शिवज्ञानबोध (मेय्कण्डार - शैव सिद्धान्त का आधारभूत दार्शनिक सूत्र ग्रन्थ)

SECOND SUTRA. 25

tion except that body and mind are found in union. When we
arrive at a final fact, it is absurd to attempt a further explana-
tion. What I have therefore treated of as an assumption in the
concluding sentence of the last para is no assumption at all, but
a final fact of our nature. Our nature as it is, is imperfect, or
adopting the language of the text, is enshrouded in impurity,
Mala, Anava Mala. Law of universal Progression or Progress
is another Law of Nature ; and Evolution is readily provided ; and
for bringing about this Evolution or births we require an Omni-
cient and Perfect, Ninmulu Being. In the whole chain of
argument, this last is the only thing assumed or inferred. But
see the argument on the other side. There is one Brahm.
Ishwara is generated from the Brahm. Mulaprakiriti is produced
between them. Light or Energy proceeds from Ishwara and a
particle of this Light becomes evolved into a man, or an ass, or a
worm. All these are assumptions pure and simple. Mere
hypothesis, it is admitted. Does this Hypothesis stand to reason ?
Does it furnish us any satisfactory reasons for all this evolution
from Brahm to man or brute. Mr. Subba Row after stating that
the First cause which is Omnipresent (what this really means is
explained in the next argument) and eternal—is subject to periods
of activity (Srishti) and passivity (Samharam) observes “ But
even the real reason for this activity and passivity is unintelligible
to our minds” or as a learned Swami more explicitly and honestly
puts it “ Why should the Free, Perfect and pure Being be
thus under the thraldom of matter ? How can the Perfect soul
be deluded into the belief that he is imperfect ? How can the
Perfect become the quasi perfect ; How can the Pure, the Abso-
lute change even a microscopically small part of its nature ?
The answer is ‘ I do not know.’ ”
You assume that evil or impurity is produced out of good or
Purity and then parade your honesty and admit that you don't
know why it is so. Don't you think that the fallacy lies more in