that body only, they do not touch
Brahman in either its causal or effected state. For it is not possible
that the world and Brahman should stand to each other in the relation of
effect and cause, and if it were possible, the imperfections due to
connexion with a body would necessarily cling to Brahman. It is not, we
say, possible that the intelligent and non-intelligent beings together
should constitute the body of Brahman. For a body is a particular
aggregate of earth and the other elements, depending for its subsistence
on vital breath with its five modifications, and serving as an abode to
the sense-organs which mediate the experiences of pleasure and pain
retributive of former works: such is in Vedic and worldly speech the
sense connected with the term 'body.' But numerous Vedic texts--'Free
from sin, from old age and death' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1); 'Without eating the
other one looks on' (Svet. Up. IV, 6); 'Grasping without hands, hasting
without feet, he sees without eyes, he hears without ears' (Svet. Up.
III, 19); 'Without breath, without mind' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2)--declare
that the highest Self is free from karman and the enjoyment of its
fruits, is not capable of enjoyment dependent on sense-organs, and has
no life dependent on breath: whence it follows that he cannot have a
body constituted by all the non-sentient and sentient beings. Nor can
either non-sentient beings in their individual forms such as grass,
trees, &c., or the aggregate of all the elements in their subtle state
be viewed as the abode of sense-activity (without which they cannot
constitute a body); nor are the elements in their subtle state combined
into earth and the other gross elements (which again would be required
for a body). And sentient beings which consist of mere intelligence are
of course incapable of all this, and hence even less fit to constitute a
body. Nor may it be said that to have a body merely means to be the
abode of fruition, and that Brahman may possess a body in this latter
sense; for there are abodes of fruition, such as palaces and the like,
which are not considered to be bodies. Nor will it avail, narrowing the
last definition, to say that that only is an abode of enjoyment directly
abiding in which a being enjoys pain and pleasure; for if a soul enters
a body other than its own, that body is indeed the abode in which it
enjoys the pains and pleasures due to such entering, but is not admitted
to be in the proper sense of the word the _body_ of the soul thus
entered. In the case of the Lord, on the other hand, who is in the
enjoyment of self-established supreme bliss, it can in no way be
maintained that he must be joined to a body, consisting of all sentient
and non-sentient beings, for the purpose of enjoyment.--That view also
according to which a 'body' means no more than a _means_ of enjoyment is
refuted hereby.
You will now possibly try another definition, viz. that the body of a
being is constituted by that, the nature, subsistence and activity of
which depend on the will of that being, and that hence a body may be
ascribed to the Lord in so far as the essential nature, subsistence, and
activity of all depend on him.--But this also is objectionable; since in
the first place it is not a fact that the nature of a body depends on
the will of the intelligent soul joined with it; since, further, an
injured body does not obey in its movements the will of its possessor;
and since the persistence of a dead body does not depend on the soul
that tenanted it. Dancing puppets and the like, on the other hand, are
things the nature, subsistence, and motions of which depend on the will
of intelligent beings, but we do not on that account consider them to be
the bodies of those beings. As, moreover, the nature of an eternal
intelligent soul does not depend on the will of the Lord, it cannot be
its body under the present definition.--Nor again can it be said that
the body of a being is constituted by that which is exclusively ruled
and supported by that being and stands towards it in an exclusive
subservient relation (sesha); for this definition would include actions
also. And finally it is a fact that several texts definitely declare
that the Lord is without a body, 'Without hands and feet he grasps and
hastens' &c.
As thus the relation of embodied being and body cannot subsist between
Brahman and the world, and as if it did subsist, all the imperfections
of the world would cling to Brahman; the Vedânta--texts are wrong in
teaching that Brahman is the material cause of the world.
To this primâ facie view the next Sûtra replies.