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

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-

THIRD SUTRA. 35
ter as the eye-glasses make the eye see better. Thou art
neither the Supreme Being (Tat Param) who is above
thyself and Maya. Thou art different from both.
Second Argument.
Churnika.—As the phrase “my body” is used in a sepa-
rate possessive sense, there is a soul different from the
body.
Varthikam.—As something exists apart when it says
‘this is my arm’ ‘this is my leg’ as when it speaks of my
town, and my house. It is established that this something
is the soul.
Illustration.—As thou speakest of thy wife and thy
house as thine and as identical with thyself, so thou
speakest of thy hands and thy feet and thy impression
and sensation, as though they are not different from you.
If examined deeply, thou wilt find the body, arms, &c.
to be different from thyself.
Third Argument.
Churnika.—As he understands all the five different
sensations, he is different from all the five senses which
can only feel each a particular sensation.
Varthikam.—As among the five senses, one cannot
feel what another can feel, and as there exists some-
thing which feels all the five classes of sensations by
means of all the five senses, it is established that this
something is the soul.
Illustration.—If there is something which understands
the actions of all the five senses in the body which are

36 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
moved by Sri Panchatchara and of which when experien-
cing the sensations, one sense does not feel what an-
other sense feels, that something thou art. As these senses
except feeling each differently have no thought that
they feel, understand that thou art not one of them.
Fourth Argument.
Churnika.—As it passes from the dream condition in -
to the waking state, there exists a soul different from
the body in the dream condition.
Varthikam.—As something experiences in the waking
state that it had dreams in sleep, it is established that
this something is the soul.
Illustration.—When, in sleep, the senses which are alive
in the body, lose their action and the body loses all its
external actions, thou enterest another body, (Sukshuma
Sarira) inside thy own, in dream and undergoest other
experiences of sight, hearing and the like, pleasure, and
pain and the like and then changest it for the visible
body (Sthula Sarira) when waking. Thou art not there-
fore the Sukshuma Sarira; Thou art different.
Fifth Argument.
Churnika.—As the body has no feelings or movements
in profound sleep, though respiration in kept up, the soul
is different f.om the respiratory organ (Pranavayu).
Varthikam.—In profound sleep (when all the functions
of the body except respiration are suppressed), feelings of
pleasure and pain and movements are absent in the body;
and in the waking state, when all the faculties are in

THIRD SUTRA. 37
working order, these feelings and movements are present.
It is therefore established that something (which thus
suppresses the faculties or brings them into play, causing
the absence or presence of the feelings and movements)
is the soul.
Illustration.—(In profound sleep) the body, which has
cognition of the world, losing it, has no feeling of pleasure
or pain and no movements, though the breath (respi-
ration) fully plays. Hence, there is an intelligence
which has such perception other than breath. Under-
stand that when the soul is active in the body, it has
such feelings and movements.
Sixth Argument.
Churnika.—The soul becomes conscious of one thing
when it forgets another. Therefore the soul is different
from Hara, whose consciousness is not subject to such
change.
Varthikam.—As it can only understand when taught
by its Guru that it is different from God whose under-
standing is perfect, it is established that this is the
soul (and not God).
Illustration.—When becoming conscious of objects, it
only apprehends one at a time, and when proceeding to
apprehend another, becomes unconscious of what it knew
before, and when it undergoes the five avasthas it be-
comes perfectly unconscious of everything. What is it
which so apprehends? It is not Intelligence (Arivu). If
the truth seeker examines, it is the soul whose under-
standing becomes identical with what it becomes united to.

38 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
Seventh Argument.
Churnika.—The soul is different from all the various
tatwas as each is called by a separate name.
Varthikam.—It is established that the soul is different
from the body, as each of the five senses instead of
being called soul receives each a different name.
Illustration.—If the intelligence is the result of the con-
junction of the bodily organs and senses) these, on exami-
nation, resolve themselves into the Tatwas which begin
with Kala and end with earth, and these are products
of Maya which is not permanent (changeable or destruc-
tible.) If, after understanding attentively the nature of
intelligence, this combination is examined, it is simply
the body (Sthula) and (Sukshuma) which is to the soul
what the lamplight is to the eye. Hence the soul or
intelligence is different from the body.

THIRD SUTRA. 39
NOTES.
This Sutra is a remarkable example of condensation of
thought and brevity of expression. This contains 7 arguments
on a most important subject and yet there is only a word or two
to express each argument and there are not more than 20 words
in Tamil or 14 words in Sanskrit. The first Sutra established
from the fact of the objective universe and its undergoing
evolution, the existence of Sat. In the next Sutra the nature of
Chit by which this evolution is brought about and which is all
Love is explained. Now God need not be active and be all
loving, if no body is to be benefited by it. He could not desire
anything for Himself, as He is "வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமையிலான்"
(has no likes nor dislikes). Every act of His must be construed
as Para-Prayochanam and not Swaprayochanam. We have
therefore to postulate a separate entity as Soul which requires
the support of the Supreme Intelligence and Love. This Sutra
therefore proceeds to the proof of its existence.

1. The first argument is directed against Suniyavadis
   according to whom there is no Atma at all. The subject though
   it identifies itself with every part of the objective body, organs
   and sensations yet it exercises its sense of difference and distin-
   guishes itself from one and all of these. Therefore that which
   so discriminates could not be a non-entity. This discriminating
   subject is the Soul or Atma. Even if we were to think we do
   not exist, the very thinking so, proves the existence of the
   thinking beings. The illustration further enjoins a caution
   that this thinking intelligence, being no other than Atma
   is not to be confounded with Divine Intelligence, when