The Brahma Sūtras approach the spectacle of multiplicity by consistently grounding it in the non-dual reality of Brahman. All phenomena are traced back to Brahman as their source, support, and final resolution, so that the many are never truly independent of the One. The diverse world is thus treated as derivative: it appears as a manifold of names and forms, yet is ultimately nothing but Brahman alone. Scriptural declarations of unity such as “all this is Brahman” are taken as decisive, and the Sūtras labor to reconcile them with passages that speak of difference by assigning them to different levels of understanding.

To account for the experience of plurality, the Sūtras rely on the ideas of superimposition and limiting adjuncts. Multiplicity arises when consciousness superimposes diverse names, forms, bodies, and minds upon the undivided Brahman, much as a rope may be mistaken for a snake. These adjuncts (upādhis) create the appearance of distinct selves, objects, and even a distinction between the individual self and the Lord, without introducing any real division into Brahman itself. In this way, plurality is treated as an error of perspective rather than a fracture in reality.

The text further clarifies this by presenting Brahman as both the material and efficient cause of the universe. Since the effect is not truly separate from its cause, the world is understood as Brahman appearing as diverse configurations, like gold taking the form of various ornaments or clay appearing as many pots. This is characterized as an apparent transformation rather than a real change in Brahman, preserving Brahman’s intrinsic unity and unchanging nature. The Sūtras thus refute doctrines that posit ultimately real plural substances or multiple independent selves, subordinating all such claims to the primacy of a single underlying reality.

At the same time, the Brahma Sūtras acknowledge a practical level of reality in which multiplicity is operative. On this empirical plane, distinctions between gods, souls, objects, and actions function for ritual, ethics, and meditation, and are not simply dismissed. Yet these distinctions are regarded as provisional, destined to be sublated by knowledge of Brahman’s non-dual nature. Liberation is described as the resolution of these apparent differences, where the triad of knower, known, and knowledge falls away, and the lingering perception of a world of many is treated as a residual effect of past impressions rather than evidence of enduring plurality.