SAIVA-SIDDHANTA

AN ANOTHER SIDE. 23
the word occurs in the Gita. The whole mistake is, no doubt,
due to not remembering that this word and others
s like
Prana, Purusha, Atma, Kshetra, etc., are used in the older
works in a number of acceptations, and any argument based
on such a verbal semblance, is sure to end in fatal error.
Now in regard to this word Avyakta
it is
,
used in the
loth sutra of the Safikhya-Karika, to distinguish Mulaprakriti
from its own products ;
and the Commentator no doubt says
tnat the distinction might apply to the Soul also. The word
might itself be applied to the Soul, but then it
only means,
uncaused and causeless . And Colebrooke translates it as
undiscrete . The 3rd Sutra makes clear this distinction in the
very beginning, "Nature is no production; seven principles are
productions and productive ;
sixteen are productions (unpro
ductive). The Soul is neither a production nor productive."
Herein lies all the difference, between the Soul as Avyakta and
Nature (Pradhana) as Avyakta, and the mental and sensory
planes. Nature itself occupies a higher position, is more per
vasive than the Intellect, and Intellect is more pervasive than
the senses, and so on. That is to say, Intellect is omnipresent,
and senses are not, when -in relation to the senses themselves.
But Intellect is not, when in relation to Pradhana, and Pradhana
is omnipresent so far as regards its own productions,
but its
omnipresence is nothing when in the presence of the Soul, since
the latter is the superintendent, the enjoyer, and the former
ceases to exist when the Soul is in a state of abstraction. As
such, the word omnipresence
itself is a relative term, as space
itself is, and it is absurd to conclude that since both are called
simple and omnipresent, ergo, they must be two absolutes, and
two such impossible things. We will explain ourselves more
fully. Take, for instance, the five senses, the eye, the ear, etc.
The eye covers a certain sphere in its operation, but it is limited;
it cannot comprehend what the ear can perceive, and the ear
cannot do what the nose can feel, and so on. Each sense, in fact,
is limited and unpervasive but take the Intellect in connection
;
with this. The Intellect is omnipresent.
It both sees and hears and