உளது, இலதென்றலின், எனதுடலென்றலின்
ஐம்புலன், ஒடுக்கம் அறிதலின், கண்படில்
உண்டிவினையின்மையின், உண்ர்த்த உணர்தலின்,
மாயாவியந்திரனுவினுள் ஆன்மா.
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 Atma Praksa 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 better 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 separate 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 something 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 moved by Sri Panchatchara and of which when experiencing the sensations, one sense does not feel what another 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 conditions into 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 enters another body, (Sukshuma Sarira) inside thy own, in dream and undergoes other experiences of sight, hearing and the like, pleasure, and pain and the like and then changes it for the visible body (Sthula Sarira) when waking. Thou art not therefore 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 from 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 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 (respiration) fully plays. Hence, there is an intelligence which has such perception other than breath. Understand 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 understanding 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 becomes 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 understanding becomes identical with what it becomes united to.
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 conjunction of the bodily organs and (senses) these, on examination, resolve themselves into the Tatwas which begin with Kala and end with earth, and these are products of Maya which earth, and these are products of Maya which is not permanent (changeable or destructible). 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.
NOTES
வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமையிலான்
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 nobody 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 Suniyavadisaccording to whom there is no Atmaat 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 distinguishes itself from one and all of these. Therefore, that which so discriminates could not be a not-entity. This discriminating subject is the Soul of 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 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 perceive. 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 sight (Anavamala) may be permanently cured. But the defective 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 darkness and the other is subject to darkness inherently. Sri Panchatchara is synonymous with Pranava. See further treatment of the subject in the subsequent chapters. Cf. Thayumanaver.
“ஐந்துபுலன் ஐம்பூதங் கரண மாதி
Thayumanaver
அடுத்தகுணம் அத்தனையும் அல்லை அல்லை
இந்தவுடல் அறிவறியா மையுநீ யல்லை
யாதொன்று பற்றின்அதன் இயல்பாய் நின்று
பந்தமறும் பளிங்கனைய சித்து நீஉன்
பக்குவங்கண் டறிவிக்கும் பான்மை யேம்யாம்.”
2) This is an argument gathered from a habit of speech to prove that the Soul is different from the body as against the Theganma 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 identical 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.
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 are 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 respiratory organ is not the Atma. In Jakratha, 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 Sukshupthi, 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 weakness. 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 Human Intelligence requires to be taught, improved and developed; 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 Asator false, the soul is unchangeable and hence called Sat. This Sat however becomes Asat when in union with Asator Maya and Sat when in union with the True Sat or God and hence it is called Satasat. The definition of Asatis given in the first Varthikaof 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 subjective 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 Adwaithaand its Omnipresence is brought about by its Maha
Chaitanyam. The reason for separately postulating a soul is then shown and this soul could not be confounded with Buvanaand 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 answers 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 between 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 objective (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 chapter is sufficient and convincing, or if the statement is taken as a mere theory or hypothesis (and in these grand question 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 condemned by human reason. If after all the trouble taken to postulate a theory, adduce proof &c. a man is going to plead his own ignorance and God’s mysterious ways, it would be far better for him to confess his ignorance at the beginning and attempt no explanation at all.
