THE RELATION OF GOD TO THE WORLD AND TO SOULS
2. அவையே தானே யாயிரு வினையின்
போக்குவரவுபுரிய ஆணையின்
நீக்கமின்றி நிற்குமன்றே.
Sutra. He is one with the souls (Abetha). He is different from them (Betha). He is one and different from them (Bethabetha). He stands in Samavaya union with His Gnana Sakti and causes the souls to undergo the processes of evolution (births) and return (Samharam) by including their good and bad acts (Karma).
Commentary:
This treats of the subject of Rebirths and consists of 4 principal arguments.
First Argument:
Churnika. – Hara exists in all the souls inseparably (as one with them.)
Varthikam. – The word Adwaitham cannot mean oneness or Ekam; as without a second, no one can think of himself as one, and as the very thought implies two things. The word simply denies the separate existence and separability of the two. In this sense, it is said here that the souls exist as one with the Lord.
Illustrations (a). The soul, standing in its body composed of bones, muscles, &c., and in union with the senses, answers to the name given for its body, when anybody addresses it, and identifies itself with the body. Similarly, though the Lord stands in a similar intimate relation with the soul, He is not the soul, and the soul cannot become the Lord. In the human state, He is one and not one with the soul.
(b) The vedic Text, ‘Ekam evadwithiyam Brahma’ ‘Ekam Eva Rudra Nadwitiyaya thas theh’ means that there is only one Supreme Being without a second. And this one is the Pathi and not the soul. You who say (ignorantly) you are one (with the Lord) are the soul and are bound up with Pasa. As we say that without (the primal sound) ‘A’ all other letters will not sound, so the Vedas say, “without the Lord, no other things will exist.”
(c). The Arul Sakti of the Lord which pervades the whole universe is inseparably and eternally connected with the world, just like the sound in the tune and the flavour in the fruit. So, the rare Vedas declare that Brahm is Adwaitham and not Ekam with the universe.
(d). Just like the whetstone composed of gold, wax and sand, God is one with the world and is different from it and He is neither (Bethabetham). When God enters my soul, when I am freed from Pasam, I identify myself with God, and say I am all the world.
Second Argument:
Churnika. – Hara makes the souls eat the fruit of their Karma.
Varthikam. – The soul’s good and bad Karma are induced by the Gnana Sakti of the Lord; just as a king protects his town by appointing watchmen to guard it and thus exercises his authority.
Illustrations (a). The soul joining the body caused by its previous Karma eats the fruits thereof. Similarly, our present actions (Karma) furnish the seed for our body in the next birth. God, The all bountiful makes the soul eat the fruits of previous Karma (without suffering any change) just as the soil makes the cultivator reap as he sowed.
(b). Just as iron is attracted to the magnet when a person brings it in position, so the souls performing Karma join the body in which the Karma is effected and eat the fruits by the Arul of God. If they do not so enjoy by His Arul, who else could know and make them eat the fruits of Karma in the most unchangeable manner, in that condition, where they lie helpless, without self-knowledge, and self-action, enshrouded by Mala.
(c). The husk of the paddy or the rust of the copper is not new but co-existed with the grain or copper; so, the three Mala, Maya, Karma and Anava co-exist with the soul and were not acquired by it at any intermediate time. These undergo change in the presence of God, just as the Sun’s rays cause one Lotus to open and another to close.
Third Argument:
Churnika. – The souls are subject to re-births losing their previous forms.
Varthikam. – The souls are re-born after death as birth and death are possible only to things existing eternally and changing continually.
Illustrations (a). The soul passing at death from its Sthula Sarira composed of eyes, ears, &c., into its Sukshuma Sarira which it had already, undergoes its experiences in Heaven or Hell; and forgetting such experiences, just as a dreamer forgets his experience of the waking state, passes as an atom in its Sukshuma state into a suitable womb at conception time, impelled thereto by the desire created by its previous Karma.
(b). The analogies of the serpent passing out of its old skin and the mind from the conscious into the dream condition and the Yogi into another body are often properly pointed out to explain the passing of the soul from its Sthula into the Sukshuma Sarira. Against this view, the analogy of the air of the pot passing into the atmosphere after the breaking of the pot, is instanced to support the view, that the soul takes no other body after death. This does not serve; it only illustrates the fact of the soul passing from the Sukshuma Sarira itself.
Fourth Argument:
Churnika. – Hara is omnipresent.
Varthikam. – He is one with His chit-sakti, as He is omnipresent without being one or different from the world.
Illustration. – If God is all-pervading (one with the souls and matter), He cannot be one. If he is two, He cannot be all-pervading. (He cannot be said to be not all-pervading as) there is no body or soul which exists without Him. He pervades everything by His chit-sakti, just like the light of the Sun. the whole universe is His property, and the souls are His servants.
NOTES
GENERAL:
This Sutra discusses the most important and peculiar doctrine of this school, namely its theory of Adwaitham or the relation between God and the souls. Three Relations are possible.
(1.) Succession or causation. When one thing is the cause and the other is the effect, there is no difference whatever. It is Abetha; just like gold and ornaments made out of it (பொன்பணிபோல் அபேதம்).
(2.) Co-existence with mutual exclusion. Here one has no connection whatever with the other. One is totally external to the other. It is Betha like darkness and light (இருள் ஒளிபோல் பேதம்).
(3.) Co-existence without mutual exclusion or externality as when two different things are connected inseparably like the association of ideas. It is Bethabetham, just like the word and its meaning. Here the word is either a sound or a symbol and is distinguishable from the connotation of the name, yet both the symbol or sound and the connotation is inseparably and indissolubly associated with each other. This relationship is not postulated by any other school. Under the first division comes in both Idealism (s) and Materialism (Nasthikam and Boudha Vadham). In both the schools, causation is postulated whether it be that matter is derived from mind or the universe of mind and matter is derived from an Absolute or mind is derived from matter or a combination of Skandas. From the theory of causation, when you derive matter from mind, it will be as easy to derive mind from matter. And the objections we can take against the Materialist will equally be applicable to the theory of the Idealist, as is pointed out by Prof. G. J. Romanes in his article on Mind and Body. In fact, Idealism is regarded by the Siddhanti as Nastikam or Nihilism and the term Prachanna Bouddha Vadham is freely applied to it. The Hindu Idealists are also fond of giving two other analogies. The Spider and its web and the fire and its spark. It is easily seen that these are identical in substance and the web is merely the product of the material body, the glands of the Spider and not of its life Principle. The Siddhanthis therefore reject these relationships or at least the relationship pointed to by these analogies. The Vishishtadwaita of Ramanujacharya and the Dwaitha of Madhwacharya may be placed under the second head or even the third head as some sort of relationship is said to exist between God and Man. In the Moksha of a Ramanuja, each atma retains its personality distinct from God but there is a union between its spirit and the universal spirit and according to the Madhwa the relationship is similar to that of a Guru and Sishya or that of a parent and child.
I said before that the Siddhanti rejects all these relationships in this sense that he does not affirm causation, nor separable or inseparable co-existence as explained above. Yet in the Sutra God is called Abetha; the connection is such that an identity is perceived, and the best illustration of this relationship is that of the body and life or mind (உடல் உயிர்போல் அபேதம்). The objective and subjective phenomena are quite different and yet a sort of absolute identity is established. He is Betha and this is illustrated as follows: –
An act of Perception is one and indivisible. Yet the perception is caused by two agencies the Eye and the Sun or Light. The Eye cannot perceive without the aid of the light, and though both the light of the Eye and the light of the Sun combine together, the combination is perceived as one. Here there is no causation as between the Eye and the Sun (கண் அருக்கன் போல் பேதம்). He is Bethabetham; but the tamil equivalent of the latter word உடன் or உடனுமாய் is perhaps more expressive. This relationship is similar to that of the soul or mind and the sense of sight or eye (கண்ணொளியின் ஆன்மபோதம்போல் பேதா பேதம்). Though in all these cases an identity is perceived a difference in substance is also felt. It is this relation which could not easily be postulated in words, but which may perhaps be conceived, and which is seen as two (Dwaitham) and at the same time as not two (Na Dwaitham); It is this relation which is called Adwaitham (a unity or identity in duality) and the Philosophy which postulates it, the Adwaitha Philosophy. And the 1st argument deals with the meaning and force of this word.
1. God is all (Prapancham), but all is not God. He is therefore all and not all. He is immanent in everything and yet above everything. This doctrine is very popular in nearly the whole of the Tamil Literature, and it is most vividly expressed in the favourite phrase (எல்லாமாய் அல்லவுமாய்). The Hindu Idealists stop with “எல்லாமாய்” “He is all” and do not proceed to postulate “அல்லவுமாய்.” “He is not all” or “He is above all.” All objective phenomena may be in a sense mental or subjective, but all the subjective phenomena are not objective.
Adwaitham does not mean ஏகம் or Monism. The negative prefix a or na does not negative the positive existence of one or other of the two (Dwaitham). It is not used in the “Abhava” or இன்மைப்பொருள். If it is so used, it will not only negative one thing or other, but it may negative both, and end in Nihilism; and it may not only mean one “Ekam or Monism” but may mean more than two i.e., three or any number. As the learned Commentator Sivagnana Yogi points out, when the negative is prefixed to the numeral, in common usage, it does not mean இன்மை or அபாவம். For instance, when we say, “There are not two books in the room” “அரையில் இரண்டு புஸ்தகமில்லை” it may mean that “no books are in the room” or that “only one book is in the room” or that “there are more than two books.”
If the negative prefix in Adwaitham does not mean “Abhava” what does it mean? It is used in the “அன்மைப்பொருள்” or அல்ல ‘non-dual sense.’ The querist sees or fancies he sees two objects and asks, ‘are they dual’? The answer is ‘They are non-dual’ – இரண்டு அல்ல not meaning one. Adwaitham therefore means literally Nondualism and not Monism. Cf. The word ‘Anekam’ which does not mean obviously ஒன்றில்லை (nothing) but ‘ஒன்றல்ல’ ‘பல’ (many). In Sivagnana Siddhi, Adwaitham is defined as ஒன்றாகாமல், இரண்டாகாமல், ஒன்றுமிரண்டுமின்றாகாமல் (neither one, nor two, nor neither). The position seems to be a negative than a positive one. All this language is adopted to illustrate that the relation is such that it is not possible to adequately to examine or illustrate and we find the author of Ozhivilodukkam enjoin
“ஏகமிரண்டென்னாமற் சும்மாயிரு.”
(Don’t say one or two)
Another popular verse runs as follows.
“சும்மாயிரு சொல்லறவென்றலுமே அம்மாபொருளொன்று மறிந்திலனே.”
The subject is more fully treated in the subsequent chapters. If there is only one Absolute, the very idea of duality is impossible. The word Adwaitham implies the existence of two things and does not negative the reality or existence of one of the two. It simply postulates a relation between the two.
(a) This contains the illustration of body and mind. As in a purely objective state no subjective feeling is present, so in the human state, the soul is in a purely objective condition, and is not cognisant therefore of its subject God. The Atma is capable of a double relation; it has two kinds of Adwaitham. It is in Adwaitha relation with Maya and at the same time in Adwaitha relation with God. I may call the first its objective relation and the other its subjective relation. When its objective relation (its connection with Thanu, Karana, &c.) predominates, it is in Banda, it is the embodied human soul. When its subjectivity predominates, it is itself, it is in God, and it is God (Moksha). In its first condition we don’t see the soul but its object side, physical body and organs, mind, (manas) chittam, &c., and sensations and the worlds. In its second condition we don’t see the soul either but God with which it had identified itself. The important point to be noted is that though in the one or the other condition of the soul, one thing (God) or other (Maya) is not present, yet its existence or reality cannot be denied. In as much as we cannot see God now, we cannot deny His existence and call him Mitya (illusion) and when the world therefore disappears in the other case, nor can the world be called Mitya. Cf.
(Saint) THAYUMANAVAR
“ஆணவத்தோடத்து விதமானபடி மெஞ்ஞானத்
‘O for the day, when I will become one with the Being of True knowledge as I am now one with Anava.”
தாணுவினோடத்து விதமாகு நாளெந்நாளோ.”
The subject receives further elaboration as we proceed.
(b) The illustration herein contained is the same as in the first verse of the sacred Kural, though its significance is not often understood. The point of comparison is not the position of the letter ‘A’ in place. Its place is to be sought in its origin and its power of determining other sounds as herein indicated. The most primary sound that the human organ can utter is ‘a’ and the other vowels (that can be sounded of themselves) are formed by modifications of ‘a’; consonants on the other hand do not have the same origin as ‘a’ but they cannot be pronounced except with the help of ‘a’ and its modifications. So, though God and Man are distinct eternal entities, one(man) cannot exist except in God, but man does not originate from God as consonants do not originate from vowels. The same applies with regard to soul and its body (உயிர், மெய்) and it is this philosophic thought that underlies the Tamil equivalents of vowel and consonant (உயிர்மெய்).
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 ‘க’ ‘K’ Human Soul, we see only the consonant (soul) and not the vowel (God though) you will realise both when you pronounce 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 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 standpoint 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 principles of Sohambavana which underlies every Mantra from Pranava downwards. The devotee (Jivatma) is made to contemplate (“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, 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 process of Sohambavana that Krishna when teaching Gita to Arjuna 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 conservation most rigidly. As no effect can be produced without a cause, 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 develops 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 “உயிர்க்கிதம் செய்தல்” – acts tending to give pleasure to sentient beings ‘Papam’ is ‘உயிர்க்கதம் செய்தல்’ acts tending to give pain to sentient beings.
The fruits of previous Karma eaten in this life form Praraptha Karma. In the process of eating, other acts are performed 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 the soul should not 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 of the soil (God). This inability is caused 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 evolution, 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 (சிறு தொழில்) is a fact and is taken as a fact by this school and is not converted into a Myth or Athyasam 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 phenomena; and instancing the case of the union of body and mind, he observes that the case does not admit of any other explanation except that body and mind are found in union. When we arrive at a final fact, it is absurd to attempt a further explanation. 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 or births we require an Omniscient and Perfect, Ninmala 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 Absolute 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 your assumption than in any real difficulty? Why should you assume that evil is produced out of good? The thing is impossible; 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 bottomless 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 creations of Man and the world. Man committed sin, because he had not the understanding to see that his good lay in obeying Gods words and he had not the free knowledge or intelligence to foresee 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 explanation 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) without 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 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 remove 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 imperfections). 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 tamarind (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 sufficient number of births, and we had reached malaparibagam (மலபறிபதம்), God’s grace (சக்திநி பாதம்) will touch and convert us into Himself. The Alchemist may or may not have succeeded in his life-long hope; at least there is no harm for us if we believe that we will reach perfection, Divine hood. At any rate we are sure of reaching perfect manhood.
Cf. “கருமருவு குகையனைய காயத்தின் நடுவுள்
களிம்புதோய் செம்பனையயான்
காண்டக இருக்கநீ ஞான அனல் மூட்டியே
கனிவுபெற உள்ளுருக்கிப்
பருவம தறிந்துநின் னருளான குளிகைகொடு
பரிசித்து வேதிசெய்து
பத்துமாற் றுத்தஙக மாக்கியே பணிகொண்ட
பஷத்தை என்சொல்லுகேன்”
“அருளுடைய பரமென்றோ அன்று தானே
– (Saint Thayumanavar).
யானுளனென் றும்மனக்கே ஆணவாதி
பெருகுவினைக் கட்டென்றும் என்னாற் கட்டிப்
பேசியதன் றேஅருள்நூல் பேசிற் றன்றே.”
(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 their deserts, 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 cannot 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 surrounds 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 undergoes ordinary deaths. Deaths must necessarily therefore lead to 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 undergoing 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 also postulate 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 Skshuma 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 experience of the previous day or days. When the soul had therefore 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 certain experiences owing to the past experiences vaguely reproducing 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 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 how His relation with the world is what is called Omnipresence. This word though used by every religionist 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 form 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 regarded in units of quantity, of course it is impossible for one unit of 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, its 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 therefore 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. 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
(Saint Manicka Vachaka).
அளவிலா ஆனந்தமருளி.”
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 with 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, consciousness 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; Omnipresence 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 another 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 are 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 exclaims: –
“எல்லா முன்னுடைமையே
எல்லா முன்னடிமையே
எல்லா முன்னுடைய செயலே.”
also Compare the definition of Pari Puranam (பரிபூரணம்) given in Ozhivilodukkam
“உதியா துளதாகி ஓங்கிப்பேராமல்
அதிசூக்குமங் குறைந்தாகாமல்-பதையாத
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.
