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

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

40 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
we see it is not Maya or objective consciousness. The Atma
occupies a place different from the other two i.e., a middle position.
God is Sat; Maya is Asat; hence Atma is called Satasat
(சதசத்து). The author of Ozhivilodukkam calls it Ali Arivu
(அலியறிவு—Hermaphrodite intelligence) comparing the Divine
Arivu to male and the Maya Arivu to female intelligence.
Though all these are intelligences, they are of different orders.
There is a dependence of the lower intelligence on the higher
and when viewed from the stand-point of the higher, the lower
ceases to exist as it were, the latter becomes Asat. Maya is Sat,
but as compared with Atma, it is Asat. Atma is sat but as
compared with God is Asat; Maya could not be compared with
anything lower, nor God (Sat) with anything higher. So these
latter occupy extremes Asat and Sat and the middle one is called
Satasat, partaking of the nature of both and not being both.
When it identifies itself with Maya, (as in man) it is hardly
distinguishable from Maya and when it becomes identified with
Sat, its presence cannot also be seen. So it is an Ali.
One other distinction between Sat and Satasat is that Sat
is காட்டும் அறிவு or அறிவிக்கும் அறிவு (intelligence that induces
Perception) or Light that removes darkness and the latter is
காணும் or அறியும் அறிவு (Intelligence that perceives after
the darkness is removed by Sat).
The relation of God, Atma and Maya is illustrated by the
following analogy. Atma is the eye which is affected by a
general disability and a particular defect. It cannot see in
darkness nor when its eye sight is defective. God is the sun,
the dispeller of darkness, thereby giving light to the eye and
other objects and enabling it to preceive. Maya is like the eye
glasses which afford temporary relief to defective sight. By
continued use of the glasses (births) and by a touch of the
Surgeon's lancet (God's Grace or Arul Sakti) the defective eye

THIRD SUTRA. 41
sight (Anavamala) may be permanently cured. But the defec-
tive eye sight could not be cured by the Sun however powerful
it may shine, and it shines ever before and after the eye sight is
cured. And yet at no moment could you compare the light of
the eye to the light of the sun, the one is the dispeller of dark-
ness and the other is subject to darkness inherently. Sri Pan-
chatchara is synonymous with Pranava. See further treatment
of the subject in the subsequent chapters. Cf. Thayumanaver.
“ ஐந்துபுலன் ஐம்பூதம் கரணமாதி
அடுத்தகுண மத்தனையும் அல்லை அல்லை
இந்த உடல் அறிவு அறியாமையு நீ யல்லை
யாதொன்று பற்றினதன் இயல்பாய் நின்று
பந்தமறும் பளிங்கனைய சித்து நீ யுன்
பக்குவங் கண்டறிவிக்கும் பான்மையேம் யாம்.”
2. This is an argument gathered from a habit of speech to
pro ve that the Soul is different from the body as against the
Theyanma Vadis. The different forms of speech I and mine
involve a difference between the non-Ego (body) and the Ego
and asserts the separate existence of the Ego. Such usages as
‘ I am the body ’; ‘ I am the leg or arm,’ &c., are not in existence.
3. This argument is, against regarding the soul as identi-
cal with the five external senses. Each sense stands apart and
cannot feel a different class of sensations. So the Soul can
neither be one nor all of them. Even when the sensations are
experienced, there is simply the feeling present and no thought
of any such feeling. The eye sees no doubt, but it does not
think that it sees. This is of course the distinction between
subjective thought and objective feeling. The objective feeling
or object is not the subject mind or Atma.
4. This argument is against the view that Sukshuma Sarira
is itself the Atma. That it is not so is proved by the fact of the Soul
passing in the waking state into the Sthula Sarira remembering
its experiences in sleep and remembering them not clearly even.

42 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
In fact, it is in the Sthula Sarira, all the faculties are
present and in full play ; and in the Sukshuma Sarira 10 of the
Tatwas (5 elements and 5 senses) are wanting. In dream, there
is merely reproduction of ideas as determined by the previous
Karma (experiences) and without the command of reason or will.
This sensorium and blind reproduction is not the subject. It
can be so, if in that condition the Soul is in its full working order.
5. Nor is the Soul in its full working order and undergoing
movements, feelings, &c., in dead sleep and hence the respira-
tory organ is not the Atma. In Jakrutha, respiratory function
is working but in conjunction with other organs, external and
internal senses, and certain sequences follow, feelings and actions.
If the first is the sole cause or Atma, then we must eliminate
other antecedents and see if the sequences still continue. In
Sushupti, the other antecedents are absent and the respiratory
function is the sole function present and it is not accompanied
by the sequences. This is the inductive method of elimination
of antecedents as causes which are not followed by the same
effects. This same method is also used in the last argument.
6. The law of human consciousness as here stated is the
same as that postulated by Dr. Bain, "change is essential to
consciousness." Unless we change our thought to another, our
consciousness of the thought ceases. To be conscious of the
next we must forget the present. So the Tamil axiom is
stated as "நினைப்புண்டேல் மறப்புண்டாம்" "When we are
conscious we are also subject to forgetfulness." When we
continue to think of a particular object or idea for a time and do
not change it, we in fact do not continue conscious of it. Our
mind becomes incapable of thinking, owing to its inherent weak-
ness. Man's intelligence therefore is weak or changing; and it
is this which distinguishes it from God who is all Intelligence,
who is cognizant of all at the same time. One other distinction is

THIRD SUTRA. 43
Human Intelligence requires to be taught, improved and deve-
loped; it is imperfect and needs the support of a Perfect
Intelligence.
7. This argument sums up all the previous arguments, and
points out one distinction between the bodily senses, Sukshuma
and Karana Sariras which are all products of Maya, and the Soul.
The distinction is that whereas these products of matter are ever
changeable and changing and hence called Asat or false, the soul
is unchangeable and hence called Sat. This sat however becomes
Asat when in union with Asat or Maya and Sat when in union
with the True Sat or God and hence it is called Satasat. The
definition of Asat is given in the first Varthika of the sixth Sutra.
It does not mean non-existent, but one perceivable in one aspect
or objective attitude of the soul and not perceivable in the subjec-
tive attitude of the soul.
This finishes the chapter on proof. I have already pointed
out that Maya (Cosmic Matter) and Anava (Imperfection in
nature) are taken as facts and not capable of further explanation
or resolution into any other cause, and that matter undergoes
evolution, and that there is some method in this and this method
is determined by Karma (Law of Causation.) And matter not
being capable of Evolution itself and the individual Ego not being
able to determine the Evolution, we require a Superior Force, a
Grand Energy and this is the Unknowable. Its relation with
mind and matter is Adwaitha and its Omnipresence is brought
about by its Maha Chaitanyam. The reason for separately postu-
lating a soul is then shown and this soul could not be confounded
with Buvana and Bhoga, and is proved to be other than the
body, the five senses, and Sukshuma Sarira and Karana Sarira;
That is, it is different from Maya as well as from God. One
group of Phenomena or faculties have been omitted from the
consideration of these questions and that is, the four internal
senses, Manas, Buddhi, Chittam and Ahankaram and these four