PARABRAHMA SUTRAS (172-173)

172. Kaaranasparshaspruhaa naatra sutrabhaashyendrajaalavat.

Translation: The temptation to touch the cause through the analysis of the effect fails in the case of unimaginable God and imaginable world. Even the Brahma Sutras and Shankara have given a suitable simile of a magic master here.

There is a temptation for everybody to think that there is a possibility of touching God through the analysis of creation because God is the cause and the world is the effect. This temptation is justified if the cause and effect are linked to each other by logic as in the case of mud and the pot, or gold and the chain, etc. The cause and effect in the world are both imaginable items. The characteristics of the cause are seen in the effect also since the cause spontaneously enters the effect during the very process of creation. But in the case of God, neither did God enter the world, nor did any characteristic of God enter the world. Therefore, the temptation is never fulfilled in the case of God. As already said, the simile is the magic master and the magic (castle) created by him. Neither the magic master nor any characteristic of him exists in the magic created. Shankara has given this example (Maayaaviva vijrumbhayatyapi…). Even the Brahma Sutras refer to this example (Atmanichaivam vichitraah…)

173. Hetulakshanaanyapi kaarye mulakanaah navarasaayanepi.

Translation: In the effect, the characteristics of the cause are also seen along with the new characteristics of the effect. Even in the production of a new chemical compound, the subatomic particles as the cause, enter the effect in toto.

Explanation: Even though the new characteristic of an effect appears like the shape of the pot or the shape of the chain, the characteristics of gold or mud are also seen along with the new characteristics of the effect. Hence the appearance of new characteristics in the effect does not contradict the characteristics of the cause, which also simultaneously enter the effect. You may argue that when the poisonous sodium and the poisonous chlorine combine as cause, the non-poisonous sodium chloride is produced, in which the poisonous nature of the cause is not seen. This does not mean that the cause has not entered the effect. The poisonous nature of the cause is due to the number of electrons present in the outermost valence shell. The disappearance of the poisonous nature is only due to the change of the number of electrons in the valence outermost shell. But if you take the subatomic particles like neutrons, protons, and electrons in the cause, the same subatomic particles have entered the effect in toto. This proves that the cause, visualized as a lump of these subatomic particles, has totally entered the effect. Hence even in this chemical reaction, the entry of the cause into the effect cannot be denied.