Page:A Collection of Esoteric Writings.djvu/152

138 unnecessary for me to say anything about the Swami's views regarding other systems of philosophy. I am only concerned with the esoteric Arhat philosophy and the Advaita philosophy as taught by Shankaracharya. The remaining quotations from the works of various authors, contained in the Swami's article are, in my humble opinion, irrelevant. The chapter on Pancha Mahabhutaviveka in Panchadasi does not show that Asat has not existed with Sat from all eternity. This is the first time I hear that the Paravidya mentioned in Manduka Upanishad is a kind of Prakriti as stated by our learned hermit. I have reason to think that the entity indicated by the said Paravidya is Parabrahmam. In conjunction with the said entity Shankaracharya speaks of undifferentitated Parkriti as "Akasakhyamaksharam" pervading it everywhere. Our opponent seems to think that as every Yogi is asked to rise above the influence of Avidya, it must necessarily be assumed that Prakriti is not eternal in its undifferentiated condition. This is as illogical as his other arguments. Illusion arises from differentiation or, Dwaitabhavam as it is technically called; and absence of differentiation, whether subjective or objective, is the Nirvana of Adwaita. If the Swami only pauses to consider the nature of "this one element" in its dual aspect, he will be able to see that it is but an aspect of Parabrahmam. All the arguments advanced by him seem to show that he is labouring under the impression that we are contending for the permanancy of this illusive manifested world. If this Mnlaprakriti that I have attempted to describe is not noticed in Brahmam according to the "practical experience of hermits," all that I can say is that their experience is different from the experience of Shankaracharya, Vyasa, Goudapada and several other Rishis. The hermit is welcome to "laugh at our weakness of understanding" if it can in the least comfort him; but mere vituperation will bring him very little benefit if he rushes into controversy without clearly understanding the subject under disputation and with worthless arguments and irrelevant quotations as his weapons.