But, it is objected, he who maintains the nature of Brahman to be changeless thereby contradicts the fundamental tenet according to which the Lord is the cause of the world, since the doctrine of absolute unity leaves no room for the distinction of a Ruler and something ruled.—­This objection we ward off by remarking that omniscience, &c. (i.e. those qualities which belong to Brahman only in so far as it is related to a world) depend on the evolution of the germinal principles called name and form, whose essence is Nescience.  The fundamental tenet which we maintain (in accordance with such scriptural passages as, ’From that Self sprang ether,’ &c.; Taitt.  Up.  II, 1) is that the creation, sustentation, and reabsorption of the world proceed from an omniscient, omnipotent Lord, not from a non-intelligent pradhana or any other principle.  That tenet we have stated in I, 1, 4, and here we do not teach anything contrary to it.—­But how, the question may be asked, can you make this last assertion while all the while you maintain the absolute unity and non-duality of the Self?—­Listen how.  Belonging to the Self, as it were, of the omniscient Lord, there are name and form, the figments of Nescience, not to be defined either as being (i.e.  Brahman), nor as different from it[288], the germs of the entire expanse of the phenomenal world, called in Sruti and Sm/ri/ti the illusion (maya), power (sakti), or nature (prak/ri/ti) of the omniscient Lord.  Different from them is the omniscient Lord himself, as we learn from scriptural passages such as the following, ’He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names; that within which these forms and names are contained is Brahman’ (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 14, 1); ’Let me evolve names and forms’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 3, 2); ’He, the wise one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits speaking (with those names)’ (Taitt.  Ar.  III, 12, 7); ‘He who makes the one seed manifold’ (Sve.  Up.  VI, l2).—­Thus the Lord depends (as Lord) upon the limiting adjuncts of name and form, the products of Nescience; just as the universal ether depends (as limited ether, such as the ether of a jar, &c.) upon the limiting adjuncts in the shape of jars, pots, &c.  He (the Lord) stands in the realm of the phenomenal in the relation of a ruler to the so-called jivas (individual souls) or cognitional Selfs (vij/n/anatman), which indeed are one with his own Self—­just as the portions of ether enclosed in jars and the like are one with the universal ether—­but are limited by aggregates of instruments of action (i.e. bodies) produced from name and form, the presentations of Nescience.  Hence the Lord’s being a Lord, his omniscience, his omnipotence, &c. all depend on the limitation due to the adjuncts whose Self is Nescience; while in reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose true nature is cleared, by right knowledge, from all adjuncts whatever.  Thus Scripture also says, ’Where one sees nothing