into its effects, because it is not composed of parts.  If Brahman, like earth and other matter, consisted of parts, we might assume that a part of it undergoes the change, while the other part remains as it is.  But Scripture distinctly declares Brahman to be devoid of parts.  Compare, ’He who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without taint’ (Sve.  Up.  VI, 19); ’That heavenly person is without body, he is both without and within, not produced’ (Mu.  Up.  II, 1, 2); ’That great Being is endless, unlimited, consisting of nothing but knowledge’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 12); ‘He is to be described by No, no’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 9, 2,6); ‘It is neither coarse nor fine’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 8); all which passages deny the existence of any distinctions in Brahman.—­As, therefore, a partial modification is impossible, a modification of the entire Brahman has to be assumed.  But that involves a cutting off of Brahman from its very basis.—­Another consequence of the Vedantic view is that the texts exhorting us to strive ‘to see’ Brahman become purposeless; for the effects of Brahman may be seen without any endeavour, and apart from them no Brahman exists.—­And, finally, the texts declaring Brahman to be unborn are contradicted thereby.—­If, on the other hand—­in order to escape from these difficulties—­we assume Brahman to consist of parts, we thereby do violence to those texts which declare Brahman not to be made up of parts.  Moreover, if Brahman is made up of parts, it follows that it is non-eternal.—­Hence the Vedantic point of view cannot be maintained in any way.

27.  But (this is not so), on account of scriptural passages, and on account of (Brahman) resting on Scripture (only).

The word ‘but’ discards the objection.—­We deny this and maintain that our view is not open to any objections.—­That the entire Brahman undergoes change, by no means follows from our doctrine, ’on account of sacred texts.’  For in the same way as Scripture speaks of the origin of the world from Brahman, it also speaks of Brahman subsisting apart from its effects.  This appears from the passages indicating the difference of cause and effect ’(That divinity thought) let me enter into these three divinities with this living Self and evolve names and forms;’ and, ’Such is the greatness of it, greater than it is the Person; one foot of him are all things, three feet are what is immortal in heaven’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 12, 6); further, from the passages declaring the unmodified Brahman to have its abode in the heart, and from those teaching that (in dreamless sleep) the individual soul is united with the True.  For if the entire Brahman had passed into its effects, the limitation (of the soul’s union with Brahman) to the state of dreamless sleep which is declared in the passage, ‘then it is united with the True, my dear,’ would be out of place; since the individual soul is always united with the effects of Brahman, and since an unmodified