It has been said that, as practical religious duty has to be enquired into because it is the cause of an increase of happiness, so Brahman has to be enquired into because it is the cause of absolute beatitude.  And Brahman has been defined as that from which there proceed the origination, sustentation, and retractation of this world.  Now as this definition comprises alike the relation of substantial causality in which clay and gold, for instance, stand to golden ornaments and earthen pots, and the relation of operative causality in which the potter and the goldsmith stand to the things mentioned; a doubt arises to which of these two kinds the causality of Brahman belongs.

The purvapakshin maintains that Brahman evidently is the operative cause of the world only, because Scripture declares his creative energy to be preceded by reflection.  Compare, for instance, Pra.  Up.  VI, 3; 4:  ’He reflected, he created pra/n/a.’  For observation shows that the action of operative causes only, such as potters and the like, is preceded by reflection, and moreover that the result of some activity is brought about by the concurrence of several factors[251].  It is therefore appropriate that we should view the prime creator in the same light.  The circumstance of his being known as ‘the Lord’ furnishes another argument.  For lords such as kings and the son of Vivasvat are known only as operative causes, and the highest Lord also must on that account be viewed as an operative cause only.—­Further, the effect of the creator’s activity, viz. this world, is seen to consist of parts, to be non-intelligent and impure; we therefore must assume that its cause also is of the same nature; for it is a matter of general observation that cause and effect are alike in kind.  But that Brahman does not resemble the world in nature, we know from many scriptural passages, such as ’It is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without taint’ (Sve.  Up.  VI, 19).  Hence there remains no other alternative but to admit that in addition to Brahman there exists a material cause of the world of impure nature, such as is known from Sm/ri/ti[252], and to limit the causality of Brahman, as declared by Scripture, to operative causality.

To this we make the following reply.—­Brahman is to be acknowledged as the material cause as well as the operative cause; because this latter view does not conflict with the promissory statements and the illustrative instances.  The promissory statement chiefly meant is the following one, ’Have you ever asked for that instruction by which that which is not heard becomes heard; that which is not perceived, perceived; that which is not known, known?’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 1, 3.) This passage intimates that through the cognition of one thing everything else, even if (previously) unknown, becomes known.  Now the knowledge of everything is possible through the cognition of the material cause, since the effect is non-different