Page:A Collection of Esoteric Writings.djvu/150

136 In reply to this argument I beg to state that the major premise is wrong in itself, and does not affect undifferentiated Prakriti, as the grounds on which it is based are not applicable to it for the following reasons:—

(a)Mulaprakriti has not the attributes enumerated, as the said attributes imply differentiation and Mulaprakriti is undifferentiated according to our doctrines.

(b)Mulaprakriti is not dead or jadam, as Purusha—the one life—always exists in it. It is in fact Chitanya deepta (shining with life) as stated in Uttaratapani (see also Goudapatha Kârika).

(c)Mulaprakriti is not temporary but eternal.

(d)When subjected to change it always loses its name, reassuming it after returning to its original undifferentiated condition.

(e)It is not partial but co-extensive with space.

(f)It eternally exists in the universe in whatever Avastha (state or condition) a particular human being may be.

And, moreover, I deny the validity of the inference drawn even if, for the sake of argument, the truth of the premises be granted.

Our Swami's second argument is extremely ridiculous. When stated briefly it stands thus:—

II.The existence of matter is not known either in Sushuptì or Tureeya* Avastha, and therefore matter is not eternal.

This is enough to convince me that the Swami of Almora knows as much about Tureeya Avastha as of the features of the man in the moon. The learned gentleman is in fact confounding Avidya, with Maya. Indeed, he says that Mulaprakriti is Avidya, I shall be very happy if he can quote any authority in support of his proposition. I beg to inform him