Mandukya_Upanishad

in ornaments. The form of an ornament is not a hindranceto the existence of gold in it. Whatever be the structuraldifferences of the ornaments, gold is common to all ofthem. We may say, all these ornaments are gold. Is thereany contradiction in the statement? Ali the ornaments aregold because the ornaments are made of gold. Likewise, allthis is Brahman – sarvam hyetad brahma. The structuralformations do not impede the recognition of the oneessence in them. All earthen pots are made of clay. We maysay, all these pots are clay; all the trees are wood; all theocean is water. The difference is not, in these cases, anobstruction to the existence of the essence. The variety doesnot negate the essence. The variety also is the essence, andin the case of this vast universe of variety, we, therefore,need not be intrigued as to how this can be unified withThat, how the proximate can be the same as the remote.There are two aspects of the matter that we have toconsider, namely, the substance of the universe, and thedistances involved in the universe. The substances of thethings of the world appear to be variegated on account ofthe forms, and not because of their essence. Take the case ofa forest. One tree is not like another tree. Even a leaf in atree is not like another leaf in the same tree. There are talltrees, short trees, thick ones, thin ones, of this kind and thatkind. In spite of all this difference, all trees are wood.Whatever be the difference in the make of chairs and tables,all are wood. Likewise is the case with the things of theworld. All things are substantially one, though structurallydifferent. Now, this is one aspect of the matter. The otheraspect is: why do they appear structurally different? This40