When the period of activity arrives, portions of the whole differentiate according to the latent law.  When this differentiation has commenced, the concealed wisdom or latent Chichakti acts in the universal mind, and Cosmic energy or Fohat forms the manifested universe in accordance with the conceptions generated in the universal mind out of the differentiated principles of Cosmic matter.  This manifested universe constitutes a solar system.  When the period of Pralaya comes, the process of differentiation stops and Cosmic ideation ceases to exist; and at the time of Brahmapralaya or Mahapralaya the particles of matter lose all differentiation, and the matter that exists in the solar system returns to its original undifferentiated condition.  The latent design exists in the one unborn eternal atom, the centre which exists everywhere and nowhere; and this is the one life that exists everywhere.  Now, it will be easily seen that the undifferentiated Cosmic matter, Purush, and the one life of the Arhat philosophers, are the Mulaprakriti, Chidakasam, and Chinmatra of the Adwaitee philosophers.  As regards Cosmogony, the Arhat standpoint is objective, and the Adwaitee standpoint is subjective.  The Arhat Cosmogony accounts for the evolution of the manifested solar system from undifferentiated Cosmic matter, and Adwaitee Cosmogony accounts for the evolution of Bahipragna from the original Chinmatra.  As the different conditions of differentiated C osmic matter are but the different aspects of the various conditions of Pragna, the Adwaitee Cosmogony is but the complement of the Arhat Cosmogony.  The eternal principle is precisely the same in both the systems, and they agree in denying the existence of an extra-Cosmic God.

The Arhats call themselves Atheists, and they are justified in doing so if theism inculcates the existence of a conscious God governing the universe by his will-power.  Under such circumstance the Adwaitee will come under the same denomination.  Atheism and theism are words of doubtful import, and until their meaning is definitely ascertained it would be better not to use them in connection with any system of philosophy.

—­T.  Subba Row

Prakriti and Parusha

Prakriti may be looked upon either as Maya when considered as the Upadhi of Parabrahmam or as Avidya when considered as the Upadhi of Jivatma (7th principle in man).* Avidya is ignorance or illusion arising from Maya.  The term Maya, though sometimes used as a synonym for Avidya, is, properly speaking, applicable to Prakriti only.  There is no difference between Prakriti, Maya and Sakti; and the ancient Hindu philosophers made no distinction whatsoever between Matter and Force.  In support of these assertions I may refer the learned hermit to “Swetaswatara Upanishad” and its commentary by Sankaracharya.  In case we adopt the fourfold division of the Adwaitee philosophers,