________________
308
Controversy between Dualists and Nonists
(CH.
Refutation of Brahman as material
and instrumental cause. Vyāsa-tīrtha says that a material cause always undergoes transformation in the production of the effect; but Brahman is supposed to be changeless, and, as such, cannot be the material cause. There are, however, three views: viz., that Brahman and māyā are jointly the cause of the world, just as two threads make a string, or that Brahman with māyā as its power is the cause, or that Brahman as the support of māyā is the cause. The reconciliation is that the Brahman is called changeless so far as it is unassociated with māyā either as joint cause or as power or as instrument. To this Vyāsatīrtha says that, if the permanently real Brahman is the material cause of the world, the world also would be expected to be so. If it is said that the characteristics of the material cause do not inhere in the effect, but only a knowledge of it is somehow associated with it, then the world-appearance also cannot be characterized as indefinable (or anirvācya) by reason of the fact that it is constituted of māyā. Since only Brahman as unassociated with māyā can be called changeless, the Brahman associated with māyā cannot be regarded as the material cause of the world, if by such material cause the changeless aspect is to be understood. If it is urged that the changes are of the character (māyā), then, since such a character is included within or inseparably associated with the characterized, changes of character involve a change in the characterized, and hence the vivarta view fails. If the underlying substratum, the Brahman, be regarded as devoid of any real change, then it is unreasonable to suppose that such a substratum, in association with its power or character, will be liable to real change; if it is urged that the material cause may be defined as that which is the locus of an illusion, then it may be pointed out that earth is never regarded as the locus of an illusion, nor can the conch-shell be regarded as the material cause of the shell-silver.
The reply of Madhusūdana is that Brahman remains as the ground which makes the transformations of māyā possible. The Brahman has a wider existence than māyā and so cannot participate in the changes of māyā. Further, the objection that, if the Brahman is real, then the world which is its effect should also be real is not
