to say that smoke of such and such a kind[290] does not exist unless fire exists.—­Even thus, we reply, your objection is not valid, because we declare that the reason for assuming the non-difference of cause and effect is the fact of the internal organ (buddhi) being affected (impressed) by cause and effect jointly[291].  And that does not take place in the case of fire and smoke.—­Or else we have to read (in the Sutra) ‘bhavat,’ and to translate, ’and on account of the existence or observation.’  The non-difference of cause and effect results not only from Scripture but also from the existence of perception.  For the non-difference of the two is perceived, for instance, in an aggregate of threads, where we do not perceive a thing called ‘cloth,’ in addition to the threads, but merely threads running lengthways and crossways.  So again, in the threads we perceive finer threads (the aggregate of which is identical with the grosser threads), in them again finer threads, and so on.  On the ground of this our perception we conclude that the finest parts which we can perceive are ultimately identical with their causes, viz. red, white, and black (the colours of fire, water, and earth, according to Ch.  Up.  VI, 4); those, again, with air, the latter with ether, and ether with Brahman, which is one and without a second.  That all means of proof lead back to Brahman (as the ultimate cause of the world; not to pradhana, &c.), we have already explained.

16.  And on account of that which is posterior (i.e. the effect) being that which is.

For the following reason also the effect is to be considered as non-different (from the cause).  That which is posterior in time, i.e. the effect, is declared by Scripture to have, previous to its actual beginning, its Being in the cause, by the Self of the cause merely.  For in passages like, ’In the beginning, my dear, this was that only which is’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 3); and, ’Verily, in the beginning this was Self, one only’ (Ait.  Ar.  II, 4, 1, 1), the effect which is denoted by the word ‘this’ appears in grammatical co-ordination with (the word denoting) the cause (from which it appears that both inhere in the same substratum).  A thing, on the other hand, which does not exist in another thing by the Self of the latter is not produced from that other thing; for instance, oil is not produced from sand.  Hence as there is non-difference before the production (of the effect), we understand that the effect even after having been produced continues to be non-different from the cause.  As the cause, i.e.  Brahman, is in all time neither more nor less than that which is, so the effect also, viz. the world, is in all time only that which is.  But that which is is one only; therefore the effect is non-different from the cause.

17.  If it be said that on account of being denoted as that which is not (the effect does) not (exist before it is actually produced); (we reply) not so, (because the term ‘that which is not’ denotes) another quality (merely); (as appears) from the complementary sentence.