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

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

20 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
that underlies the Tamil equivalents of vowel and consonant (உயிர்
மெய்).
The embodied soul or mind is the உயிர்மெய்.
(அ 'a') is the soul (K 'க்') is the human body. In (க)
embodied soul we see only the (body) consonant and not the
vowel (soul). (அ 'a') again is God ; 'க்' 'K' is the soul;
In 'க்' 'K' Human Soul, we see only the consonant (soul) and not
the vowel (God though) you will realise both when you pro-
nounce it (attain Gnanam).
God is the Life (உயிர்) and the Soul is His body and not a
particle of The Life, (God) nor a spark from it, nor its reflection
nor shadow nor the imagined silver in the oyster shell. In the
latter case the soul is either a nonentity or there is no difference
in kind or substance though there may be a difference in
quantity or quality. In the former case, there is a difference in
substance but an identity in fact as the two exist together.
(c). Sakti literally means power. And the Sakti of the Lord
is therefore His Energy or Power, His Will and His Light or Grace
or Knowledge. Hence we have Three forms of Sakti, Kriya
Sakti, Itcha Sakti, and Gnana Sakti, or Arul Sakti. God by his
first two Powers evolves the universe from their undifferentiated
condition. By the last He links the whole world to Himself. It
is the Arul Sakti which connects God and Man. It is this Gnana
Sakti which gives life to inanimate beings, harmony to things
without harmony and to each and everything its peculiar beauty
or taste or brightness. Without It everything else would be void,
lifeless, actionless and darksome. This Life of Life, This Light
of Light, This Chit Sakti is not the Light which Mr. Subba Row
says enters some mechanism and becomes converted into a Human
monad, man, and then becomes clothed with all the laws of Karma,
&c., (Notes to Bag pp. 16 and 17). If so, what is it worth? Nor
is Mr. Subba Row's Ishwara which he derives in a mysterious

SECOND SUTRA. 21
way from Brahm, the Ishwara of the Siddanthi. His Ishwara is
Brahm and the Sakti is the Maha Sakti or Mahachaitanyam.
The relation of Ishwara to Sakti to all other life is well
illustrated in the Puranic story of Kumara Sambhava. God
separated from his Sakti. He was then in a condition of a Yogi.
Then all life did not become extinct but all life became lifeless,
from the immortal Gods to the lowest things in the order of
creation. The immortals became aware of this and of its cause
and then planned a scheme to bring together Siva (sat) and
Sakti (chit) as though they could do it. The very attempt
proved a disastrous failure. They ignorantly thought, judging
from their own stand-point that the God's Love was something
akin to man's gross love. They therefore induced Manmatha or
Kama Deva, the Human God of Love to aim his shafts at
Siva. He did so and he was burned to ashes the very instant
from a spark from His nether Eye. He was however moved to pity
at the sad plight of the so-called Immortals, became united to
His Sakti, i. e., became all Love and begot Kumara who represents
again Action or Energy and Gnana (His two Saktis) and who
trampled under His foot Surapadma (All Evil) and released the
Immortals from their bondage. This first Light (Adi Sakti) is
Gayatri. (See the elaboration of this subject in Devi Bagavata
Purana).
(d). (1). This contains another illustration. The whetstone
is God in union with the world. The Gold wax is God, which
holds and binds in itself the sands which are souls.
(2). The second portion of this stanza illustrates the
principle of Sohambavana which underlies every Mantra from
Pranava downwards. The devotee (Jivatma) is made to contem-
plate (“I am the Atma, God”), and he becomes one with God
(Adwaitha). This is the process of identification. The author
points out when he can be able to say “I am all the world.” This
is also the principle which underlies the teaching of Bagavat Gita,

22 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
Krishna is the Jivan Mukta who by his holiness has identified
himself with God, Iswara. He as Guru imparts teaching to his
pupil Arjuna ; and Sivagnana Yogi observes, “ Is it not by this pro-
cess of Sohambavana that Krishna when teaching Gita to Arju-
na says ‘ I am all the world’ and shows the Lord’s Vivaswarupa
in himself and teaches him to worship him and him alone leaving
all other Gods ; and Arjuna who believed in him firmly and
understood the true significance of his word, performed Siva
Pujah till his life’s end, and the flowers showered by him on
Krishna in Divine worship appeared on the sacred person of the
Lord. Krishna as one who received Siva Diksha (initiation) from
Upamanya Maharishi and had perfected himself in the knowledge
of himself and his Lord, had perfected himself in Sohambavana.”
The author anticipates here in fact what is elaborated in the
third chapter, on “ Sadana.”
2. The good and bad Karma are what the soul had
acquired during its previous birth which now lie at rest bound up
with the resolved Maya. To quicken them into being again, the
Chit Sakti of the Lord as the instrumental cause (துணைக்காரணம்)
operates. This Sakti is likened to the authority of a King, hence
called Agnja Sakti. It is in fact the source of all Authority and
of all Law. A king exercises his authority by moving his limbs
of the law, his officers ; such a limb of the Supreme Law is the
law of Karma. A king covers himself under the shield of his
law from any imputations of partiality, &c., when he metes out
reward or punishment. So also God is not open to this charge.
The universal Law determines the Law of Karma and the latter
determines what each should undergo, either pleasure or pain.
The working of this law is shown in the illustrations.
(a). The simple statement of this law of Karma is that he
reaps as he sows and follows the laws of causation and conserva-
tion most rigidly. As no effect can be produced without a cause,

SECOND SUTRA. 28
a man's body in his present life and his actions could not have been
got adventitiously. Of course God would not have given it of
His mere will, as opposed to His Law as otherwise he would be
open to the charge of partiality and lacking in Swathanthram.
A being which is at the command of caprice has no control of
itself. This therefore brings out the phrase 'உள்ளதே தோற்ற'
in the original, (What existed before appears now) and which
I have simply translated as 'Previous Karma'. The seed which
one gathers in the previous existence developes and matures in
the soil (Lord's Power) becomes a tree (body) and bears good
or bad fruits (pleasure or pain. Punyam or Papam). Without
the soil the seed will not bear fruit; so without God, the past
Karma will not bear fruit.
I may note here a definition of Punyam and Papam given by
the late Sankara Pandithar of Jaffna. "Punyam" is "உயிர்க்கி
தம் செய்தல்"—acts tending to give pleasure to sentient beings
'Papam' is 'உயிர்க்கசதம்செய்தல்' acts tending to give pain to
sentient beings.
The fruits of previous Karma eaten in this life form Pra-
raptha Karma. In the process of eating, other acts are perform-
ed which form the seed for a future crop. And these acts form
Akamia Karma; the seeds gathered for a future crop when
sown become Sangchitha Karma. What is Akamia in this life
is Sangchitha for the next.
(b.) The last proposition in the last stanza is that the
actions themselves will not bear fruits and make the soul eat
them. The question is now asked why should not the soul
choose its own actions and reap the fruits. This is answered in
this illustration. It has not got the power of taking its body,
whereby the Karma has to be performed. This has to be done
by God. The cultivator (soul) cannot himself produce the tree
(body) however he might try. He requires for this the medium

24 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
of the soil (God). This inability is cansed by the soul's want of
self-knowledge and self-action, being covered by Anava Mala.
In plainer language, no man would do a particular act tending to
produce evil if he had the full knowledge to calculate all its
consequences. It is therefore man's ignorance that is the cause
of all evil. The only assumption here is that man in his original
state is ignorant or imperfect or is shrouded by Agnanam or
Anava. Grant this; and start the soul in the cycles of evolu-
tion, then the whole law of Karma comes into operation. This
doctrine therefore is not to be confounded with the doctrine of
Fate or necessity. Evolution or births are the only modes
provided for attaining perfect knowledge; and for getting births
or setting us on the wheel of Evolution we require God's help.
This original assumption is treated of in the next illustration.
(c.) That man is ignorant in knowledge (சிற்றறிவு) and is
imprudent in his actions (சிறுதொழில்) is a fact and is taken as a
fact by this school and is not converted into a Myth or Athya-
sam by a process of verbal jugglery. The explanation offered
by the Idealists is no explanation at all, as after all the
explanations offered, the final fact to be accounted for, still
remains unexplained, namely Ignorance or Agnanam or
Aviddhei, the cause of all evil, of all pain. We can explain a
joint effect by assigning the laws of the separate causes; or we
may explain an antecedent and consequent by discovering the
intermediate links; or the explanation may consist in reducing
several laws into one more general Law. None of these
modes are adopted by the latter school but the explanation
attempted falls clearly within one or other modes of fallacious or
illusory explanations; and as Dr. Bain points out, the greatest
fallacy of all is the supposition that something is to be desired
beyond the most generalized conjunction or sequences of pheno-
mena; and instancing the case of the union of body and mind,
he observes that the case does not admit of any other explana-

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

26 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
your assumption than in any real difficulty ? Why should you
assume that evil is produced out of good. The thing is impossi-
ble ; you must take things as they are. You find Good and Evil
together. Man is impure and weak ; it is just possible there is a
Being who is pure and strong enough to lift him from the bottom-
less pit. And herein is the real reason "மலத்துளதாம்" as the Text
says. God is active or passive as it is necessary for man to be
set on the wheel of Evolution or to rest. Neither will it do
to assume that God created Man at a particular moment and that
he committed sin, and sin came into the world after the creation
of Man and the world. Man committed sin, because he had not
the understanding to see that his good lay in obeying God's
words and he had not the free knowledge or intelligence to fore-
see all the evil he was to bring upon the earth by his disobedient
act. That is to say, he, as created, was an imperfect being. Laws
are made as man is weak and erring. And we cannot impute to
God the defects of a bad mechanic, want of knowledge and skill.
Man's reason does not accept the other explanation (no explana-
tion at all—merely a confession of ignorance) that God's ways
are mysterious. Why say at all that God made such a bad job ?
We don't thereby pull Him down from the position of the Creator
and the Supreme Lord of the universe. In what sense He is the
Creator is clearly explained in this book and is consistent with
modern science. We cannot therefore say that man has an Adi—
beginning. We simply deny that and say he is anadi (அநாதி) with-
out beginning—eternal i. e., more simply that he exists. His
existence is taken as a fact and admitting of no other explanation.
So his imperfection, Anava Mala and other Malabandas in union
with him are also anadi—eternal. And the illustrations give
some very apt analogies showing such mutual relationship and
union. Paddy and Copper are the examples. A paddy grain
appears as one ; still, it is composed of the husk, bran, rice and the
sprout, and all these are united together at the same time. Just

SECOND SUTRA. 27
as the physical covering of man completely hides his real self, so
the husk may conceal the rice. There is one more thing which
conceals the whiteness and purity of the rice (soul) and that is
the dark bran (anava) more intimately connected with it. And
then there is a sprout (Karma) but for which the grain will not
germinate (attain births). And what is the use of the husk?
Remove it, the seed will not germinate and grow into a plant
(attain bodies) and when you want to get at the rice (the real
self-soul) it helps by friction (by successive births—evolution) to
romove the dark bran (Anava-ignorance.)
Take Copper again. As we find it imbedded in the bosom of
a rock (God) it is a darksome ugly thing (man with his imper-
fections). What is it that makes it ugly, dims its real lustre? Its
rust. When did it become covered with rust? It was always so.
It is not a mere covering. The rust is in its very core. Was
Copper (soul) derived from Gold (God)? No. Can its rust
(anava) be removed and can it become Gold? We will see. Bring
it into use (births) and by friction applied by the hand or tama-
rind (Maya) it brightens a little (becomes intelligent and active.)
Lay it at rest, (resolution) the rust covers it again. And it is
the Alchemist's belief that after an innumerable number of Putams
(fire and friction) and when it had reached a certain kind of tone,
a touch of the Parisa Vedi (Alchemist's. stone) will turn it at once
into Gold. And our belief is that after we had undergone a suffi-
cient number of births, and we had reached malaparibagam
(மலபரிபாகம்), God's grace (சத்திநிபாதம்) will touch and con-
vert us into Himself. The Alchemist may or may not have suc-
ceeded in his life-long hope; at least there is no harm for us if we
believe that we will reach perfection, Divinehood. At any rate
we are sure of reaching perfect manhood.
Cf. “ கருமருவு குகையனையகாயத்தினடுவட்
டளிபுதோய் செம்பனைய யான்
கண்டகலவிருத்தி நீ ஞானக் கனல் மூட்டியே.

28 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
கனிவுபெற வுள்ளுருக்கிப்
பருவமதறிந்து நின்னருளான குளிகைகொடு
பரிசித்து வேதிசெய்து
பத்துமாற்றுத் தங்கமாக்கியே பணிகொண்ட
பக்ஷத்தை யென் சொல்லுகேன்”
“அருளுடைய பரமென்றோ வன்றுதானே யானுளனென்றும்,
எனக்கே யாணவாதி பெருகுவினைக்கட்டென்றும்,
என்னாற் கட்டிப்பேசியதன்றே அருள் நூல் பேசிற்றன்றே.”
(Thayumanavar).
(b.) The 2nd illustration of the Sun and lotus shows that God
is unchangeable—Nirvikari and impartial and just. His justice and
mercy are not incompatible things. Out of His Supreme Love
He lifts the souls from the deep darkness of Anava and puts them
into the cycle of births, whereby they can obtain salvation sooner
or later, according to theirdeserts, without any further interference
on the part of God, showing us however the ways by which we
can reach the goal. A physician can cure a man's bad sight,
but if after that, he carelessly falls into a pit the physician can-
not be blamed; or again a man has his sight—he can see with his
eyes. But could he see without the light of the Sun? If we
see wrong or do not carefully note the pitfalls, &c., and come to
a mishap can we blame the Sun? We have our own intelligence
to guide us, though the Divine Light sorrounds us and enables us
to use our intelligence. Man therefore cannot shift on his moral
responsibility to God.
3. This argument removes the doubt whether death is a
final ending,—annihilation. The strongest point in the doctrine of
this school is the principle that "nothing can come out of nothing"
and that no effect can be produced without a cause, following the
principle of conservation that nothing which is, can cease to be so.
If the Prapancha (Body and mind) is an entity, it was established
in the first Sutra that it was produced out of some primordial
substance. It could not therefore cease to exist when it under-
goes ordinary deaths. Deaths must necessarily therefore lead to

SECOND SUTRA. 29
re-births. So it is laid down that Births and Deaths are possible
only when a thing is eternal. But what is that in it which brings
about births and deaths. It is the Law of change—Continual
change, Evolution. This eternal and continually changing ego un-
dergoing births and re-births should not be confounded with the
vaguely apprehended and feebly postulated ego of the southern
Buddhists, a mere product of the Skandas, eking out some kind
of continued existence, failing when the Skandas fail, and becoming
annihilated also. We postulate also Nirvana and the word is used
in such conjunctions as Nirvana Diksha, &c., but in what sense
they are used will be shown later on. It does not mean annihilation.
(a & b). The illustrations explain how the soul and
its inseparable and eternal body undergo birth, death, and
rebirth. Man's visible body (Sthula Sarira) is only resolved
into its cause Sukshuma Sarira, as water passes into invisible
vapour. So the soul passing from its Sthula Sarira to its Sukshuma
Sarira as illustrated in (b) experiences some pleasure or pain, as
in sleep, the death of every day (Nithya Pralaya), the man
experiences pleasant or unpleasant dreams, according to his expe-
rience of the previous day or days. When the soul had there-
fore eaten of its Karma in part and had received sufficient rest, its
Akamia Karma induces it again to get a Sthula Sarira. Heaven
or Hell are merely states or conditions of the soul's existence
in Sukshuma Sarira. These have no local or space existence.
When the soul is in its Sthula Sarira, the faculties are
active and receive full play. In its Sukshuma state, all the
faculties are paralysed and inactive ; though it is capable of cer-
tain experiences owing to the past experiences vaguely reproduc-
ing themselves. The dream condition is exactly its parallel.
We don't remember all our days, experiences in sleep or dream ;
nor do we remember the numberless dreams that we dream in a
night, when we wake up, unless it be very vivid or strong.
Even when we are awake, we do not remember all our past

30 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
actions, though sometimes they be a day old. Man is therefore
not able to remember his life in a previous state or birth, through
the changes in his mental and physical conditions and through
his feeble powers of retentiveness.
4. It was already shown how God was in Adwaitha relation
with the world. And this is not possible but for His Chit Sakti.
And the relation of Himself to the Sakti is described as a
Samavaya relation. This inseparable association is one and the
same thing but we can regard the one in two different aspects.
When we regard God in Himself apart from the world, He is
Sivam, Pure Sat. When we regard Him in relation with the
world, He is Sakti (Light, Energy, Chit.) When we regard the
Sun as a great Luminous Body, we speak of him as the Sun ;
when we regard it as shining on the whole earth, we speak of
its light. And now His relation with the world is what is
called Omnipresence. This word though used by every reli-
gionist is not understood properly. Its true significance can only
be understood when we understand what Adwaitham means. It
is in fact synonymous with it. Inasmuch as there are some
who understand Adwaitham as oneness, this word is used to
mean that he is everything and that there could be nothing but
him and there is no second thing as mind or matter. And the
simple logic by which this position is established is stated in the
following sentence.
“ Were we to exclude the Omnipresent Principle from one
mathematical point of the universe or from a particle of
matter occupying any conceivable space, could we still regard it
as infinite”? What does this mean ? Omnipresence means a space
relation. It is capable of extension, measurement. It can be
viewed as a mathematical quantity.
If we suppose one unit of quantity occupies one unit of
space, and the Omnipresent Principle and Matter being regard-
ed in units of quantity, of course it is impossible for one unit of

SECOND SUTRA. 31
God and one unit of Matter to occupy one unit of space. This is
mathematically and logically certain.
But is this position tenable ? Are we to regard God as
occupying space, a quantity, a thing with length and breadth
i. e., capable of extension i.e., as matter. But there are people who
do so regard it ; but they can't prove it by saying that God is
Omnipresent. Then the argument will be in this form :—
God is matter.
Because God is Omnipresent. And Omnipresence means
matter ;
which will be arguing in a vicious circle, there being really
no major premise to this syllogism.
Even the broad distinction drawn between mind and matter is
that the matter is what is capable of extension and mind is not.
Can we therefore regard the Universal Mind as a thing capable of
extension ? Then what does this Omnipresence mean and imply ?
And how is it God is Omnipresent ? As was observed before,
Omnipresence means a space relation, the notion of space is
impossible apart from things co-existing. If we regard God as
the Absolute and the Infinite, He could not be Omnipresent.
Infinite space is a contradiction in terms. Omnipresence there-
fore implies a co-existing object. If God is a Principle diffusing
and soaking through and through, it must diffuse and soak itself
in another thing. If it fills what does it fill ? If it fills itself
then you must regard it as finite. As the Hindu Nyayikas put
it, there could be no Vyapakam, (Omnipresence) all container,
without things capable of Vyapti, (things filled). It is therefore
established God is Omnipresent and His Presence is felt in other
things and that God is not space, nor matter, nor the universe.
Then how does He fill the universe ? According to the text it is
by His Chit Sakti or Gnana Sakti. God is all Gnanam. He is
Gnana Mayam, and Gnanam is not space nor Matter nor Malam.

32 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
And it is therefore possible to fill one unit of space with one
unit of matter and one of Gnanam or God. He is then neither
one with matter nor apart nor different from it. It is in this
way He is Omnipresent. It is His great Chaitanyam that fills
His body (Souls, and Mala or Matter). It is in us He dwells and it
is in this sense and sense alone "that ye are the temple of God."
"அறவையேன் மனமே, கோயிலாக்கொண்டு ஆண்டு
அளவிலா ஆனந்தமருளி."
(Manicka Vachaka). In the same way as our Sakti—intelligence
fills our body, so God's Sakti (Maha Chaitanyam) pervades our
souls and lightens our darkness (உள்ளத்தொளிக்கின்ற ஒளி)
and He is then truly "Our Father in Heaven" 'whom we
are cognisant within us, in our heart and Spiritual consciousness.'
If otherwise we are God, how could God be itself cognisant of
itself in its heart and spiritual consciousness. In fact consciouss-
ness is a thing which cannot be predicated of the Absolute. Of
course, we can hardly conceive how mind fills matter and from
want of the adequate idea, an inadequate word is used; Omni-
presence is not at all the best word to be used to bring out the
idea and it is this improper use of the word which has caused all
the mistake and confusion; as many an other word has done.
The illustration states a paradox. If He is all-pervading
He cannot be one, and if He is two, He cannot be all-pervading.
All that is meant is, He cannot be regarded as a finite being, a
thing capable of extension, &c., He is all in all. He is all and
not all. Our intelligence and action is nothing when compared
with His Supreme Gnanam. We are entirely subordinate to Him.
Before His Supreme Presence, every matter is nothing. It is
like His property. It is in this sense our Thayumanavar ex-
claims :—
"எல்லா முன்னுடைமையே
எல்லா முன்னடிமையே
எல்லா முன்னுடைய செயலே."

SECOND SUTRA. 33
Compare also the definition of Pari Puranam (பரிபூரணம்)
given in Ozhivilodukkam.
“உதியாதளதாகி ஓங்கிப்பேராமல்,
அதிசூக்குமங்குறைந்தாகாமல்—பசையாத
ஆகாயமுங் காலும்போல அசைவற்ற
தே காண் பரிபூரணம்.
It has no origin. It is Sat. It transcends all the 36 tatwas.
It is unchangeable (Achalam.) It is adisukshuma (the least
of the least,) as it is in everything and yet out of it. It
could not be lessened nor increased (Akandaharam—Infinite.)
It is immoveable in relation with the universe as the Akas is
connected with air in perfect calm. This then is Pari Puranam—
Omnipresence.
6

34 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
III
THIRD SUTRA.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF SOUL.
Sutra. It rejects every portion of the body as
not being itself ; It says my body ; it is conscious
of dreams ; it exists in sleep without feeling pleasure
or pain or movements ; it knows from others ; This
is the soul which exists in the body formed as a
machine from Maya.
Commentary.
This treats of Atmā Prakasa and consists of seven
arguments.
First Argument.
Churnika.—An intelligent soul exists, as its intelligence
is exercised when it says “this is not the soul, this is
not the soul.”
Varthikam.—As there exists something after it rejects
everything else as not being the soul, it is established that
this something is the soul.
Illustration.—Standing in intimate and inseparable
connection with each and every part of the body and its
organs, an intelligence of the form of Sri Panchatchara
is found to exist which is not one or other of these.
That Thou art. Thou art not Maya, with which thou art
united, as it only enables thy understanding to shine bet-