ts of action, 'kshiravad dhi,' 'as milk (of its own accord
turns into curds),' would be strangely chosen indeed if meant to bring
nearer to our understanding the mode in which Brahman projects the
illusive appearance of the world; and also the analogous instance given
in the Sutra next following, 'as Gods and the like (create palaces,
chariots, &c. by the mere power of their will)'--which refers to the
real creation of real things--would hardly be in its place if meant to
illustrate a theory which considers unreality to be the true character
of the world. The mere cumulation of the two essentially heterogeneous
illustrative instances (kshiravad dhi; devadivat), moreover, seems to
show that the writer who had recourse to them held no very definite
theory as to the particular mode in which the world springs from
Brahman, but was merely concerned to render plausible in some way or
other that an intelligent being can give rise to what is non-intelligent
without having recourse to any extraneous means.[23]

That the Maya doctrine was not present to the mind of the Sutrakara,
further appears from the latter part of the fourth pada of the first
adhyaya, where it is shown that Brahman is not only the operative but
also the material cause of the world. If anywhere, there would have been
the place to indicate, had such been the author's view, that Brahman is
the material cause of the world through Maya only, and that the world is
unreal; but the Sutras do not contain a single word to that effect.
Sutra 26, on the other hand, exhibits the significant term
'pari/n/amat;' Brahman produces the world by means of a modification of
itself. It is well known that later on, when the terminology of the
Vedanta became definitely settled, the term 'pari/n/avada' was used to
denote that very theory to which the followers of /S/a@nkara are most
violently opposed, viz. the doctrine according to which the world is not
a mere vivarta, i.e. an illusory manifestation of Brahman, but the
effect of Brahman undergoing a real change, may that change be conceived
to take place in the way taught by Ramanuja or in some other
manner.--With regard to the last-quoted Sutra, as well as to those
touched upon above, the commentators indeed maintain that whatever terms
and modes of expression are apparently opposed to the vivartavada are in
reality reconcilable with it; to Sutra 26, for instance, Govindananda
remarks that the term 'pari/n/ama' only denotes an effe