And the commentator's explanation of the world is also noteworthy, and he brings out the reason for the Bhavana.

(Kural note 358).

It is called (Good being), because it is eternal having no birth and no death; it is pure on account of its subtle nature and nothing can taint it by attachment; and yet it is the first cause that pervading all, yet remains one, without change. Hence, God is calledandTrue

Being and Existent. To see it, is the Bhavana to become one with it, so that Avidya may be lost. As it is held as true by followers of all the different Agamas, that the soul when leaving the body at death is re-born as that which it was thinking upon, those who desired Moksha, should place their Bhavana on the Highest Truth, so that the Bhavana which is the cause of birth may be lost. This power of becoming one with the other is really great and lies at the root of all. Tapas or Upasana or Bhavana is set forth by our author in two other places. In the chapter (XXVII) on 'Tapas,' he has this verse (5).

(Kural 265).

"That what they wish may, as they.wish, be won, By men on earth are works of painful ' penance' done."

In chapter (lxvii) on ' Power of Action,' we have this verse :

[ibid. 666).

"Whtever we think, ev'n as they think, men may obtain, If those who think can steadfastness of will retain."

I now go back to the point where I started from, namely, that by the very nature of this other characteristic of the soul, the necessity for a supreme Lord is manifest. I always use a simile to illustrate as what would happen if there were no God. At fairs and festivals, a greasy pole with a hook at the top and a prize tied to it is one of the attractions. Of hundreds who attempt, rarely one gets to the top and takes the prize. Even he who had climbed to the top could not have retained his hold there for long, if there had not been the hook or to hold by; otherwise he would have slipped down by the pole again.*

So if a religion or philosophy, however dignified it may be, offers us no God, there can be no real salvation nor nirvana nor freedom from births. After the mighty efforts made to purify and perfect oneself by desirelessness etc., he must sink back into the abyss of birth and death, again and again, must try and climb the greasy pole. To them, Isvara and men are

* 1 might instance the Upanishat caterpillar which, by its power of mimicry concealing itself effectively in one leaf, catches hold of another before it gives up the other leaf to which it has been clinging already.

ever evolving and evolving, gaining experience ever and anon and the oft-repeated words of the Upanishat, "There is no return, There is no return " have no meaning. These people though they might speak of a God, could not really mean God in the proper conception of the word. The ignorance of these two characteristics of the soul lies at the difficulty of both agnostics and idealists. In union with the body, the soul has become one with the body and its individuality is lost and it could not be discovered by any amount of physical and anatomical analysis. In union with God, it has become one with God and no trace of its individuality could be found there. So both declare there is no soul, and the latter declare that the soul we were cognizant of was God Himself. To them, of course, all talk of anubhava and svanubhava will be unmeaning also. To the Buddhist and Idealist, there is simply the tearing asunder of PaSa, and lo and behold! there is nirvana and annihilation to the one, and God regains its own self to the other. But in either case, there is nothing to prevent that which arose from nothing or from God, from arising again and undergoing the never-ending round of samsara.

To the latter, the only possible explanation for this evolution of God into man would be that furnished by Dr. Paul Deussen - necessity connected with the doctrine of Samsara. This would eventually strike at the root of all necessity for bettering ourselves and weaken, at any rate, the moral and religious sanction. If, after all our effort to better ourselves, we should sink back again, why all this bother - Guru-upadesam and tapas etc.? Our glory is in God and we delight in His glory. He is our Redeemer and the fruit of redemption. But for our enjoyment in Him, there is no need for redemption at all. Our final' consummation is in Him. As the Chhafldogya Upanishat puts it, "He who sees, perceives and understands this, loves God, delights in God, revels in God, rejoices in God, He becomes svaraj; He is Lord and master in all the worlds."

I will now proceed to show how this conception of the soul as herein set forth affects our view of Dvaita, Advaita and

Visishtadvaita. I have dwelt at length on this question on "Advaita according to the Saiva Siddhanta" (pp. 244-272 ante). The question is, is the soul different from God or one with Him? If different, what is the meaning of those Mahavakya texts, Ahambrahmasmi etc.? The word Advaita, as 1 have shown, does not mean one, does not deny the existence of the other entities, but it simply denies the separability of the two, ananya or anyonasti. It postulates a peculiar relation between the two, that, though different, they can become one. How is this possible? St. Meykandan suggests the puzzle; if they are two, they cannot become one; if one, there can be no Svanubhogam. How is this puzzle to be solved? The question is only possible when we bear in'mind this peculiar characteristic of the soul we have been considering. Though the soul and God are different, yet inasmuch as the soul becomes one with whatever it is attached to, losing its individuality and consciousness of self, so the soul when in union with God becomes one with It. This one is the God but not the soul.