________________
142 Madhva's Interpretation of the Brahma-sūtras [CH. definitely asserts the identity of Brahman with the world after the analogy of clay, which alone is considered to be real in all its modifications as jug, etc. So Brahman (like clay) alone is real and the world is considered to be its product (like jug, etc.). There are many Upanişad texts which reprove those who affirm the many as real. But this again contradicts ordinary experience, and the only compromise possible is that the many of the world have existence only so long as they appear, but, when once the Brahma-knowledge is attained, this unreal appearance vanishes like dream-experiences on awaking. But even from this unreal experience of the world and from the scriptures true Brahma-knowledge can be attained; for even through unreal fears real death might occur. The practical world (vyāvahārika) of ordinary experience exists only so long as the identity of the self with Brahman is not realized; but, once this is done, the unreal appearance of the world vanishes. The identity of cause and effect is also seen from the fact that it is only when the material cause (e.g. clay) exists that the effect (e.g. ghata) exists, and the effects also ultimately return to the cause. Various other reasons are also adduced in 11. 1. 18 in favour of the sat-kārya-vāda. Madhva, however, takes the topic in quite a different way. Brahman creates the world by Himself, without any help from independent instruments or other accessories; for all the accessories and instruments are dependent upon Him for their power. Arguing against Sankara's interpretation, Vyāsa-tīrtha says that the unreal world cannot be identified with Brahman (anītasya visvasya satyabrahmābhedāyogāt). Moreover, abheda cannot be taken in the sense in which the Bhāmatī takes it, namely, as meaning not "identity”, but simply “want of difference"; for want of difference and identity are the same thing (bhedābhāve abhedadhranīyāt). Moreover, if there is no difference (bheda), then one cannot be called true and the other false (bhedābhāve satyānta-vyavasthāyogāc ca). The better course therefore is to admit both difference and nondifference. It cannot be said that ananyatva (“no-other-ness”) is the same as imposition on Brahman (brahmany āropitatvam). What Vyāsa-tirtha wants to convey by all this is that, even if the Upanişads proclaim the identity of Brahman and the world, not only does such an identity go against Sankara's accepted thesis that the world is unreal and untrue and hence cannot be identified with Brahman, but his explanation that “identity” means illusory imposition
