Page:Ramakrishna - His Life and Sayings.djvu/94

or in a subtile invisible form in the one Brahman, while in its undeveloped state (pralaya), becomes visible, material, objective, and individual in this phenomenal world. Could our evolutionists have wished for a better ancestor ? Their phraseology may be different, but what is meant is the same. RSmdnu^a distinguishes between Brahman as a cause and Brahman as an effect, but he teaches at the same time that cause and effect are always the same, though what we call cause undergoes pari^dma, i. e. development, in order to become what we call effect. Instead of holding with *Saa*kara that we are deceived about Brahman, that we turn it aside or invert it (vivarta) while under the sway of Nescience, Rlm-inu^a teaches that Brahman really changes, that what is potential in him at first, becomes real and objective at last Another important difference between the two is that while Sahara's highest goal consists in Brahman recovering itself by knowledge, Bim&nu^a recognises the merit of good works, and allows a pure soul to rise by successive stages to the world of Brahman, to enjoy there perfect felicity without fear of new births or of further transmigration. With him, as with us, the soul is really supposed to approach the throne of Brahman, to become like Brahman, and participate in all his powers except one, that of creating, that is, sending forth the phenomenal world, governing it, and absorbing it again when the time comes. Thus not only does Rmnua allow individuality to individual souls, but likewise to Irvara, the Lord, the personal God, while with &/&kara a personal god would be as unreal as a personal soul, both becoming real only in their recovered identity*