Verses 75 to 86

Verses No 69 to 74

Verse No 68

An objection is raised: “If Brahman shines (self-luminous), then how can the phenomenal world also appear?”

The reply: By difference of standpoint (state of knowledge vs ignorance), both (Brahman and the world) may appear.

For the knower, the Self always shines as pure, free from the impurity of ignorance and its effect, the projection of the phenomenal world — hence it is non-dual and non-phenomenal.

For the ignorant, however, the very same Self appears as if always impure, due to delusion.

To illustrate this, a familiar example is given:

Just as a rope appears in two ways —

• To the knower, free of the notion of snake, it is harmless and non-fearful.
• To the ignorant, seen in the contrary manner (as a snake), it becomes fearful.

So too, Brahman, although ever self-luminous, becomes meaningful for the attainment of the highest human goal (puruṣārtha) only when apprehended through the right cognition (akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti). Otherwise, for the ignorant, it remains unrecognized.

This is like the sun or a lamp: they shine equally, but only one with sight perceives their light, not the blind.

Verse No 66

Here, the reason (hetu), along with a supporting example, is given under the heading “kārya” (effect). The Śruti says:

“Dear one, by knowing a lump of clay, all that is made of clay becomes known” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.4).

The reasoning is as follows: If the effect (pot, jar, etc.) were truly different from the cause (clay), then knowledge of the cause would not yield knowledge of all its effects. Since it does (as per the Upaniṣad), the effect must be non-different from its cause.

Verse No 67

The non-difference of effect and cause (kārya–kāraṇa-ananyatva) is further clarified by means of an illustration.

The “grasped” (gṛhyamāṇa) object — here, the shining self (bhāsura) — is of the nature of illumination itself, self-luminous, requiring no external means of knowledge (pramāṇa-nirapekṣa).

Verse No.65

Śaṅkara establishes the non-duality of Brahman and the illusoriness of the world using Upaniṣadic evidence, analogies, and reasoning.

“किंच भेददृष्टेर्दोषश्रवणादपि कारणादभिन्नमेव कार्यमित्याह दोष इति।”

Segmented:

• किं च — moreover
• भेद-दृष्टेः दोष-श्रवणात् अपि — from the hearing of the fault in the view of difference
• कारणात् अभिन्नम् एव कार्यम् — the effect is indeed non-different from the cause
• इत्याह — thus it is said
• दोष इति — “fault”, so it is said

Moreover, since the scriptures mention the faults of dualistic perception, the effect (world) must be non-different from its cause (Brahman).

Seeing duality leads to fear and bondage. Hence, Śruti negates all difference to point toward non-duality.

("He who sees difference goes from death to death")

This Śruti from Kaṭha Upaniṣad is a powerful declaration against the validity of dualistic perception.

“ब्रह्मण इति । बृहत्वादपरिच्छिन्नत्वाद्ब्रह्म तद्रूपात्परमात्मनः सर्वाणि भूतानि जायन्ते।”

Segmented:

• ब्रह्मण इति — [the world arises] from Brahman
• बृहत्वात् अपरिच्छिन्नत्वात् — because of infinitude and indivisibility
• ब्रह्म — Brahman
• तद्रूपात् — of that very nature
• परमात्मनः — of the Supreme Self
• सर्वाणि भूतानि — all beings
• जायन्ते — are born

All beings arise from the infinite and indivisible Brahman. Hence, they are essentially non-different from it.

“ननु नानानामरूपकर्मभेदेन विचित्राणि भूतानि कथं ब्रह्मात्मकानीति आशङ्क्य आह ब्रह्मैव इति।”

Segmented:

• ननु — but
• नाना-नाम-रूप-कर्म-भेदेन — with differences of name, form, and action
• विचित्राणि भूतानि — diverse beings
• कथं — how
• ब्रह्मात्मकानि — can be of the nature of Brahman?
• इति — thus
• आशङ्क्य — having this doubt
• आह — it is answered
• ब्रह्म एव — Brahman alone

Though beings appear diverse in name, form, and action, they are essentially Brahman, says Śruti.

Multiplicity is only apparent — it is due to nāma-rūpa (name and form), which are superimposed on the one reality.

(“This world is just name, form, and action”) — Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad

"सुवर्णाज्जायमानस्य सुवर्णत्वं च शाश्वतम्। ब्रह्मणो जायमानस्य ब्रह्मत्वं च तथा भवेत्॥"

Just as ornaments made of gold never cease to be gold, all objects emerging from Brahman retain its Brahman-nature.

“स्वल्पमप्यन्तरम् उपास्योपासकरूपं भेदं कृत्वा कल्पयित्वा यः तिष्ठति तस्य भयम्।”

Segmented:

• स्वल्पम् अपि अन्तरम् — even the slightest distinction
• उपास्य-उपासक-रूपं भेदं — as between worshipper and worshipped
• कृत्वा — making
• कल्पयित्वा — imagining
• यः तिष्ठति — he who abides thus
• तस्य भयम् — for him, there is fear

Even imagining a slight difference between oneself and Brahman leads to fear.

Śaṅkara resolves it through avastḥābheda (state-based distinctions):

In ignorance, duality seems real.

In knowledge, only non-duality shines forth.

When one sees everything as the Self, there is no delusion or sorrow.

• Gandharva-nagara: A mirage-like city in the sky
• Dream: Entirely internal, yet mistaken for real
• Snake on a rope: Superimposition due to ignorance
• Silver in nacre: A classic Advaita analogy for false appearance

All modifications are only in name, with clay (mṛttikā) being the real substance. So too, all names and forms are just Brahman.

"परे परब्रह्मणि जीवशब्दस्तथा..."

The word Jīva is only a name in the realm of ignorance. Upon realization of Brahman, the notion of Jīva ceases.

“न केवलं जीव एव नाममात्रः किंतु सर्वं विश्वमपि ब्रह्मणि नाममात्रम्”

Not just the individual self, but the entire universe is only a name in Brahman — name without substance.

"नाममात्रप्रपंचस्य मिथ्यात्ववासनादार्ढ्याय..."

By showing that the world is only name-based appearance, the conviction in its unreality is strengthened.

Because names are not real (name-abhaava), only Brahman — the substrate — is to be known as satya (truth).

“अज्ञाननिवृत्तिरेव जीवन्मुक्तिः न तु द्वैत-अदर्शनम्”

Liberation while living arises not from merely not seeing duality, but from the removal of ignorance.

All distinctions — Jīva, Jagat, duality, multiplicity — are mere superimpositions upon the non-dual Brahman. Through śruti, reason, and direct insight, Śaṅkara shows that the entire world is mithyā, and the one unchanging reality is Brahman, which is your very Self.

Verse No 60

The Jīva–Brahman Difference is Apparent, Not Real

• According to Advaita, any perceived duality — such as that between jīva and Brahman — arises only in ignorance (ajñāna-avasthā).
• This difference is not ontological (real), but only linguistic and conceptual — a “nāma-mātra”.

• Classic Vedāntic example: You see silver in a shining shell on the beach.
• The mind superimposes silver (rajas) on the shell due to ignorance, but when correct knowledge arises, you see it's just a shell.
• The silver was never there in reality; it was a projection.

Likewise, the jīva is superimposed on Brahman through avidyā.

Once Brahman is known as one's true Self, the idea of jīva evaporates.

• “Jīva” is a label applied to Brahman seen through the lens of individuality.
• It is like calling a mirage "water" — the word persists due to wrong perception, not because the object is real.

• Upon Self-realization, when one knows “I am Brahman” (ahaṁ brahmāsmi), the false names and distinctions lose their grip.

There is no more jīva, no more world, no more other.

The jīva–Brahman distinction exists only as long as ignorance persists.

It is a mere name, like the illusory silver seen on a shell.

Upon realizing Brahman, the truth is known — there is no jīva, only the non-dual Self.

Verse 61

• The idea that "I am a limited individual (jīva)" arises from ignorance (avidyā).
• In truth, the jīva is Brahman, and the distinction is only verbal — nāma-mātra.

• Names and forms (nāma-rūpa) appear upon Brahman like waves on the ocean.
• They have no independent existence apart from Brahman.
• The manifold world is Brahman clothed in names — a projection due to Māyā.

The Upaniṣads and Advaita tradition offer multiple dṛṣṭāntas (analogies) to clarify this

In the final analysis, only Brahman is satyam (real).

Everything else — jīva, jagat (world) — is mithyā (dependent reality), nāma-rūpa upon the non-dual substrate.

This verse subtly but powerfully aligns with the famous declaration:

"Brahma satyam, jagan mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ"

Brahman is real, the world is mithyā, and the jīva is none other than Brahman.

✨ Summary Statement

The jīva is not truly distinct from Brahman — it is only a name.

Even the entire universe is merely named upon Brahman.

Through countless analogies, Advaita Vedānta dissolves all duality, revealing One Reality alone.

Verse No 62

• The purpose here is to strengthen one's understanding that the world is not ultimately real — it is nāma-mātra (merely names superimposed on Brahman).
• Just as illusions (like Gandharva cities or ghosts) appear without real substance, so too does the jagat (world).

• Vedānta repeatedly uses analogies to break our firm habitual sense of reality in duality.
• Here, three examples illustrate that what appears vividly can still be utterly false, because it lacks a true substratum.

• Gandharva-nagara (illusory celestial city) is a key metaphor in Vedānta for something appearing real but resting on nothing.
• So too, the world of names and forms rests on Brahman, yet the forms are not real in themselves.

Appearances such as a phantom, mirage, or illusory city have no independent existence;

likewise, the jagat has no reality apart from Brahman.

This aligns with:

“ब्रह्म सत्यम्, जगन्मिथ्या”

Brahman is the real; the world is mithyā.

Just as illusory entities (like ghosts or sky-cities) appear vividly yet falsely, the entire universe, though perceived clearly, is nāma-mātra, without real substance.

Brahman alone is real; the world is mithyā, and this truth must be firmly grasped through reflection and teaching by example.

Verse No 63 & 64

The pot, jar, or any object is merely a vikāra (modification) of clay. The name “pot” arises from speech (vāc), but does not indicate real transformation.

🔍 What is real is the unchanging substratum — here, clay.

Similarly, Brahman is the unchanging satya, while all else is nāma-rūpa — names and forms, hence mithyā.

The purpose of teaching mithyātva is not to negate the world nihilistically, but to strip off false superimpositions and point to the unchanging, ever-present Brahman.

When name (nāma) is seen to be unreal, the object (which was only a named form) collapses, and what remains is Brahman — the truth behind all appearances.

The statement from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.1.4) is central to Advaita:

“Vācārambhaṇaṁ vikāro nāmadheyaṁ, mṛttiketyeva satyam”

“All modifications are in speech only; clay alone is real.”

This shruti vākya serves as pramāṇa (valid means of knowledge) to assert that Brahman alone is real, and the perceived world is an apparent transformation only — not a real one.

When the name and form are recognized as unreal, what remains is Brahman, the truth.

Just as only clay is real and pots are mere names, Brahman alone is satya, and the world is vācārambhaṇaṁ — just speech-based illusion.

Verses 56

• The objection arises from a misconception:
• “We see the world, so duality is real, and so sorrow must be real too.”
• Advaita’s response is:
• The world may appear, but that appearance does not falsify the truth of non-duality — just as a dream appears, but vanishes upon waking.

• The word "anubhūta" — “this is experienced” — refers to analogies like:
• The rope-snake: fear arises due to misperception; knowledge ends the fear.
• The dream-world: while dreaming, duality and sorrow seem real; upon waking, one sees it was unreal.
• Thus, even in this world, we have experiential parallels that show:
• Sorrow is not real in itself; it's the product of misapprehension (avidyā).

• Just because Brahman is the substratum (kāraṇa) of the world, it does not mean everything superimposed upon it (including sorrow) is ultimately real.
• Like gold being the cause of various ornaments, yet names and forms (bangles, earrings) don’t alter the essential nature.

This passage skillfully anticipates a common doubt — that the perceived world and the existence of sorrow contradict non-duality.

But through the pointer “anubhūtaḥ” (this is experienced), it appeals to lived illustrations where apparent reality doesn’t prove ultimate reality — and sorrow dissolves with true knowledge.

In short: Experience confirms, it doesn’t contradict, non-duality.

Verse No. 57

• Whether it is waking (jāgrat), dream (svapna), or deep sleep (suṣupti) — the duality (of knower-known, subject-object, world-self) is ultimately mithyā (neither real nor absolutely unreal).
• Just as the dream-world vanishes upon waking, the waking world too is sublated in the vision of Brahman.

• Dream is used as an illustration (dṛṣṭānta) for the waking world:
• Both arise from ignorance (avidyā).
• Both present a dualistic appearance.
• Both are negated by right knowledge (pramā).

• The rule (nyāmaḥ) previously mentioned — likely about the falsity of duality, or the illusoriness of the world — is not limited to one example (like the rope-snake) but is universally applicable.
• Hence, it's now extended (atidishati) even to dream, showing consistency in illusion across all states.

• That which is not sublated at any time (trikāla-abādhita) is real.
• Dream and waking states are sublated (negated) — either in deep sleep or in knowledge of Brahman.
• Thus, they are mithyā, not satya.

Just as the dream-world is illusory and vanishes upon waking, so too is the waking world — illusory from the standpoint of Brahma-jñāna (Self-realization).

The apparent duality, present in any state, is only due to ignorance — and dissolves upon realization of non-dual Brahman.

This insight is not limited to one case, but is consistently valid across all states of experience.

Verse No 58

• Waking, dream, and deep sleep do not co-exist; each negates the other.
• This mutual cancellation is a hallmark of mithyā — like the snake and the rope in illusion.

• The three states arise due to combinations of sattva (clarity), rajas (activity), and tamas (inertia).
• These are the modes of prakṛti, and the mind functions differently in each state due to the dominance of one guṇa.
• Hence, these are not ultimately real, but māyā-kalpita — imagined by māyā.

• The question "What is real then?" prepares the seeker for the central Vedāntic answer:
• It is not the states themselves, but that which underlies them all — the witness consciousness (sākṣī) or pure awareness (Brahman).
• This unchanging substratum is what remains the same in all three states.

• The "rest is clear" (शेषं स्पष्टम्) points to a direct intuitive grasp of the teaching for a sincere student —
• that Brahman is the sole non-dual reality, and everything else, including waking and dreaming, is māyā.

The three states of experience — waking, dream, and deep sleep — are mutually exclusive and thus illusory, being mere products of māyā shaped by the three guṇas.

What is real is the changeless substratum underlying them — the Self (Ātman), identical with Brahman.

Recognizing this, the wise see through the illusion of experience and rest in the One without a second.

Verse No 59

• A subtle doubt is raised by the intellect:
• “Even if all experiences (in the three states) are illusory, the one who experiences — the jīva — must be real.”
• This is a common mistaken assumption — that there is a permanent experiencing entity (jīva) who persists through illusion.

• The Upaniṣadic reply is that even the jīva is not ultimately real.
• He appears only as long as Brahman is not known.

Like a snake seen on a rope, the jīva is merely a superimposition on Brahman due to avidyā (ignorance).

• When Brahman is directly realized as one's own Self — not as an object of knowledge, but as one’s true being — then:
• All dualistic notions vanish.
• The idea of being an individual dissolves.

The seer, the seen, and the seeing merge into one undivided Awareness.

• The jīva is not a permanent entity but a conceptual construct arising due to identification with body–mind.
• When this false identification ceases, the truth of non-dual Brahman is self-evident.
• Even the jīva, like the three states, is a product of māyā.
• When Brahman is realized as the true Self, the idea of individual existence collapses.
• There is no jīva, no bondage, and no liberation — only Brahman, the non-dual reality.

Verse No 50

Unity Behind Diversity:

All distinctions — nāma, rūpa, karma — are superficial. Their substratum is Brahman alone.

Vivarta (Superimposition):

The world is not a real transformation of Brahman but an illusory appearance — just like a snake seen on a rope.

Role of Ignorance (Avidyā):

The perception of multiplicity arises only due to ignorance of the substratum (adhisthāna), i.e., Brahman.

Upaniṣadic Authority:

The teaching is not speculative but grounded in śruti, particularly in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.

Implication of All Sense Objects and Actions:

By mentioning names, forms, and actions, the text implicitly includes all perceptual and functional diversity — but only as appearances in Brahman.

Verse No 51

• The ornament (like a bracelet or ring) may have a different name and form, but its substance is only gold.
• Similarly, all objects and beings in the world have different names and forms, but their underlying reality is Brahman.

• In Advaita, Brahman does not really transform into the world.
• The world is a superimposition (vivarta) on Brahman, just like a bracelet is a form superimposed on gold.

• Gold remains gold in all forms.
• Brahman remains Brahman, even as the world appears to be full of multiplicity.

• The effect (ornament or world) is not separate from its cause (gold or Brahman).
• This reinforces the non-dual (advaita) view — there is no second reality apart from Brahman.

• One who sees the ornament as gold is not deluded by its shape or name.
• Likewise, the wise see Brahman in all beings, not being deluded by superficial differences.

Verse No 52

• The world of experience appears to be populated by agent, action, object, and so on — but all are only appearances (vivarta) upon the one non-dual Brahman.
• There is only one substratum — all else is name and form (nāma-rūpa).

• Fear (bhaya) arises only when there is a perception of otherness.
• Where there is duality, there is vulnerability, desire, aversion, and ultimately suffering.
• Hence, difference is the root of existential anxiety.

• Even a slight conceptual gap, such as imagining “I am the devotee and Brahman is the object of devotion”, perpetuates duality, and thus fear.

• The quote — "Yadā hyevaiṣa etasmin udaraṁ antaraṁ kurute, atha tasya bhayaṁ bhavati" (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.2) — is often cited to illustrate that:
• True fearlessness is only possible in the absolute non-dual state.
• Once there is a perceived “other,” fear naturally arises.

• The goal is not just to negate gross difference, but also the subtlest sense of duality — even that involved in the most refined devotion or worship.
• Ultimately, upāsya (worshipped), upāsaka (worshipper), and upāsanā (worship) are all brahma-svarūpa.

Verse No 53

• Duality and non-duality don’t coexist simultaneously in one experience.
• They appear in different epistemic states:
• Dvaita = state of ignorance
• Advaita = state of knowledge

• Duality seems real only as long as ignorance persists.
• Once ignorance is dispelled, the entire appearance of duality collapses — not through destruction, but by dawning of truth.

• Passages from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad show a clear transition:
• From "seeing the other" in duality,
• To "there is no other to see" in non-dual realization.

• The idea of 'other' is itself a product of ignorance.
• When one realizes the Self as all, the very notions of seer, seen, and seeing dissolve.

• This is not just metaphysics. As long as one clings to duality, one remains in fear, limitation, and bondage.
• Realization of non-duality brings fearlessness, freedom, and finality (mokṣa).

Verse No 54

• Moha and śoka are born of mistaken duality.
• When duality is removed via Self-knowledge, their basis collapses.

• The "state" (avasthā-viśeṣa) here is not a mental mood or mystical trance, but a stable knowledge that there is only the Self.
• In this, the purified and prepared mind abides effortlessly in oneness (ekatva).

• The Upaniṣad is speaking not of theory, but of the direct experience (sākṣātkāra) of one who is prepared (adhikārī).
• This means one who has cultivated viveka, vairāgya, śamādi ṣaṭka-sampatti, and mumukṣutva.

• The phrase "ekatvam anupaśyataḥ" means: “for one who sees oneness.”
• This is not a belief or intellectual conviction — it is a clear vision (anupaśyana = direct seeing again and again).

• The original objection presumes that dualistic striving gives purpose.
• But Advaita reveals that freedom itself is the purpose — and in non-duality, perfect fulfillment arises naturally.

• The quoted mantra from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is central:
• “yasmin sarvāṇi bhūtāni ātmaiva abhūt, vijānataḥ…”
• This is not to be symbolically interpreted, but literally realized as the true vision of the liberated person.

Verse No 55

• In Advaita, sorrow is not an existential inevitability, but a product of misperceived duality — the sense of “I am separate,” “this is other,” “that is lost,” etc.

• The Upaniṣadic mahāvākya:

• This eliminates duality at its root, thereby removing the cause of sorrow.

• Śruti is not speculative but revelatory — it reveals what cannot be known otherwise (apratyakṣa, alaukika jñāna).
• Hence, this passage serves as decisive authority (pramāṇa) for the non-dual nature of reality.

• Though “vijñānamaya” can sometimes refer to the intellect sheath (vijñānamaya kośa), here it clearly means:

• The use of “ayam” (“this very one”) indicates the immediacy and availability of the Self as Brahman.
• Brahman is not remote, but your very Self, right here and now.

The cause of sorrow is duality. Its absence is proven by śruti, which declares:

This realization — when directly known — is liberation from sorrow.

The rest, as the bhāṣyakāra says, is clear to the prepared mind.

Verse No 46

1. Illusoriness of Distinctions:
2. The apparent differences between subject and object, pervader and pervaded, are not ultimately real — they are superimpositions upon Brahman, like the apparent separation between the space inside and outside a pot.
3. World as Brahman:
4. Since these distinctions are imagined, the entire world (prapañca) is nothing but Brahman — non-dual and indivisible.
5. Role of Scripture (Śruti):
6. The ultimate authority of Vedānta lies in śruti — which commands (like Īśvara) and reveals the non-dual identity of all things with Ātman/Brahman.
7. Cognitive Liberation:
8. Once this truth is known, there is nothing else left to be known — as everything is known through knowing the Self (Atman = Brahman).
9. Advaita's Epistemic Revolution:
10. Instead of relying on empirical distinctions, Advaita teaches a radical shift: The many are not real. The One alone is real.

Verse No 47

1. Perception is not Final Authority:
2. While direct perception appears compelling, it is not absolute. It is corrected by śruti, the revealed truth.
3. Śruti Declares Non-Duality:
4. The foundational Upaniṣadic teaching is ekam eva advitīyam — Brahman is one without a second. Hence, plurality is falsified.
5. No Real Second Entity:
6. Brahman is both cause and effect, yet the effect (world) is not truly distinct from its cause — just as a pot is not truly distinct from clay.
7. Superimposition (Adhyāsa) Explains Illusion:
8. All distinctions (inside-outside, subject-object) are pratibhāsika — they appear due to ignorance, not because they are real.
9. Only Brahman is Real (Satya), World is Mithyā:
10. Since the world cannot exist apart from Brahman, it is not absolutely real. It is mithyā — dependent, ephemeral, and ultimately unreal in itself.

Verse No 48

1. Bhēda-dṛṣṭi (Seeing Difference) Is a Fundamental Error:
2. The perception of multiplicity is not harmless; it is the root of bondage — perpetuating saṁsāra.
3. Śruti Declares Duality as Dangerous:
4. The Upaniṣads repeatedly warn that one who sees plurality "goes from death to death" — i.e., continues in ignorance and rebirth.
5. The World (Kārya) Is Non-Different from Brahman (Kāraṇa):
6. The so-called "world" is just a vivarta (apparent transformation) of Brahman. It is not a separate reality.
7. Mithyā and Adhyāsa Are the Key Concepts:
8. All perceived duality is mithyā — neither absolutely real nor absolutely unreal — but dependent on Brahman, and falsely superimposed upon it.
9. Liberation Comes from Knowing Non-Duality:
10. Only when one sees no second thing — no bhēda — does one attain mokṣa. Non-duality alone is freedom.

Verse No 49

1. Brahman as the Sole Cause (Abhinna Upādāna Kāraṇa)
2. Brahman is not merely the efficient cause, but also the material cause — the universe is non-different from Brahman, just as a pot is non-different from clay.
3. Creation, Sustenance, and Dissolution are Apparent (Vivarta)
4. These are appearances in Brahman, not real transformations. Brahman remains unchanged, while the names and forms (nāma-rūpa) appear and disappear.
5. Satyam: Brahman; Mithyā: Universe
6. Though the world appears, it is not ultimately real. What truly is, is pure Being — sat-mātra, which is Brahman.
7. Right Knowledge (Jnana) is Liberation (Mokṣa)
8. The prescribed action here is not karma, but viveka and niścaya — discriminative understanding and firm realization that “All this is Brahman”.

Verse No 44

1. Prapañca (world) = Vivarta of Brahman:
2. The world is an appearance upon Brahman, not a real modification.
3. Rope-Snake Analogy:
4. Just as a rope appears as a snake due to ignorance, the world appears as distinct due to avidyā (ignorance).
5. Brahman is Immutable:
6. Brahman remains untouched, unaltered, and unchanged through this appearance — maintaining nirvikāratva (changelessness).
7. Refutation of Other Theories:

• Ārambhavāda (Nyāya–Vaiśeṣika): rejected
• Pariṇāmavāda (Sāṅkhya): rejected
• Vivartavāda (Advaita Vedānta): affirmed

Verse No 45

1. Brahman as the Upādāna-Kāraṇa:
2. The universe arises from Brahman itself, not from atoms (Nyāya–Vaiśeṣika) or Prakṛti (Sāṅkhya).
3. Role of Māyā:
4. Brahman appears as the world due to the limiting adjunct of māyā, not due to any real transformation — preserving Brahman’s changeless nature.
5. Scriptural Authority:
6. Upaniṣadic statements like “From the Self, space emerged” directly support this non-dual causality.
7. Rejection of Dual Causality Theories:
8. The idea that anything other than Brahman (like atoms or nature) could be the material cause of the universe is rejected.
9. Brahman ≠ Efficient Cause Alone:
10. Brahman is both the efficient cause (nimitta) and material cause (upādāna) — unlike in dualistic theologies where God creates the world using separate matter.