No, we reply, the difficulty is merely an apparent one; as we maintain that the (alleged) break in Brahman’s nature is a mere figment of Nescience.  By a break of that nature a thing is not really broken up into parts, not any more than the moon is really multiplied by appearing double to a person of defective vision.  By that element of plurality which is the fiction of Nescience, which is characterised by name and form, which is evolved as well as non-evolved, which is not to be defined either as the Existing or the Non-existing, Brahman becomes the basis of this entire apparent world with its changes, and so on, while in its true and real nature it at the same time remains unchanged, lifted above the phenomenal universe.  And as the distinction of names and forms, the fiction of Nescience, originates entirely from speech only, it does not militate against the fact of Brahman being without parts.—­Nor have the scriptural passages which speak of Brahman as undergoing change the purpose of teaching the fact of change; for such instruction would have no fruit.  They rather aim at imparting instruction about Brahman’s Self as raised above this apparent world; that being an instruction which we know to have a result of its own.  For in the scriptural passage beginning ‘He can only be described by No, no’ (which passage conveys instruction about the absolute Brahman) a result is stated at the end, in the words ’O Janaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 2, 4).—­Hence our view does not involve any real difficulties.

28.  For thus it is in the (individual) Self also, and various (creations exist in gods[305], &c.).

Nor is there any reason to find fault with the doctrine that there can be a manifold creation in the one Self, without destroying its character.  For Scripture teaches us that there exists a multiform creation in the one Self of a dreaming person, ’There are no chariots in that state, no horses, no roads, but he himself creates chariots, horses, and roads’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 3, 10).  In ordinary life too multiform creations, elephants, horses, and the like are seen to exist in gods, &c., and magicians without interfering with the unity of their being.  Thus a multiform creation may exist in Brahman also, one as it is, without divesting it of its character of unity.

29.  And because the objection (raised against our view) lies against his (the opponent’s) view likewise.

Those also who maintain that the world has sprung from the pradhana implicitly teach that something not made up of parts, unlimited, devoid of sound and other qualities—­viz. the pradhana—­is the cause of an effect—­viz. the world—­which is made up of parts, is limited and is characterised by the named qualities.  Hence it follows from that doctrine also either that the pradhana as not consisting of parts has to undergo a change in its entirety, or else that the view of its not consisting of parts has to be abandoned.—­But—­it