In the सिद्धन्त-शैव system, the various levels of impermanent and, therefore, lower मुक्तिस्थान-s are mapped onto the 36 तत्त्व-s (see below). An exponent can only reach the highest तत्त्व-allowed by his उपासन.
Initially, I wondered if all some of these तत्त्व-s were legitimate soteriological goals. For example, who would think of sense-organs as the highest, which the सिद्धान्ताचार्य-s describe as the highest aspiration for some? Or so I thought.
But in fact there were such people, even if they don’t exist today. I had read these passages from the बृहदारण्यक-उपनिषद् before but it did not click till just a few minutes ago, completely out of the blue.
A better resolution of the picture. Various such मुक्तिस्थान-s are scattered through the वेद texts. I have found them to be made part of the bigger picture only in the सिद्धान्त.
“वेद’s essence is this तन्त्र (सिद्धान्तम्); therefore वैदिक-s follow [this सिद्धान्त]; वेदान्त’s essence is this ज्ञान (शिवज्ञानम्); the सिद्धान्त is supremely auspicious!”
Contrary to what some modern scholars may think, the attribution of मुक्तिस्थान-s by सिद्धान्ती-s to different adherents is not at all superficial. In fact, as I suggested in the previous tweet, there are other मुक्तिस्थान-s in the वेद which are covered only in सिद्धान्त.
The Siddhānta is still very much dominant in TN. But yes, it did not spread much outside TN. Even Umāpati Śivācārya did not propagate it outside TN.
The decline of the Siddhānta has two historical phases: ++
1.It was once very dominant in Kāśmīra, Madhyapradeśa, Gaudạ & Utkaladeśa-s. By 1000s-1100s, it was rapidly shrinking to the area of the southern states.
2. Post 1200s: We have evidence suggesting that the Siddhāntāgamas & Asṭạ prakaranạ s (Siddhānta proper) were well known even in Karnạ̄ tạ ka though it was getting immensely diluted in Kērala.
2a. But new iterations like Vīraśaivam (which itself would manifest in two phases) & Mādhvamata would be rather aggressive in taking over the religious landscape.
2b. In Āndhra & TN, the Siddhānta was facing intense pressure to conform with Smārta/Vedāntī sensibilities & preferences.
2c. Thus , you see developments such as Śrīkantḥa bhāsỵa on Brahmasūtra, Appayya, various kinds of efforts to synthesize Siddhānta & Vedānta such as the Vedānta-Siddhānta-Samarasam of Tāyumānavar.
2d. Thus, the Vedānta was tightening its grip around the neck of the only non-Vedānta system that had substantially retained an independent value. For example, the Pāñcarātrikas had their own unique metaphysics which just melted into various Vaisṇ ạ va Vedānta streams.
2e. Now, it is difficult to get an exact picture of the growth or decline of the Siddhānta in late medieval TN without first identifying its distinct streams.
2f. The stream that dominated Kāśmīra & Madhyapradeśa & had the great Gurus: Sadyojyoti, Bhatṭạ -Nārāyanạ kanṭ ḥ a, Bhatṭạ -Rāmakanṭ ḥ a & Aghoraśiva. The last one became the head of a TN branch of Golagī/Āmardaka matḥ a at Cidambaram. Let’s call this the “Aghoraśiva” stream.
2g. The stream commencing in Meykanḍạ̄r & culminating in Umāpatiśivācārya via Arutṇandi śivācārya & Maraijñāna-sambandha. This is often seen as the second lease of life for the Siddhānta after the decline of the “Aghoraśiva” stream outside the south.
2h. We can call this second one the “Meykanḍạ̄r” stream. This stream would go onto become the dominant one in TN & there is also a caste dynamics at play here, into which I need not delve in for now, for want of time.
2i. The Meykanḍạ̄r stream would continue to thrive till the 18th century, when Śivajñāna Munivar will write the famous Drāvidạ -Māpādị yam (Mahābhāsỵa), a massive commentary on the Śivajñānabodha of Meykanḍạ̄r, a work of 12 Tamizh Sūtras.
2j. There was yet another stream which we can call the Śivāgrayogī stream. Śivāgrayogī was a harsh critic of Aghoraśiva’s Śivasāmyavāda & expounded his own Śivaikyavāda in the 16th century. He wrote a famous commentary on the Samskrṭa Śivajñānabodha.
2k. The Aghoraśiva stream was also harshly attacked by Śivajñānamunivar of the Meykanḍạ̄r stream. For me, the Aghoraśiva stream will always be the legitimate Siddhānta & its decline, most unfortunate.
2l. Nevertheless, it is not the case that this tradition didn’t survive post-Umāpati. We had Nirmalamanị Śivācārya, who commented on Aghoraśiva’s Kriyākramadyotika (KKD). While KKD was a ritual text, Nirmalamanị ’s explanations link the ritual deeply with Siddhānta metaphysics.
2m. There were also the Nigamajñāna uncle-nephew duo about whom I had done a thread earlier:
We bow to भगवान्-सद्योज्योतिः, भट्ट-नारायणकण्ठः, भट्ट-रामकण्ठः, अघोरशिवः, निगमज्ञानः सम्बन्धः, निगमज्ञानो देशिकः & ज्ञानप्रकाशः (of Jaffna), who established शिवसाम्यवाद & that in the highest state, it is स्वशक्ति, that is स्वानन्द, that blossoms in each soul. //End
2n. Their position, in my reading, can be seen as going back to Aghoraśiva tradition while they attempted to also draw upon Śivajñāna-Siddhiyār of Arutṇandī of the Meykanḍạ̄r stream.
2o. Finally, we had Śrī-Kāñcipura-Pañcāksạ rayogī of the 17th century who still revered Sadyojyoti & Aghoraśiva & held in his memory the monastic centres of Madhyapradeśa, which were no longer there.
I have often wondered how to express this: In what concrete way can you become better as a result of reading शास्त्र-s or any other sacred texts? An insight dawned upon me when I was reading one of the writings of आऱुमुग नावलर् – the legendary शैव-महाविद्वान् of Jaffna. The piece in question is titled “नल्लूर्-कन्दस्वामि-कोविल्” (नल्लूर्-स्कन्दस्वामी-आलय). It is essentially a long diatribe in the form of a letter, addressed to the administrators in charge of the स्कन्दस्वामी temple of नल्लूर् (Nallūr) in the year 1875. The piece essentially tears apart every deviation & ill-practice in the temple. श्री-नावलर् was a feisty scholar, known for his fierce loyalty to शास्त्र, formidable scholarship, his conscientiousness & for wearing his heart on his sleeve.
This letter (actually, there is a second such letter as one letter was probably not enough to contain the passionate criticisms & righteous indignation of नावलर्!!) runs for a good 40 pages, with 50 numbered points. We shall see one of those points shortly. To give you all some context first, every आगमिक temple (as established in the south & by extension, Jaffna in Lanka, which is culturally part of the दक्षिणाभारत-मण्डल) has two important मूर्ति-s; namely, 1. The मूलमूर्ति & 2. The उत्सवमूर्ति. The मूलमूर्ति is the deity in the innermost sanctum, the गर्भगृह. It is, by right, immovable (अचलमूर्ति).
The उत्सवमूर्ति is the movable “version” of the मूलमूर्ति, who gets taken around in processions around the town or village. Hence, he is a movable मूर्ति. All these forms are not crafted arbitrarily. Creativity has its place, but within the confines of the presiding आगम/तन्त्र of the temple. Now, we come to the specific issue of the नल्लूर्-कन्दस्वामि-कोविल्. What was the problem with this temple? In this temple, the मूलमूर्ति & उत्सवमूर्ति are both the वेल् (vel), the weapon that is almost always in the hands of स्कन्द in temples, as we see below:
Now, when नावलर् points this, the first issue that came to my mind was the idea that मुरुगन्/Murugan (that is, स्कन्द) & his वेल् (the शक्ति-आयुध) are installed (प्रतिष्ठित) with separate प्रतिष्ठा-विधि a
And नावलर् does cite this technical argument, but only after he unleashes a far more piercing take. Something that reveals his profound sensitivity in divine matters that only comes because of a genuine devotion towards sacred scriptures.
Now, again, the reader must have a little more context. The temple was built by the local शैव community, who had historically professed allegiance to the शैव religion as explained in the various आगम-s & the rich तमिऴ् (tamizh) शैव canon. This tamizh Canon includes the peerless text of the कन्दपुराणम्, a 17th century tamizh पुराण on स्कन्द written by कच्चियप्प (कश्यप) शिवाचार्य, an अर्चक of the कुमारकोट्टम् (kumārakoṭṭam) shrine for स्कन्द in काञ्चिपुरम्, TN.
It is not just a work containing the stories of the deity मुरुगन् but is filled with many refrerences to rituals & even philosophical concepts.+ Given that the author was a revered अर्चक who was a master of the सिद्धान्तागम rites, if there is any book that should be revered by one purporting to be a devotee of स्कन्द & also following the सिद्धान्त, that book is the कन्दपुराणम्. So, why do I say all this?
नावलर् quotes two passages from the कन्दपुराणम् including a particularly delightful verse, where the rooster, the chariot, sheep, peacock, the वेल् weapon & स्कन्द’s troops all carry out works for the 6-faced god after his marriage with वळ्ळि-देवी. And this is where नावलर् offers us a stunning insight, that shows how sensitive his devotion really was.
He raises the following question: “To have the two wives of the master, देवसेना-माता & वळ्ळि-माता standing on both sides of his servant (who carries out works for him), the वेल्-weapon as if they were the latter’s देवी-s; would this be pleasing to that master, that स्कन्द?!!”
The original here:
And it occured to me that I never saw it this way! His scholarship shows in the way that he was able to quote an appropriate verse from the lengthy कन्दरुराणम् but his devotion shows in the way that he applies this learning.
Most of us may see a वेल् in the place of स्कन्द & not be disturbed by it at all. “Ah, this is just the unique way they do it!” or “Why are you so rigid?!” may be our reactions. I may think, “there are separate procedures for their प्रतिष्ठा”.
But how many will pick up on the fact that such an arrangement violates the sanctity of the देव-पत्नी relationship? This is the fruit of real भक्ति & reading sacred texts with deep reverence.
This is the real fruit of learning sacred texts. They allow us to develop a better intuition as to what is appropriate & what is jarring. When we, like नावलर्, read with proper devotion a verse that portrays the वेला weapon as a servitor carrying out works for the sake of स्कन्द & his wives, we get the following insights:
The वेल् has its own individuality. It is not स्कन्द himself.
It exists in a state of subservience to both स्कन्द & his wives.
When we internalize these principles, we develop a genuine appreciation for what is right & what is wrong. How might many of us see it instead? We might not see the weapon as an individual, as another deity.“Oh, it’s just a symbol of स्कन्द. They are one; all is one”. I call this the masāla-advaita perspective. It masks intellectual laziness & a lack of respect in semi-profound language.
Real devotion should instead require some effort & rigor on our parts. We care to make distinctions where they matter & not lump them into some nebulous oneness.
I will add the two verses that नावलर् cited from कन्दरुराणम् with commentaries for those interested to know them.
*वेल् Some seem to feel that the great शैव scholar is very rigid. Honestly, lay Hindus should exercise some basic self-awareness & humility & think mouthing off about महाविद्वान्-s; especially one who gave his life to नैष्ठिक-ब्रह्मचर्यम् to combat missionaries & guard धर्म. To such people, I will ask this: In daily life, can you bear your individuality being eroded, ignored or conflated with that of another? Will you stand your marks/scores in school being given away to another, let alone have your spouse being mistaken as that of another? If you are that sensitive (& rightly so) about yourself, is it not true devotion to exercise such sensitivity for our deities? It is that profound sensitivity that the great नावलर् demonstrates here:
“To have the two wives of the master, देवसेना-माता & वळ्ळि-माता standing on both sides of his servant (who carries out works for him), the वेल्-weapon as if they were the latter’s देवी-s; would this be pleasing to that master, that स्कन्द?!!”
Photo by Church of the King on Unsplash - An hindu priest sits in a pensive mood in the Rameshwaram Temple at Rameshwaram, Tamil Nadu
1. Contrasting Bhakti with “Orthodoxy” is misguided. The earliest strand of, & still the gold standard for, bhakti is that of the Blessed 63 of Śaivam & the great 12 of Vaiṣṇavam; whose lives were loyal to Vaidikācāra & Varṇāśrama-dharma.
2. Plus, the Bhakti movement is but a natural culmination of a long series of historical developments from the time of the Veda itself.
3. The only type of “orthodoxies” that can be said to have excluded bhakti as we have known in the last 1500-2000 years are the nirīśvara (īśvara-less) forms of yoga, vaiśeṣika, sām̐khyā & mīmām̐sā. What happened to them?
4. It’s nice to think about these schools intellectually today but apart from being useful tools, they had no appeal for most normal individuals. Which is why, they were soon replaced by their seśvara counterparts.
5. Even among seśvara systems, which ones really developed mass appeal? Primarily the Śaiva & Vaiṣṇava systems with a rich temple & communal ritualism that cut across groups & had an inescapable emotional appeal. It also gave something for everyone to have stakes in.
6. In fact, Veda & Vaidikas thrive only because of bhakti. Jñānasambandha Svāmī, a Vaidika Brāhmaṇa & 1 of the greatest Śivabhaktas to have ever lived, had men & women of all jātis rallying behind him while he gave a clarion call for the Vaidika rituals & faith against nāstikas.
7. Why did they support him? Because they were intellectually convinced about orthodoxy? No but because they had bhakti for Paramaśiva & more importantly Jñānasambandha.
8. Bhakti had Appar, a Śaiva saint of Sacchūdra origin, sing about the glory of a city teeming with vaidika sacrifices. Bhakti ensured, a 1000 years after Appar’s time, that many non-brāhmaṇa jātis greatly sponsored countless vedapāṭhaśālas.
What gave someone like Āṛumukha-Nāvalar (a genius traditionalist, Mahāvidvān & Śaivottama of Sacchūdra background) to so zealously defend what people call “orthodoxy”?
His sincere belief that Bhagavān Paramaśiva, as absolute sovereign, has given his laws in the Veda & Āgama.
Photo by pavan gupta on Unsplash - Girls adorned in traditional attire perform a classical hindu dance
Outside our religious texts, in the oldest layer of tamizh sangam poetry, the पुऱनानूऱु, we have a song sung in praise of a great पाण्ड्य king, that attests to the contours of the land we call भारत.
Yet another evidence of geographical continuity in the poetic imagination:
Part of an ancient poem from the incomparably beautiful puRanAnURu….Had done both poetic & detailed grammatical translations. Do read!! pic.twitter.com/w7aukOpcL9
Part of an ancient poem from the incomparably beautiful puRanAnURu….Had done both poetic & detailed grammatical translations. Do read!!
Together with this geographical continuity, there was also a cultural continuity. See how a द्राविड poet contrasts his sentiments towards आर्य & यवन heritage:
आर्य kings are those of a prestigious heritage while यवन-s are harsh-tongued & ruthless (the “Barbarian”). Just a few examples of a geocultural continuity. Bhārata is just a name for this continuity.
Photo by Melissa Kumaresan on Unsplash - The temple tank at Madurai Meenakshi Amman Temple at Madurai, Tamil Nadu
We will look at the सिद्धान्त-शैव understanding of तिरोधान & अनुग्रह (Concealment & Grace).
To recap first, in this thread below, we had a brief look at the three types of insentients: मल, कर्म & माया.
Barring 1st 2, all insentients in existence are products of माया.
But शिव's grace is such that he enables the products of माया (तनु-करण-भुवन-भोग) to serve as conduits for the ripening of our कर्म – rituals enjoined for the bodies, sacred acts to engage the senses/instruments, temples & यज्ञशाल-s for the worlds & sacred objects to see, etc.
As seen here, we have 2 types of माया—शुद्धमाया & अशुद्धमाया. It is the latter that is deemed a bond/पाश. So, let us restate the bonds that afflict the souls: मल, कर्म & अशुद्धमाया.
So, how do these bonds figure in the five acts of परमशिव? What are these five acts?
1. The 'pure' path, शुद्धाध्वा, made up of शुद्धमाया or 'बिन्दु' and 2. The 'impure' path, अशुद्धाध्वा, made up of अशुद्धमाया.
In the अशुद्धाध्वा, the ब्रह्माण्ड occupies the lowest part. Within this ब्रह्माण्ड, our earth occupies an infinitesimally tiny portion.
It is well-known that in सिद्धान्त-शैवम्, परमशिव performs 5 acts:
1. सृष्टि – Generation/“Creation”
After a महाप्रलय, परमशिव once again stirs up शुद्धमाया/बिन्दु, creates worlds for very exalted souls & gives them बिन्दु-made bodies to enjoy these worlds & supreme offices. One of these souls is अनन्त, the highest of an exalted group of the 8 विद्येश्वर-s, who all reside in ईश्वरतत्त्व. They are almost equal to परमशिव in their brilliance, omnipotence & omniscience, with each, starting from अनन्त, a little more exalted than the next one. भगवान् अनन्त’s body is made of शुद्धमाया/बिन्दु. His own world is made of बिन्दु. He is never sullied by अशुद्धमाया. However, he is the one who stirs up that अशुद्धमाया & kickstarts the creation of these lower worlds. अशुद्धमाया comprises of everything from the 1st product/evolute of अशुद्धमाया (कलातत्त्व) all the way down to पृथिवीतत्त्व (not to be confused with our 🌏 itself, which is just a tiny part of our ब्रह्माण्ड, which itself is contained within पृथिवीतत्त्व). In ब्रह्माण्ड, we have the opportunities for performance of पुन्य & पाप & enjoyment of the fruits of such पुन्य & पाप.
देव, गन्धर्व, यक्ष, रक्ष, असुर, नाग, पिशाच, मनुष्य & other स्थावरजङ्गम-These births are only available in this ब्रह्माण्ड, in this पृथिवीतत्त्व. This ब्रह्माण्ड is supported by 100 रुद्र-s. Beyond पृथिवीतत्त्व, we have worlds in जल, अग्नि, वायु, आकाश, अहंकार, बुद्धि, गुण, प्रकृति & पुरुष तत्त्व-s, reached by souls who have also become रुद्र-s.
All of them are ultimately subservient to भगवान् अनन्त. Every सिद्धान्ती worth his salt must know the following maxim by heart:
In the शुद्धाध्वन् (made of बिन्दु), शिव is the creator/agent while अनन्त is the master in the अशुद्धाध्वन् (made of अशुद्धमाया). शिव initiates the generation of the शुद्धाध्वन् (pure course of worlds) from बिन्दु, selects a soul to be अनन्त who initiates the generation of अशुद्धाध्वन् (impure course of worlds) from अशुद्धमाया. Thus, very briefly, we have seen how सृष्टि is structured in the सिद्धान्त & how it is initiated by परमशिव by His eternally inseparable & unlimited शक्ति.
Why he has अनन्त be in charge of अशुद्धाध्वन्?
It befits His supreme majesty.
Out of His spontaneous grace, he gives these offices to very exalted souls so that they may wear off their residual impurity (मल) & attain a perpetual & complete realization of their innate equality with परमशिव.
So, to return to the original topic:
How is सृष्टि an expression of शिव’s अनुग्रह/grace?
सृष्टि allows ordinary souls like us to work out our कर्म through consumption.
It allows the विद्येश्वर, मन्त्र, मन्त्रेश्वर & भुवनपति souls, (who have transcended कर्म, to occupy exalted posts, gradually develop परमवैराग्य & attain true मुक्ति (full equality with परमशिव).
Thus, शिवशक्ति is pure grace even during the सृष्टि phase.
2. स्थिति – Maintenance
Insentient products of अशुद्धमाया (मायेय) can’t take care of themselves. Sentient beings are not of unlimited strength. So, how does the सृष्टि last? 2. Cont’d: परमशिव’s शक्ति compassionately does स्थिति so that the objectives of sentient entities stated before (Souls of different states being able to work their way towards maturation/पक्व) can be fulfilled. Therefore, this स्थिति is also अनुग्रह only.
3. संहार – Dissolution
This is the reverse of सृष्टि. This occurs in several stages. From the dissolution of लोकत्रय (भूलोक, भुवर्लोक & स्वर्लोक) to dissolution of ब्रह्माण्ड; to upto प्रकृतितत्त्व, to upto अशुद्धमाया, upto dissolution of शुद्धाध्वन् into बिन्दु.
From श्रीमन्-मृगेन्द्र
भोगसाधनमाक्षिप्य कृत्वा कारण संश्रयम्। तच्च सात्मकमाक्रम्य विश्रमायावतिष्ठते॥ भविनां भवखिन्नानां सर्वभूतहितो यतः। स्वापावसानं आसाद्य पुनः प्राग्वत्प्रवर्तते॥
The 4 products (तनु-करण-भुवन-भोग) described below are absorbed into their cause, अशुद्धमाया at the end of स्थिति at a time determined by परमशिव.
Why does he do this?
To give some rest, to give some sleep to the souls which have been suffering in संसार/भव.
माया is a positive reality, the basic raw material which evolves into our bodies, cognitive instruments, worlds & objects (तनु-करण-भुवन-भोग). Now, this existence made of माया has two paths: ++
He also blocks/binds/covers (रुन्धन्) those who are [fit] to be blocked/covered (रोध्यान्). Block, bind or cover what? To block a soul from gaining freedom from the three bonds of मल, कर्म & माया.
Or, to actually bind it to those 3.
Wait, why would परमशिव, whose very form is अनुग्रह, do that? Why would he veil our vision of the truth? So far, we have seen how 3 of परमशिव’s acts (सृष्टि, स्थिति & संहार) are actually nothing but अनुग्रह in guise.
We will soon look at the fourth act, तिरोधान, the act of concealment.
Many introductory books often define it as the opposite of अनुग्रह. But what is it really?
Year of Publication: 1940 I have translated his 16-point essay in Tamizh on the qualifications & duties of an ideal धर्मकर्ता i.e. temple administrator
It may be interesting to take a look at this (now) historical document in the light of recent debates. A final note before I start the translation:
While several points are शैव-centric, you can read them mutatis mutandis (That is, you can rephrase the शैव points for yourself in another specific framework or a generic one). This, of course, is left to the readers.
The greatest gift of rituals is the reverence it instills in us; not just for the deity but for all beings, all communities. The Agamika tradition involved a number of rites where different individuals (even animals) were honored. Let us see some verses from the kAmikAgama
Earliest Ācāryas of Siddhānta were from Kāśmīra. “Kāśmīra Śaivam” is diverse: Pratyabhijña, Krama, Kaula, Spanda, Trika (integrating previous 4), Siddhānta, Bhairavasrotas, Yāmala, etc.
36 Tattvas is common to many schools because these schools developed in same milieu & region. https://t.co/AUdJmFXG0k
