The Supreme is concealed in the world (not non-existent) the world is concealed in the Supreme (not non-existent). In the sentences, 'I was concealed by the world, the world was concealed in me', note the fact that there are only two names, two categories involved, namely I and the world, soul and maya. For an intelligent understanding of the proposition, no other category is required. But consider well the propositions, 'the world concealed the Supreme, the world is concealed by the Supreme'. These propositions could not be true as they stand, unless both these stand as objective to the seer, as in the illustration of the wooden-toy itself. The wood of the toy cannot be conscious of its being concealed or not by the elephant form, nor the elephant of the wood. In human language and expression and argument, there is always an ellipsis and the suppression of the middle term. The first two propositions relating to the wooden-toy cannot be true as they stand but is only intelligible, when we supply the factor of the seer.

So also, the propositions that follow, though they only contain the two categories Sat and Asat, involve the presence of a third, the Satasat. What we have stated above will explain the Sivajnanabotha Sutra,

That we are concealed by our Maya covering is a fact, the sharpest intellect and the boldest understanding cannot get over it, quibble and juggle as it may, and this being a fact, "that we are here in ignorance, sin, misery, and that we know the way out of them, but the question of a cause for them is senseless." * For nothing can be more senseless to ask for an explanation, when the fact to be explained is itself an ultimate fact. An.ounce of fact outweighs a pound of probabilities, say the lawyers. And they only express a logical truth. But the proposition advanced by the Purvapakshi is that the jiva, being neither a part nor a different thing, nor a variation of Brahman, must be the Paramatman fully and totally himself, and as such is, clothed with such attributes as all-pervadingness, eternity, almightiness, exemption of time, space and causality, and that this jiva is hidden by the world † (maya and avidya) as the fire in wood, (or as Saint Tirumular would put it, wood in the elephant) and he asks what is the cause of this concealment? Why should the perfect become deluded into the imperfect by avidya and ingorance? Dr. Paul Deussen admits that here all philosophers of India (of his ilk - Sankara included) and Greece and everywhere have been defective, until Kant came to show us that the whole question is inadmissible.

We say ' ditto' also, whatever might be the learned Doctor's understanding of Kant. The whole question is inadmissible, nay the whole proposition of the Purvapakshi on which this question is based is inadmissible, it is untrue, is not a fact. The fact is not true that the Supreme Brahman is concealed by Maya and Avidya. Dr. Deussen would put his unfortunate Brahman into the dock and arraign him of high crimes and misdemeanours (our friends are never concious of what gross blasphemy they are guilty of - our mind is extremely pained that we should even write so, for argument's sake) and before proving his guilt, with which he charges him, he would indulge in irrelevant and irreverent talk, as td why and wherefore this Brahman committed these crimes. Any ordinary judge would rule his talk as senseless; also, such talk from the accused's counsel, kindly engaged by the crown, would be ruled as senseless, when the accused admits the charge, and there is besides overwhelming testimony as to his guilt, leaving no room for doubt. The case contemplated by the learned Doctor will find a parallel in some of those occasional cases of judicial murder. A greal crime had been committed, there is a great hue and cry, some body ought to be punished, ought to suffer for the unknown criminal.

The Police run down some one they have long known, an old offender; witnesses (Pseudo-jnanis, with their Svanubhuti and esoteric experience) only flock in overwhelming numbers to prove the prisoner's guilt; the weight of testimony is only crushing, the poor prisoner at the bar is simply dumb-founded and cannot find speech to exculpate himself, however innocent he might be, and his silence counts for confession and he is condemned to die. Before his bones are whitened however, the real criminal turns up, confesses his crime, and the first conviction is found after ail to be based on a case of mistaken identity. We have already shown how liable is the soul to be mistaken for God, to mistake itself for God. Saint Meykandan even where he teaches the initiate to practice Sohambavana, cautions him before and after not to mistake himself for God.

* Paul Deussen's Elements of Metaphysics, p. 334. † Ibid. p. 334.

In the Presence of the Sat, all else is Sunyam.' Why, because, 'before the Perfect and Eternal Intelligence, (Truth) the imperfect and acquired intelligence, (the semblance) is shorn of its light,' answers our Saint, and he illustrates it by saying that the Evil Asat ceases to exist before Him, as does darkness before the sun, and explains that Hara cannot know them as objects, as nothing is outside Him. How well this explanation fits in with the vedic text, "There shines not the sun, nor moon, nor stars, neither these lightnings, much less this earthly fire. After Him, the Shining One, all things shine, by. His Light is lighted this whole world"* And when before this shining One, even the suns and moons pale, they dare assert that darkness, maya and avidya can dare lift up their heads and veil and conceal and dim His brightness, and that on account of this veiling, the shining One can become deluded and fancy Himself as Asat, this body and these senses, and this world.

Well does the Siddhanti ask, can you show me a sun covered by darkness, for me to believe in a Brahman veiled by Maya or Upadhi. † No doubt the blind man says, the sun is hid by darkness; he will not confess his own blindness and darkness, and transfers his infirmity to the Effulgent Sun. "After Him, all things shine, by His light is lighted the whole world." Yes, O Lord, we are but broken lights of Thee. The

*Svetas vi. 14.

† c.f.

If there is a Sun by darkness veiled

Then may a chit exist by ignorance veiled, mistaking the body for itself

Having called Him Ninmala

It is madness to impute to God, Avidya.

little light that shines in each one of our souls is simply borrowed from Thee. Without this light, we are but the pieces of diamonds lying in darkness. In bandha, before the diamond is cut and polished, we cannot reflect Thy Glorious Light. We are the diamond crystals, Thou, the light shining in them, As crystal, we become light in light, and dark in darkness.

Thou art like the Light from the emerald,lighting and colouring everything it touches after itself.

The Diamond crystal and the gem

Emerland these are the symbols used

by the Siddhantis for the Soul and Sivam. Students of Science know the structural difference between those two bodies, as mediums or distributors of light. This Divine Light is Uma, (literally wisdom or light) that Lady wondrous fair, who showed to the astonished immortals, Her Royal Consort, and her colour is green emerald, and we will close this article by invoking her aid and quoting this passage from Kumara-gurupara which is poetic and philosophic at the same time.

O Thou parrot-tongued Maid,

The green Light from Thy body spreads,

Converts the coral plants into green The big pearls into emeralds so many,

And the winged swans floating on the cool waves Into so many sporting peacocks

And thus explain the truth which the Vedas proclaim, 'That after you, all things shine.'