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

Due to extreme fading and overexposure, the printed text on this page is completely illegible and cannot be deciphered.

2
சிவமயம்
திருச்சிற்றம்பலம்
தஞ்சாவூர் நடராஜபிள்ளை உலகநாதன்
SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
CHAPTER I. PRAMANAVIYAL—PROOF.
I
FIRST SUTRA.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
Sutra. As the (seen) universe spoken of as he,
she and it undergoes three changes (origin, develop-
ment and decay), this must be an entity created (by
an efficient cause.) This entity owing to its conjunc-
tion with Anava Mala has to emanate from Hara to
whom it returns during Samharam. Hence, the learned
say that Hara is the First cause.
Commentary.
This Sutram establishes by an inference that this
universe has Hara as its First cause and it consists of three
principal arguments.
First Argument.
Churnika.—The universe undergoes the three changes
of original production, development, and decay.
Varthikam.—As an existing object has its origin and
decay, it is shown that the cosmic entity which is spoken
of as he, she, and it is subject to origin, development and
decay.

2 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
Udarana.—The world, if it exists, is followed by des-
truction and reproduction. Having seen that particular
species in nature have particular seasons of reproduction,
development, and decay, will not the wise argue that the
world also undergoes periodical changes ?
Second Argument.
Churnika.—These changes are caused by Hara.
Varthikam.—Objects not in existence (unreal) do not
come into visible being, hence the seen universe must be an
entity. As products of industry cannot be produced except
by an artisan, so the world which appears as a product has
a Creator or an Efficient Cause. And the cosmos can only
be developed from the condition into which it had been
dissolved previously in Samharam.
Udarana (a). The world which has been resolved into
Hara must emanate from Him. The dissolution is required
as rest for Karma Mala, and the reproduction for the re-
moval of Anava Mala. All will admit that things will be
reproduced from what they had been resolved into. If you
say that the world resolved into Vishnu whose form is
Mulaprakriti, then all the higher products of Maya above
Mulaprakriti will not be dissolved. All the products of
Maya become resolved along with Vishnu and Brahma into
Hara who is the author of both.
(b). Just as a sprout appears when a seed is embedded
in moist earth, so the world is created from Maya by the
Sakti or Light of Iswara, whose creation is in accordance
with the unchangeable laws of Karma; and Lo! the Power of
Sakti!
Just as, when not sprouting, the seed is concealed in the
earth, so Maya exists in God when not differentiated. And

FIRST SUTRA. 3
He gives each his form as he desires it, just as the worm
in a wasp's nest gets the form it desires.
(c). Just as Time the producer of all changes, itself re-
mains without change, so God who creates, developes, and
destroys the world without any mechanical means and by
his mere will, remains without change. He has in conse-
quence no ties (Pasa Bantham) just like the mind having
certain impressions, itself remains different (i.e., does not
become changed into them) and like the man who has
learnt the truth in the waking state will not be misled by
the dreams he has had.
or
God is eternal and like Time is without change when
with His mere will and without any mechanical means, He
creates, developes and destroys the world. His creation is
without any purpose to Himself as the dreamer finds no
benefit in his dreams in his waking state.
Third Argument.
Churnika.—The other two (Vishnu and Brahma) are also
subject to these three changes.
Varthikam.—As the known cosmic entity has no power
of action except through the unknown author of Samharam,
this author, Hara is the only supreme God.
Udarana.—Hara who is neither the one nor the other
in the Universe of mind and matter, is the only Supreme
being of the said Universe, as the Universe of mind also
becomes dissolved in Him in the same way, after they
(minds) had been created and developed. The said Universe
of mind which like Him is eternal, is subordinate to Him
even in Moksha.

4 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
NOTES.
GENERAL.
The argument proceeds from a Prathiatcha fact admitted
by the Lokayitha or materialist. This fact, the seen universe
which can be described under the terms He, (masculine gender),
She (feminine gender) or It (neuter gender) or as Thanu
(animal Bodies), Karana (internal and external organs) or
senses, Buvana (worlds) and Bhoga (sensations) is then shown
to be capable of change or evolution. Its present condition is
itself the product of causation, evolved from its primordial
nature ; and its decay is its resolution into its primordial state.
This primordial substance is what is called Maya or cosmic
matter. This Maya is not a nonentity nor is it caused from God
or Atma (soul) as will be shown later on. The definition of
Maya and its treatment will include all the phenomena noted by
the present day Materialist and Biologist in the field of Physics
and Biology. It is best translated by the word "object and
object consciousness." This "Maya" therefore undergoes
Srishti, Sthithi and Samharam; Samharam is not destruction
and the chain of evolution does not stop but it proceeds ; and the
reason for this successive change i. e. recreation and rebirths is
given in the text 'மலத்துளதாம்,' it is caused by or necessitated
by its conjunction with Anava Mala. The word Anava is derived
from the root "Anu" meaning exceedingly small and the word
Anu which is a synonym for soul, is so called, as the soul which
is a Vibhu in its real state is made Anu (small as an atom) by its
conjunction with Anava Mala. This Anava Mala is the imper-
fection or ignorance or impurity or darkness which covers or
conceals the intelligence or light or purity of the soul. It is the
presence of this imperfection or impurity in nature, which neces-
sitates Evolution or Successive Recreations and Rebirths, as it

FIRST SUTRA. 5
can only be removed by such evolution. Maya is therefore
evolved but not by its own inherent power. Maya or Matter is
capable of motion but cannot move itself; just as a wheel
capable of motion cannot move unless moved by some other
person or thing or by the force of gravity, or just as products of
industry cannot shape themselves except through an artificer and
his instruments or tools, though they possess such capability.
This grand Force, then, which moves and evolves the whole uni-
verse is the First cause, and the grand Artificer, the Supreme
Being. Maya is the material cause, Upadana Karana of the uni-
verse, supplying its form and matter; God is the efficient cause
or Nimitha Karana; and the Thunai Karana, Sahakari or instru-
mental cause is His Chit Sakti which is defined in the second
sutra.
The inference employed here is an inductive inference and
the argument is represented by two syllogistic Forms called
Kevalanvayi Anumana and Anvaya Vyatireki Anumana. The
first syllogism is represented like this.
(1) Pratidgna—Proposition.
This universe has a Karta.
(2) Hetu—The reason.
Because it has been evolved into forms such as he,
she and it.
(3) Utharana—The instance.
A pot is made by a potter.
(4) Upanayam—The assumption.
The universe is such a product as a pot.
(5) Nigamana—The deduction.
Therefore the universe has a Karta.
For further forms see the commentaries of Sivagra Yogi on
Sivagnana Siddhi.

6 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
The word Samhara which means change connotes both
Srishti and Sthithi and hence Hara who is Samhara Karta re-
presents in Himself the Powers of Srishti and Sthithi Kartas.
In fact when we look at the universe and postulate God, the one
idea we have of Him is as The Supreme Evolving Energy or
Force working for the perfection or Salvation of the world of
Mind and Matter. The root meaning of Hara is change pro-
ducer or destroyer. He evolves the world and removes darkness
or Agnana.
An adhikarana or argument comprises (1) Vishaya—The
proposition (2) Samsaya—The doubt or objections (3) Purva-
paksha—The Theory refuted, (4) Siddhanta—The Theory proved
or established and (5) Sankathi—The sequence in the argument.
And it is a point worthy of note how in the treatment of the
whole subject, the argument proceeds step by step one based
upon or following the first without a single break in the
chain. And it is also possible to exhibit each argument in the
five modes abovementioned ; but it is unnecessary to do so.
Churnika is a particular style of expression. It expresses
in a short sentence the substance of the whole argument.
Varthikam means an explanatory note.
Udarana or analogy is here used as a method of inductive
proof and should be distinguished from the various kinds of
Upamana Polis or false analogies and figures of rhetoric. The
sole condition of a real analogy is, as stated by Dr. Bain, that
the sameness apply to the attribute found by induction to bear
the consequence assigned.

1. The first argument needs no comment; no body now
   denies that Cosmos undergoes successive evolutionary changes.
2. The second argument in fact consists of three argu-
   ments. The first argument refutes the theory of Buddhists and

7
FIRST SUTRA.
Mayavathis (Idealists) who assert the non-reality of the uni-
verse. The 2nd argument refutes the theory that world can
evolve of itself; and the third deals with the mode of evolution
i.e., by dissolution and reproduction.
(a.) The first illustration shows the reason why dissolu-
tion is required. It is as rest for Karma; just after the exertions
of the day, we require rest during the night for undergoing the
struggles of to-morrow, so death gives us a prolonged rest to the
human monad to enable it to eat its previous Karma in the next
birth. Why should it have a next birth? Because it must eat
the fruits of previous Karma and unless it does so, its Anava
Mala or Ignorance cannot be removed. This latter then is the
reason for reproduction.
(b.) The seed is the Maya; the sprout, the Karma; and
the tree, the World; and the Earth, God; and its moisture and
heat, the Sakti of God. God is "Vyapaka," Souls are Vyapti
and Maya and other Mala are Vyappia. Sea is Vyapaka, water
is the Vyapti and the salt is Vyappia.
The text of the Veda.
"That the worlds are created out 'of Brahm,'" is to be under-
stood as when we say that the tree sprung out of the earth : cf.
also the word Pangaja meaning sprung out of mire.
It is Karma that determines the number of successive births
and creations and the forms in succession, and not God. Though
it is the worm which passes into various forms before it becomes
the wasp, yet without the aid of the parent wasp which affords
it warmth and food, the worm cannot obtain its full develop-
ment, so God adjusts the birth according to Karma and makes
the souls eat the fruits thereof. Without His Divine Presence
and Energy the soul cannot take for itself its own material body
and it can have no progress unless when it is in conjunction

8 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
with its material body. It is in Him we live, move, and have
our very being.
(c.) The question arises whether God in producing these
changes does change in any way. When one man reaps good
and another reaps evil, does God like the one and dislike the
other ?
This is answered in the negative, in the illustration. He is
Nirvikari. He has neither likes nor dislikes. (வேண்டுதல்
வேண்டாமையிலான்—Kural).
One other illustration given in the 2nd Sutra and elaborated
by the commentator of Ozhivilodukham is as follows: "The
sun shines without any desire or intention or volition on its
part, yet in its presence, the lotus plant receives its development
and while one flower is still a bud, another has fully blown out
and a third is withering; So, in the Divine Presence, Maya
undergoes changes and so the author says "சந்நிதிக்கே அஞ்சு
தொழிலாம்." (His Presence possesses five functions).
One other peculiarity in the nomenclature of God employ-
ed by the various schools and affecting the various ideals formed,
deserves to be noted here. The Vaishnava would hardly des-
cribe God in any other form than masculine. All specific names
of Vishnu are masculine and they cannot be declined in any
other gender and even when so declined they will not denote
Vishnu, e. g. Vishnu, Vaishnavi, and Vaishnavam and Narayana,
Narayani, and Narayanam. And of course, the image which
the use of the word calls up is a male form. A follower of
Sankaracharya would prefer to use a neuter form of expression
and calls his God, Brahm, Param and so on, though with his
peculiar adaptability, he would also use such words as Narayana,
Iswara, Isa, &c. The Saiva however uses all the three forms.
'He, She and It' in describing God, and all the specific names

FIRST SUTRA. 9
of Siva are capable of declension in all the three forms without
change in its denotation and connotation. Siva, Sivah, Sivam;
Iswara, Iswari, Iswaram; Sankara, Sankari, Sankaram; Para,
Parah, Param and so on. And accordingly the images which
he employs in his temples correspond to these forms. All
nature is comprised in the three forms he, she and it. And
when we use human language and forms of Nature to describe
Him, there is no reason why one form should be preferred to
the other, when all forms of Nature are His.
I may note here another peculiar doctrine of this School.
In fact if there is any one doctrine which is more insisted
on in this School than any other, it is this that God cannot be
born in the flesh and He cannot have human Avatars. It is the
height of absurdity to suppose that God who is the inconceivable
and the unknowable and indescribable (வாக்குமனாதீதம்) can
be born as a man when He ceases to be such. (See notes to
sixth Sutra for a further discussion of the point).
(3) This argument establishes the supremacy of Hara and
the One-ness of God.
The commentaries here discuss why God is not Brahma or
Vishnu or Atma or the rest, the answer being that these latter
are all liable to change and possess no Swathanthram; and why
there should not be too many Gods as Aneka Iswara Vathis assert
and several other questions besides.
It should here be noted that Hara or Siva or Isa or Iswara
as used in the text is not to be identified with one of the Hindu
Trinity bearing the same name. In the whole of the sacred
literature we find Him described as the Lord of the Trinity, and
as One who cannot be known even to the Trinity. The Tri-
murthis are themselves regarded as Mortals, being born at the
beginning of each Kalpa and dying at the end of each. And the
Vishnu of the text means only the Puranic Vishnu, clothed with

10 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
such attributes and personal qualities as are ascribed to Him and
capable of Avatars and the Vishnu of the Trinity representing
Mula Prakriti and the function of Sthithi.
Concluding remarks.
The first Sutra therefore establishes the existence of the
three Mala, (Maya, Anava, and Karma) and of God. In the ter-
minology of this School, the three Mala are called by a generic
name Pasa and God is called Pathi. Pasu means, a bond or tie
or shackle, or Bantham, and the three Banthams are distinguish-
ed as follows :—
Anava Pasa binds or limits the Omniscience or Perfect
Knowledge of the Soul and hence called Prathibantham.
Karma Pasa like an unceasing flood follows the Soul and
drives it to eat the fruits of karma (Bhoga) without permit-
ting it to seek Moksha and hence called Anubandham.
Maya Pasa limits the Omnipresence (Vyabaka) of the Soul
and confines it to a particular body and hence called Sam-
bantham.
Atma in the terminology of this school is called Pasu as a
thing bound by Pasa. The terminology employed by the Rama-
nujas for these Thripadarthas is chit, achit and Iswara and that
by the school of Sankaracharya is Jagat, Jiva, and Para.
The next Sutra proceeds to define Chit Sakti by which alone
the relatiou between God and Atma and Mala is established and
by whose Power alone Re-births are induced.

SECOND SUTRA. 11
II
SECOND SUTRA.
THE RELATION OF GOD TO THE WORLD
AND TO SOULS.
Sutra. He is one with the souls (Abetha) He is
different from them (Betha). He is one and different
from them (Bethabetha). He stands in Samavaya
union with His Gnana Sakti and causes the souls to
undergo the processes of evolution (births) and re-
turn (Samharam) by inducing their good and bad
acts (Karma).
Commentary.
This treats of the subject of Rebirths and consists of 4
principal arguments.
First Argument.
Churnika.—Hara exists in all the souls inseparably (as
one with them.)
Varthikam.—The word Adwaitham cannot mean oneness
or Ekam; as without a second, no one can think of himself
as one, and as the very thought implies two things. The
word simply denies the separate existence and separability
of the two. In this sense, it is said here that the souls exist
as one with the Lord.
Illustrations (a). The soul, standing in its body composed
of bones, muscles, &c., and in union with the senses, answers
to the name given for its body, when any body addresses it,

12 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
and identifies itself with the body. Similarly though the
Lord stands in a similar intimate relation with the soul, He
is not the soul, and the soul cannot become the Lord. In
the human state, He is one and not one with the soul.
(b). The vedic Text, ‘Ekam evadwithiyam Brahma’
‘Ekam Eva Rudro Nadwitiyaya thas theh’ means that there
is only one Supreme Being withont a second. And this one
is the Pathi and not the soul. You who say (ignorantly)
you are one (with the Lord) are the soul and are bound up
with Pasa. As we say that without (the primay sound) ‘A’
all other letters will not sound, so the Vedas say “without
the Lord, no other things will exist.”
(c). The Arul Sakti of the Lord which pervades the whole
universe is inseparably and eternally connected with the
world, just like the sound in the tune and the flavour in
the fruit. So, the rare Vedas declare that Brahm is
Adwaitham and not Ekam with the universe.
(d). Just like the whetstone composed of gold, wax and
sand, God is one with the world and is different from it and
He is neither (Bethabetham). When God enters my
soul, when I am freed from Pasam, I identify myself with
God, and say I am all the world.
Second Argument.
Churnika.—Hara makes the souls eat the fruit of their
Karma.
Varthikam.—The soul’s good and bad Karma are induced
by the Gnana Sakti of the Lord; just as a king protects
his town by appointing watchmen to guard it and thus
exercises his authority.
Illustrations (a). The soul joining the body caused by its
previous Karma eats the fruits thereof. Similarly our pre-

SECOND SUTRA. 13
sent actions (Karma) furnish the seed for our body in the
next birth. God the all bountiful makes the soul eat the
fruits of previous Karma (without suffering any change)
just as the soil makes the cultivator reap as he sowed.
(b). Just as iron is attracted to the magnet when a person
brings it in position, so the souls performing Karma join
the body in which the Karma is effected and eat the fruits
by the Arul of God. If they do not so enjoy by His Arul,
who else could know and make them eat the fruits of Karma
in the most unchangeable manner, in that condition, where
they lie helpless, without self knowledge, and self action,
enshrouded by Mala.
(c). The husk of the paddy or the rust of the copper is
not new but co-existed with the grain or copper; so the
three Mala, Maya, Karma and Anava co-exist with the soul
and were not acquired by it at any intermediate time.
These undergo change in the presence of God, just as
the Sun's rays cause one Lotus to open and another to close.
Third Argument.
Chūrnika.—The souls are subject to re-births losing their
previous forms.
Varthikam.—The souls are re-born after death as birth
and death are possible only to things existing eternally and
changing continually.
Illustrations (a). The soul passing at death from its
Sthula Sarira composed of eyes, ears, &c., into its Suk-
shuma Sarira which it had already, undergoes its experi-
ences in Heaven or Hell; and forgetting such experiences,
just as a dreamer forgets his experience of the waking
state, passes as an atom in its Sukshuma state into a suit-

14 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
able womb at conception time, impelled thereto by the
desire created by its previous Karma.
(b). The analogies of the serpent passing out of its old
skin and the mind from the conscious into the dream
condition and the Yogi into another body are often properly
pointed out to explain the passing of the soul from its
Sthula into the Sukshuma Sarira. Against this view, the
analogy of the air of the pot passing into the atmosphere
after the breaking of the pot, is instanced to support the
view, that the soul takes no other body after death. This does
not serve; it only illustrates the fact of the soul passing
from the Sukshuma Sarira itself.
Fourth Argument.
Churnika.—Hara is omnipresent.
Varthikam. He is one with His chit-sakti, as He is omni-
present without being one or different from the world.
Illustration.—If God is all-pervading (one with the souls
and matter), He cannot be one. If he is two, He cannot
be all-pervading. (He cannot be said to be not all-per-
vading as) there is no body or soul which exists without
Him. He pervades everything by His chit-sakti, just like
the light of the Sun. The whole universe is His property
and the souls are His servants.

SECOND SUTRA 15
NOTES.
GENERAL.
This Sutra discusses the most important and peculiar doc-
trine of this school, namely its theory of Adwaitham or the relation
between God and the souls. Three Relations are possible.
(1.) succession or causation. When one thing is the cause
and the other is the effect, there is no difference whatever. It is
Abetha; just like gold and ornaments made out of it (பொன்பணி
போல் அபேதம்).
(2.) Co-existence with mutual exclusion. Here one has no
connection whatever with the other. One is totally external to
the other. It is Betha like darkness and light (இருள் ஒளிபோல்
பேதம்).
(3.) Co-existence without mutual exclusion or externality
as when two different things are connected inseparably like the
association of ideas. It is Bethabetham; just like the word
and its meaning. Here the word is either a sound or a
symbol and is distinguishable from the connotation of the
name yet both the symbol or sound and the connotation
is inseparably and indissolubly associated with each other.
This relationship is not postulated by any other school. Under
the first division comes in both Idealism (Mayavatham) and
Materialism (Nasthikam and Boudha Vadham). In both the
schools, causation is postulated whether it be that matter is de-
rived from mind or the universe of mind and matter is derived
from an Absolute or mind is derived from matter or a combina-
tion of Skandas. From the theory of causation, when you de-
rive matter from mind, it will be as easy to derive mind from
matter. And the objections we can take against the Materialist
will equally be applicable to the theory of the Idealist, as is pointed

16 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
out by Prof. G. J. Romanes in his article on Mind and Body. In
fact, Idealism is regarded by the Siddhanti as Nastikam or
Nihilism and the term Prachanna Bouddha Vadham is freely
applied to it. The Hindu Idealists are also fond of giving two
other analogies. The Spider and its web and the fire and its spark.
It is easily seen that these are identical in substance and the web
is merely the product of the material body, the glands of the
Spider and not of its life Principle. The Siddhanthis therefore
reject these relationships or at least the relationship pointed to
by these analogies. The Vishishtadwaita of Ramanujacharya
and the Dwaitha of Madhwacharya may be placed under the
second head or even the third head as some sort of relationship is
said to exist between God and man. In the Moksha of a
Ramanuja, each atma retains its personality distinct from God but
there is a union between its spirit and the universal spirit and
according to the Madhwa the relationship is similar to that of a
Guru and Sishya or that of a parent and child.
I said before that the Siddhanti rejects all these relationships
in this sense that he does not affirm causation nor separable or
inseparable co-existence as explained above. Yet in the Sutra
God is called Abetha; the connection is such that an identity is
perceived and the best illustration of this relationship is that of
the body and life or mind (உடல் உயிர்போல் அபேதம்). The ob-
jective and subjective phenomena are quite different and yet a
sort of absolute identity is established. He is Betha and this is
illustrated as follows :—
An act of Perception is one and indivisible. Yet the Percep-
tion is caused by two agencies the Eye and the Sun or Light.
The Eye cannot perceive without the aid of the light, and though
both the light of the Eye and the light of the Sun combine
together, the combination is perceived as one. Here there is no
causation as between the Eye and the Sun (கண் அருக்கன் போல்
பேதம்). He is Bethabetham; but the tamil equivalent of the

SECOND SUTRA. 17
latter word உடன் or உடனுமாய் is perhaps more expressive.
This relationship is similar to that of the soul or mind and the
sense of sight or eye (கண்ணொளியின் ஆன்மபோதம்போல் பேதா
பேதம்). Though in all these cases an identity is perceived a
difference in substance is also felt. It is this relation which
could not easily be postulated in words, but which may perhaps
be conceived and which is seen as two (Dwaitham) and at the
same time as not two (Na Dwaitham) ; It is this relation which
is called Adwaitham (a unity or identity in duality) and the
Philosophy which postulates it, the Adwaitha Philosophy. And
the 1st argument deals with the meaning and force of this word.

1. God is all (Prapancham) but all is not God. He is
   therefore all and not all. He is immanent in everything and yet
   above everything. This doctrine is very popular in nearly the
   whole of the Tamil Literature, and it is most vividly expressed
   in the favourite phrase (எல்லாமாய் அல்லவுமாய்). The Hindu
   Idealists stop with "எல்லாமாய்" "He is all" and do not proceed
   to postulate "அல்லவுமாய்." "He is not all" or "He is above all."
   All objective phenomena may be in a sense mental or subjective
   but all the subjective phenomena are not objective.
   Adwaitham does not mean ஏகம் or Monism. The negative
   prefix a or na does not negative the positive existence of one or
   other of the two (Dwaitham). It is not used in the "Abhava"
   or இன்மைப்பொருள். If it is so used, it will not only negative
   one thing or other but it may negative both, and end in Nihi-
   lism; and it may not only mean one "Ekam or Monism" but
   may mean more than two i.e., three or any number. As the learn-
   ed Commentator Sivagnana Yogi points out, when the negative
   is prefixed to the numeral, in common usage, it does not mean இன்
   மை or அபாவம். For instance when we say "There are not two
   books in the room" "அறையில் இரண்டு புஸ்தகமில்லை" it may mean
   5

18 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
that "no books are in the room" or that "only one book is in
the room" or that "there are more than two books."
If the negative prefix in Adwaitham does not mean "Abhava"
what does it mean? It is used in the "அன்மைப்பொருள்" or
அல்ல 'non-dual sense.' The querist sees or fancies he sees two
objects and asks 'are they dual'? The answer is 'They are non-
dual'—இரண்டு அல்ல not meaning one. Adwaitham therefore
means literally Nondualism and not Monism. Cf. The word 'Anekam'
which does not mean obviously ஒன்றில்லை (nothing) but 'ஒன்றல்ல'
'பல' (many). In Sivagnana Siddhi, Adwaitham is defined as ஒன்றா
காமல், இரண்டாகாமல், ஒன்றுமிரண்டுமின்றாகாமல் (neither one, nor
two, nor neither). The position seems to be a negative than a
positive one. All this language is adopted so as to illustrate
that the relation is such that it is not possible to adequately to exa-
mine or illustrate and we find the author of Ozhivilodukkam enjoin
"ஏகமிரண்டென்னாமற் சும்மாயிரு." (Don't say one or two). An-
other popular verse runs as follows. "சும் மாயிரு சொல்லறவென்றலு
மே அம்மாபொருளொன்று மறிந்திலனே." The subject is more fully
treated in the subsequent chapters. If there is only one Absolute,
the very idea of duality is impossible. The word Adwaitham
implies the existence of two things and does not negative the
reality, or existence of one of the two. It simply postulates a
relation between the two.
(a) This contains the illustration of body and mind. As
in a purely objective state no subjective feeling is present, so
in the human state, the soul is in a purely objective condi-
tion, and is not cognisant therefore of its subject God. The
Atma is capable of a double relation; it has two kinds of
Adwaitham. It is in Adwaitha relation with Maya and at the
same time in Adwaitha relation with God. I may call the first
its objective relation and the other its subjective relation.
When its objective relation (its connection with Thanu, Karana,

&c.) predominates, it is in Banda, it is the embodied human soul.
When its subjectivity predominates, it is itself, it is in God, and
it is God (Moksha). In its first condition we don't see the soul
but its object side, physical body and organs, mind, (manas)
chittam, &c., and sensations and the worlds. In its second con-
dition we don't see the soul either but God with which it had
identified itself. The important point to be noted is that though
in the one or the other condition of the soul, one thing (God)
or other (Maya) is not present, yet its existence or reality cannot
be denied. In as much as we cannot see God now, we cannot deny
His existence and call him Mitya (illusion) and when the world
therefore disappears in the other case, nor can the world be called
Mitya. Cf.
THAYUMANAVAR.
“ ஆணவத்தோடத்து விதமானபடி மெஞ்ஞானத்
தாணுவினோடத்த விதமாகு நாளெந்நாளோ.”
'O for the day, when I will become one with the Being of
True knowledge as I am now one with Anava.'
The subject receives further elaboration as we proceed.
(b) The illustration herein contained is the same as in the
first verse of the sacred Kural, though its significance is not often
understood. The point of comparison is not the position of the letter
'A' in place. Its place is to be sought in its origin and its power
of determining other sounds as herein indicated. The most
primary sound that the human organ can utter is 'a' and the
other vowels (that can be sounded of themselves) are formed by
modifications of 'a'; consonants on the other hand do not have
the same origin as 'a' but they cannot be pronounced except
with the help of 'a' and its modifications. So, though God and
Man are distinct eternal entities, one (man) cannot exist except
in God, but man does not originate from God as consonants do
not originate from vowels. The same applies with regard to
soul and its body (உயிர், மெய்) and it is this philosophic thought