________________
396 Philosophy of the Rāmānuja School of Thought (ch. literature of the school, such as Satadūsani, etc., but through illness he lost his tongue and could offer criticisms on only twenty-seven points?. As a refutation of that work Rangācārya wrote his Ku-drști-dhvānta-mārtanda. It also appears that Annayārya's grandson and Srinivasa-tāyārya's son, Srinivāsa-dikṣita, also wrote a work called Virodha-varūthini-pramāthini as a refutation of Virodhavaruthini. The first chapter of Ku-drsti-dhvānta-mārtanda is also called Virodha-varūthini-pramāthini.
Umā-Maheśvara says that according to the view of Rāmānuja the manifold world and the individual souls (acit and cit) exist in an undivided and subtle state in Brahman, the original cause. In the state of actualized transformation, as the manifested manifold worlds and the experiencing selves, we have thus a change of state, and as Brahiman holds within Himself as qualifying Him this gross transformation of the world He is associated with them. He must, therefore, be supposed to have Himself undergone change. But again Rāmānuja refers to many scriptural texts in which Brahman is regarded as unchanging.
To this the reply is that the mode in which the cit and the acit undergo transformation is different from the mode in which the allcontrolling Brahman produces those changes in them. For this reason the causality of Brahman remains unaffected by the changes through which the cit and the acit pass. It is this unaffectedness of Brahma-causality that has often been described as the changelessness of Brahman. In the Sankara view, the manifested world being the transformation of māyā, Brahman cannot on any account be regarded as a material cause of it. The Brahman of Sankara being only pure consciousness, no instrumental agencies (nimittakāranatā) can be attributed to it. If Brahman cannot undergo any change in any manner and if it always remains absolutely changeless it can never be regarded as cause. Causality implies power of producing change or undergoing change. If both these are impossible in Brahman it cannot consistently be regarded as the cause. According to the Rāmānuja view, however, Brahman is not absolutely changeless; for, as producer of change it also itself undergoes a change homogeneous (brahma-samasattāka-vikārā-rigīkārāt) with
i Umā- Maheśvara is said to have written other works also, i.e. Tatracandrikā, dvaita-kämadhenu, Tapta-mudrā-vidrāvana, Prasanga-ratnakara, and Rāmāyana-tika.
