तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः ॥ १४ ॥
tadananyatvamārambhaṇaśabdādibhyaḥ || 14 ||
tadananyatvam—Its non-difference; ārambhaṇa-śabdādibhyaḥ—from words like ‘origin’ etc.
14. Its (of the effect) non-difference (from the cause results) from words like ‘origin’ etc.
In the last Sutra the objection against Brahman being the material cause, that it contradicts perception, was answered from the standpoint of’ Parinama-vada or the theory of Brahman actually undergoing modification. Now the same objection is refuted from the standpoint of Vivartavada or apparent modification, which is the standpoint of Advaita. The objection is: Texts like “There is no manifold-nfess whatever here (in Brahman)” (Kath. 2. 4. 11) contradict perception. Reason also says that among things which get transformed into each other there cannot be difference and non-difference at the same time. Hence the doubt. In a single moon we cannot see two moons. What was spoken of in the lapt Sutra, viz. that the difference between them is one of name and form, even that is unreal, for in a thing which is one without a second, which is non-duality, even the difference due to name and form is impossible. The example of the sea is not apt, for here both the sea and its modifications, waves and foam, are objects of the senses, but Brahman is not. It is realized only through the scriptures and in Samadhi. What then is the truth? It is oneness, non-duality. As the effect is non-different from the cause, the latter alone is real.
The Sruti also establishes this by the example of clay etc. in the Chhandogya Upanishad.
“Just as, by the knowledge of one lump of earth, my dear, everything made of earth is known, the modification being only a name arising from speech, but the truth being that all is earth, . . . thus, my dear, is that instruction” (Chh. 6 . 1 . 4-6).
Here the Sruti by using the word ‘modification’ tries to prove that there is no separate reality of‘the pots etc., which are mere modifications of the lump of earth. They are not separate things but merely different conditions, just as the boyhood, youth, etc. of Deva-datta are mere conditions, and not real. So by knowing the lump of earth the real nature of the pots etc. is known. It matters little that the various forms are not known, for they are not worth knowing, being unreal. Even though these pots etc. are objects of the senses, yet discrimination tells us that besides earth nothing real is found in these. They are merely names arising out of speech and nothing more. They are cognized through ignorance, hence they are unreal. The clay, on the other hand, is realized even apart from name and form and is therefore real. Similarly Brahman alone is real and this world is unreal. The world being non-different from its cause, Brahman, the truth is oneness, non-duality, Brahman, the one without a second. To people who through want of experience have not this insight into things, there will always be difference and non-differ-ence, even as in the case of the sea and its waves, but in reality these differences are relative and not true.