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

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

44 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
answer to the Mind of the Western Philosophers. These are also
shown to be distinct from the soul and as the subject requires a
fuller treatment it is discussed in a separate Sutra. It will be
seen from what follows that these occupy a middle position bet-
ween the Soul and the objective Phenomena (Thanu, external
senses, and Buvana, and Bhoga); and there is thus involved a triple
division of man, as soul, mind and animal life (body). As between
mind and body, body is object (Asat) and mind is sat ; as between
the soul and the other two, the last two are objective (Asat) and
the soul the subject (Sat). As between God and Soul and the
rest, God is the True subject (Sat) and soul and the rest are ob-
jective (Asat) This relationship is discussed in the subsequent
chapters and must be borne in mind. It is a point for the
Scientific Inquirer to consider if the proof adduced in this chap-
ter is sufficient and convincing, or if the statement is taken as a
mere theory or hypothesis (and in these grand questions it is not
possible to arrive at more than a true hypothesis) whether it is a
true hypothesis i.e., whether it explains all the phenomena of
human existence and satisfies all human aspiration or whether it
omits any facts unexplained and contradicts any facts of our
existence. It is also a point worth notice that in the elucidation
of these principles, nothing is made a matter of mystery—no real
difficulty left unexplained by being consigned to the realms of
the mysterious, and language is not used to puzzle man and baffle
argument. When once proof is attempted, so far as the human
mind is capable of grasping and proving these things, one must
confine oneself to strictly human logical tests, and if the theory
fails on the application of these tests the theory must be condemn-
ed by human reason. If after all the trouble taken to postulate
a theory, adduce proof &c. a man is going to plead his own igno-
rance and God's mysterious ways, it would be far better for him
to confess his ignorance at the beginning and attempt no expla-
nation at all.

FOURTH SUTRA. 45
CHAPTER II.—LAKSHANAVIAL.
IV
FOURTH SUTRA.
OF THE SOUL IN ITS RELATION TO THE
ANDHAKARANA.
Sutra. The soul is not one of the Andakarana. It
is not conscious when it is in conjunction with
Anavamala. It becomes conscious only when it
meets the Andakarana, just as a king understands
through his ministers. The relation of the soul to
the five Avastha is also similar.
Commentary.
This also treats of the nature of the soul and it consists
of three arguments.
First Argument.
Churnika.—The Andakarana have no activity except
when in conjunction with the soul. Hence there is a soul
distinct from the Andakarana.
Varthikam.—As the Andakarana are only intelligent
(chit) when viewed in relation to the subordinate Tatwas
but are non-intelligent (Achit) when viewed in relation to
the soul, it is established that the soul is not one of the
Andakarana namely Manas, Buddhi, Chittam and Ahan-
kara.

46 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
Illustrations.—(a) Manas and other Andakarana have
perception of permanent sensations. The soul perceives the
product of the perception by the Buddhi after such mental
perceptions. These perceptions by Manas and Buddhi
reach the soul as the waves rising in the sea reach the
shore. As the Andakarana are different from the permanent
sensations, so the soul is different from the Andakarana.
(b.) While perceiving so, the soul as Chittam considers;
as Manas it doubts; as Ahankaram, it wrongly concludes;
as Buddhi it determines properly. As it thus apprehends
differently when it is united to each, it is different from
them, just asthe sun, though marking the divisions of time,
is different from it.
(c.) The letter ‘A’ is the symbol of Ahankaram; ‘U’ that
of Buddhi; ‘M’ that of Manas; Vinthu that of Chittam; and
Natham which is inseparable from all these letters, is the
symbol of the soul. The five letters constitute Pranava; when
examined, consciousness arises when the soul and andakarana
meet, just as the tides rise and fall during the conjunction of
the sun and the Moon.
(d.) Iswara and Sadasiva are the deities respectively of
Vinthu and Natham; Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra are deities
respectively of ‘A,’ ‘U,’ and ‘M’.
Second Argument.
Churnika.—The soul cannot see, being shrouded by the
mala.
Varthikam.—It is established that the soul cannot un-
derstand when it is solely in conjunction with its inherent
mala (Anava), as this mala is something which darkens
the soul’s light or intelligence.

FOURTH SUTRA. 47
Illustration.—The soul will not know any thing, unless
it receives the light through its body caused by Maya, as
the eye apprehends objects by the light of the lamp.
Anavamala exists in the soul eternally, becoming one with
it and concealing its lustre as does the firewood conceal
the heat or fire present in it.
Third Argument.
Churnika.—The soul undergoes five Avastha.
Varthikam.—As the soul is in a formless (Arupa) tatwa
form and shrouded by the Mala, it is established that the
soul undergoes five Avastha, namely, Jakra, Swapna,
Sushupti, Thuriya, and Thuriyathitha.
Illustrations.—(a) In the Jakra Avastha of the soul,
when it is in the region of the forehead, it has 35 active
organs including the 10 external senses. In its Swapna
Avastha, when in the region of the throat, it has 25 organs
excluding the 10 external organs. In the Sushupti
Avastha, when in the region of the heart, it has 3 organs in-
cluding Chittam. In Thuriya Avastha, when in the region
of the navel, it has only two, namely Purusha and Prana-
vayu; In Thuriyathitha Avastha, when in the region of
Mulathara, it is pure Purusha having none of these organs.
(b) The soul, which in Jakra avastha is in the region
of the forehead, undergoes all the five avastha in the
same region. That is to say, it becomes conscious of each
perception through each of the organs and, at the same
time, becomes separated from them. Sutta Avastha are
like these five in number.

48 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
NOTES.
Andakarana is a generic word, signifying all the internal senses,
but they more particularly mean as here, Manas, Buddhi, Chitta
and Ahankara. The proof of the proposition that the soul is not
one of the Andakarana is given in the Varthika and illustrations.
In dead sleep (Sushupthi) where the internal senses are at
rest, the soul is not conscious. It becomes conscious only
when the Anthakarana become once more active. When the
soul is in Sushupti, it is in conjunction only with Anava Mala
and performing respiratory function. This last function is the
watchman who guards the innermost portals of the Palace of the
King (Soul) when it is in perfect solitude. The Avasthas are
merely the conditions of the soul when it is in relation with
all the external and internal senses or with only some of them or
none at all.

1. The churnika furnishes the first proof which is amplified
   in the Varthika. The internal senses are active ; you lift your
   Ego to its own place as in Yoga, the Andakarana become
   dead and inactive, thus showing that the Atma is not one of the
   Andakarana.
   The distinction is drawn in the following manner.
   The Andakarana are the faculties of perception and reason.
   They perceive and reason but are not conscious that they
   perceive and reason. This latter function is performed by the
   True Ego, Atma.
   The four Andakarana are distinguished in this wise
   Chittam takes an impression presented by the senses and con-

FOURTH SUTRA. 49
siders what it is. It cannot know that it so considers. Manas
takes such an impression, and doubts whether it is or is not this
or that. It cannot know that it so doubts.
Ahankara ventures boldly that the impression is such and
such. It cannot know that it so ventures.
Buddhi determines properly that the impression is this or
that. It cannot know that it so determines.
(a). The Andakarana are divided into two classes as re-
marked above.
Manas, Chitta, and Ahankara are merely faculties of per-
ception and they perceive permanent sensations and the language
of the text is remarkable as “மன்னு புலன்கள்” exactly mean
permanent sensations. Buddhi is the faculty of reason involving
the sense of agreement and difference among such impressions.
The product of this faculty is what is brought to the cog-
nizance of the soul. The first three ministers merely gather
statistics and prepare them. The Chief Minister, Buddhi
compares the statistics and draws his conclusions and formulates
the proposition to the King (Soul).
As the waves are stirred by the winds, the senses affect
the Andakarana.
(b). Another distinction is that the four andakarana are
four different functions, one not capable of performing the
function of another or all the rest. That which stands above,
cognizant of all the four, is the soul.
(c). It was before observed that the soul was of the form of
Sri Panchatchara and the latter was stated as synonymous with
Pranava. The symbol of Vinthu is a circle and that of
Natham is a line. These two in fact, constitute the Pranava sym-
bol o— or உ and the latter will be seen is the same as Pillayar shuli;
7

50 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
No Tamil man will begin the smallest piece of writing without
prefixing Pillayar shuli. The significance being forgotten, it
is thought of as a sectarian symbol, and the bigoted among
Vaishnavas to whom the Pranava is as important, begin now to
use ஸ்ரீ instead. Why it is called Pillayar shuli is, because God,
Ganesha, represents Pure Sat, Brahm and the elephant Head is
the Pranava symbol. Cf. the popular Tamil couplet.
பிரணவப்பொருளாம் பெருந்தகை ஐங்கரன்
சரண அற்புதமலர் தலைக்கணிவோமே.
The popular Sanscrit slokas in praise of Ganesha also des-
cribe Him as Pranava Sorupi. The illustration contained in
this stanza is a beautiful one.
(d). This contains another explanation of Pranava. Sivam
was first stated as True Sat or Brahm. I have shown that the
form of Ganesha shows Him to represent True Sat or Brahm.
The very name of Subramanya signifies that He is True Brahm.
The word Uma meaning Sakti is composed of u, m and a, i. e.
Om manifested. So these different words or mantras are differ-
ent modes of expressing the same Principle, the True Sat, in
symbol, sound and language. So Om, Sri Panchatchara, Gane-
sha mantra, Subramanya mantra and Devi mantra are mere
equivalents and denote the Samashti Pranavu; when analysed i.e.
regarded as Vyashti, it becomes divided into Natham, Vinthu,
a, u, and m. ‘a’ represents creation or origin as its place is the
place of origin of all sounds. ‘u’ or ‘oo’ represents sthithi, as,
when after proncuncing ‘a’ we bring it to a stand for an instant
by converging the lips, ‘u’ is formed ; when we close our mouths
after pronouncing ‘a’ and ‘u,’ ‘m’ is formed and hence it repre-
sents Samharam. Binthu and Natham are the form and sound
of these letters.
2. This explains that man's intelligence only receives play
and brightness and is capable of infinite improvement, when

FOURTH SUTRA. 51
brought in contact with human body, by getting frequent births.
That is, by evolution alone, man gets himself perfected.
3. I have not seen any objection to regarding the Soul as
a separate entity more formidable than this, viz.
"If so, while I am in my objective state of consciousness,
my Ego is something existing as a real entity in the physical
body itself. How is it possible to transfer the same to the astral
body ? Then, again, it has also to be transferred to the Karana
Sarira. We shall find a still greater difficulty in transfering this
entity to the Logos itself; and you may depend upon it that un-
less a man's individuality or Ego can be transferred to the Logos,
immortality is only a name." This objection which is stated
with so much confidence will, on examination, be found to be
groundless. In the first place, it is not shown, how it is not possi-
ble to effect the tranference from one Avastha to another under
this theory and that it is possible under the objector's theory.
Besides, the difficulty is more in the language employed, than in
actual fact. And it is, often, in our experience what a fruitful
source of error is the inadequate language we employ, in describ-
ing laws of thought. The objector speaks of the tranfer from
one body to another. On the premises already laid down in the
preceding Sutras and on the view of the Avasthas as discussed
in this argument, it will be apparent that there will be no trans-
fer at all. The atma does not fly from the Sthula Sarira into
the Sukshuma or astral body and leaving this into the Karana
Sarira. It did not enter any new cosmic body at any one time.
Its connection with Maya is eternal. And the law of mental
evolution or evolution of subjective consciousness correspond s
exactly to the evolution of objective consciousness. The huma n
mind cannot evolve unless there is a corresponding evolution
in its body. A pure disembodied mind or Atma is not recog-
nized by this school. In the human as well as in the freed state
(Moksha) it is connected with matter and between 'matter and

52 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
God, the Atma is supported like a piece of iron between two
magnets, the one pulling it higher and the other pulling
it lower. And in the human state, the iron is in closest
contact with the lower magnet, and in the Moksha with
the Higher Magnet. In Moksha, the power of maya to
undergo births alone is destroyed, by the Karma having
been eaten up, just as a seed of grain loses its power of
germination in the granary of the ant, by the sprout being
nibbled off or by some other process. In human evolution,
however, we find both the object and subject being evolved
together and there could be no evolution of the one without the
evolution of the other. In its original condition, what is here
called Thuriyathitha condition, the atma is pure Purusha with-
out consciousness of any sort, its body also being altogether
undevoloped. This is the stage before evolution had commenced.
The atma has no consciousness, no intelligence and no move-
ments of any sort. In the next condition (Thurya avastha)
evolution had been started, we have the first beginning of life,
Purusha, in a living breathing body, without consciousness or
any manifestation of any other faculties. They (mind and body)
are evolved a step further in the Sushupthi avastha, and we
have the first beginning of consciousness; and as such the
faculty of Chittam is evolved in addition; and the objective
body is then called Karana Sarira. A step further we arrive at
Swapna avastha, where all the faculties (objective consciousness)
except the 10 external senses (Gnana and Karma Indriyas) are
fully developed and the objective body is called Sukshuma or
astral body. In the final stage of evolution, where man's
consciousness has been fully developed, all the 36 tatwas formed
of Maya, have been also fully developed; this is the Jakra
avastha, and the body is the Sthula body. In this account of
human evolution, there is no transference really. Similarly
when the atma and its body undergo resolution, subjective and

FOURTH SUTRA. 53
objective consciousness ceases little by little or is drawn in as it
were, just as a spider or tortoise draws all its legs and organs
into itself and rolls itself into a mass and becomes dead to all
appearance. In fact, like a revolving prism of many sides, the
attitude of the atma alone changes and this change of attitude
or avastha is brought about, as, in the language of the text, it
it is in a formless (Arupa) Tatwa form enshrouded by mala i. e.,
not being made of matter but being chit itself and encased in
matter. These five avasthas and their bodies are divided into three
states Kevala, Sakala and Sutta. The Kevala state is the
original state before evolution and described in the text of this
sutra 'சகசமலத்துணராது' (It is not conscious when it is in
conjunction with Anavamala). The Sakala state is described
in the next sutra (V) and in the next one (VI) the Sutta
state is treated of.
Having met a few of the most formidable objections taken
to this view of the Siddhanta school, let me here state a few of
the objections to the Idealistic view for which a rational answer
is not yet forthcoming. Evolving Logos and Mulaprakriti
(matter) from Brahm (Sat), why don't you apply the law of
causation and conservation of energy, and say otherwise that,
Logos and matter are not Brahm, and why do you throw a veil
between Logos and Brahm, and why do you say also that matter
is not 'Sat' but Asat, and why should the one energy or
Chaitanyam or Sakti of the Logos subdivide itself and form into
different monads and acquire Karma, and become evil, and
corrupt and bring sin and sorrow into this earth? If Atma is
not a particle of this Chit but a mere reflection or shadow, how
could the shadow and the substance be the same and how
could a mere shadow become individualized and clothe
with thought and action? And why should this shadow work
out its own salvation? Will it not disappear when the
substance is itself resolved. And in the same way as the

54 SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
Logos manifested itself in various bodies, as the sun in
various pots of water, cannot the Logos itself gather up its
lost energies or cannot the energy pass into the Logos as
soon as the body dies, just as the sun's reflection ceases as soon
as the water pot is broken ? With what grace can the objection
be stated that unless the man's individuality .is transferred into
the Logos itself, immortality is only a name, when for no reason
or end, the human monad is evolved from Logos, and when there
is an equal chance for the individual attaining immortality to
evolve agaia as a human monad ?