________________
XX]
Saila Srinivāsa
391 not therefore discern whether the world inay after all be the body of the transcendent Brahman, and therefore it cannot successfully contradict the testimony of the Vedic texts which declare the world to be the body of God. The Vedic texts of pure monism are intended only to deny the duality of Brahman, but it can well be interpreted on the supposition of one Brahman as associated with his body, the world. The denial of dualism only means the denial of any other being like Brahman. Thus Brahman as cit and acit forms the material cause of the world, and Brahman as idea and will as affecting these is the instrumental cause of the world. The twofold causality of Brahman thus refers to twofold conditions as stated above which exist together in Brahman?
In the Vedāntic texts we have expressions in the ablative case indicating the fact that the world has proceeded out of Brahman as the material cause (upādāna). The ablative case always signifies the materiality of the cause and not its instruinentality. But it also denotes that the effect comes out of the cause and it may be objected that the world, being always in Brahman and not outside Him, the ablative expressions of the Vedāntic texts cannot be justified. To this the reply is that the conception of material cause or the signification of the ablative cause does not necessarily mean that the effect should come out and be spatially or temporally differentiated from the cause. Even if this were its meaning, it may well be conceived that there are subtle parts in Brahman corresponding to cit and acit in their manifested forms, and it is from these that the world has evolved in its manifested form. Such an evolution does not mean that the effect should stand entirely outside the cause, for when the entire causal substance is transformed, the effect cannot be spatially outside the cause. It is true that all
1 sarva-sarīra-bhūtā-vibhakta-nama-rūpā-vasthā panna-cid-acid-višista-vesena brahmanahupādānatuam;tad-upayukta-samkalpa-di-riisista-svarūpenanimittatvam ca nispratyūham iti nimittatvo-pădānatvayor ihā' pyavacchedaka-bhedaprayukta-bhedasya durapahnavatvā ttayor ekāśraya-vrttitvasya prāg upapāditatvāt na brahmano abhinna-nimitto-pādānatve kaś cid virodhah. Siddhāntacintāmani. MS.
2 Such as yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante.
upādānatva-sthale'pi na sarvatra loke pi viśleşah kştsna-pariņāme tad asambhavāt kintu ekadeśa-pariņāma eve'ti tad-abhiprāyakam pratyākhyānam vācyam. tac cehā' pi sambhavati. višistai-kadeśa-pariņāmā-ngikārät. ato na tadvirodpah; kiñca sūksma-cid-acid-visistam upādānatvam iti vakşyate tasmăc ca sthūlā-vasthasya viśleşo yujyate viśleşo hi na sarva-tmanā kārana-deśa-parityāgah. Ibid. MS.
