The system of Hindu Philosophy which is expounded in the following pages, and its name will be altogether new to many an English educated Hindu who is content to learn his religion and philosophy from English books and translations and from such scraps as turn up in newspapers and magazines and from such scraps as turn up in newspapers and magazines. Yet it is the Philosophy of the Religion in which at least every Tamil speaking Hindu is more or less brought up and the one Philosophy which obtains predominance in the Tamil Languages.
This Philosophy is called The Siddhanta Philosophy and is the special Philosophy of the Saiva Religion. The word means True End, and as used in logic, it means the proposition or theory proved as distinguished from the proposition or theory refuted, which becomes the Purvapaksham. The Saiva Philosophy is so called as it establishes the True End, or the only Truth and all other systems are merely Purvapakshams. The system is based primarily on the Saiva Agamas. But the authority of the Vedas is equally accepted, and the system is then called Vedanta Philosophy or Vedanta Siddhantha Philosophy or Vaithika Philosophy.
“வேதாந்த சித்தாந்த சமரச நன்னிலை பெற்ற,
வித்தகச் சித்தர் கணமே.”
“ராஜாங்கத்தில் அமர்ந்தது வைதிக சைவ மழகிதந்தோ.”
ThayuManavar). This Philosophy is also spoken of as Adwaitha Philosophy in all the Tamil works and it will be seen from the very large use of the word and its exposition in almost every page of this work what important part it plays; and it strikes, in fact, the key not of the whole system. Meikanda Devar who translated and commented on Sivagnana Botham is called “Adwaitha Meikandan” (அத்துவித மெய்கண்டான், one who saw the Truth of Adwaitha) by ThayuManavar.
However, it is the Agama which gives the Philosophy its form and language. Very absurd notions are entertained of the Agamas or Tantras, specially derived from the low practices of the Right-hand followers or Vamabahinis of Bengal and proceeding from ignorance of the real works, through want of published books and translations. The books followed by the Left-hand Section or South Indian Sects are altogether different and I give a list of them below. Very little notice is taken of them by Oriental Scholars and of the existing works the Karma Kanda are alone preserved to us.
There are several of these works in the great Mutt at Thiruvavaduthurai ; and an excellent commentary on one of the Upagamas, Paushkara, by Umapathisivacharya is also preserved there. Like the Veda or Mantra, the Agama or Tantra is divided into Karma Kanda and Gnana Kanda and there were a large number of Upagamas corresponding to Upanishads, of which Mrigendra is very largely quoted by Sayanacharya in his Sarvadarsana Sangraha. The true relation of the Agama to the Veda is pointed out by Swami Vivekananda in his address to the Madras people and I quote his observations below. “The Tantras as we have said, represent the ‘Vedic rituals’ in a modified form, and before anyone jumps into the most absurd conclusions about them, I will advise him to read the Tantras portion. And most of the ‘Mantras’ used in the ‘Tantras’ will be found taken verbatim from these ‘Brahmanas.’ As to their influence, apart from the ‘Srouta’ and ‘Smarta’ rituals, all other forms of ritual observed from the Himalayas to the Comorin have been taken from the ‘Tantras’ and they direct the worship of the Saktas, the Saivas, the Vaishnavas and all others alike.”
I am also informed that the sources of the rules for the rituals followed by Smartas and which are now taken from some manuals and compilations of very recent origin are really found in the Agamas or Tantras. However, the Agamas are held in very high repute by the Non-Smartha populations of Southern India; and the Agama is as much held to be the word of the Deity as the Veda, the word literally meaning “The Revealed Word.”
Says Saint Thirumular:-
“வேதமொடு ஆகமம் மெய்யாம் இறைவனூல்
“The Vedas and Agamas are both of them true, both being the word of the Lord. Think that the first is a general treatise and the latter a special one. Both form the word of God. When examined, and where difference is perceived between Vedanta and Siddhanta, the great will perceive no such difference.”
ஓதும் பொதுவும் சிறப்பு மென்றுன்னுக
நாதன் உரையிவை நாடில் இரண்டந்தம்
பேதம தென்னில் பெரியோர்க்க பேதமே.”
Says Sri NilakantaCharya:-
“Vayanthu VedaSivagamayorbhedam,
(I don’t perceive any difference between the Veda and the Sivagama. The Veda itself is the Sivagama.)
Napasyamaha VedopiSivagamaha.”
It is needless to observe that Sri Nilakanta or Sri Kanta Charya belongs to the Saiva School; and it is no less surprising to see so little notice taken of him and his works by Oriental Scholars in their general account of Hindu Religious and Philosophies. And strange it is that even the learned Swami whom I have quoted above does not mention his name, though he mentions Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madvacharya and a host of other names small and great.
Sri Kanta was a friend and contemporary of Govinda Yogi, the Guru of Sri Sankara and his Bhashya of Vyasa Sariraka Sutras according to most accounts was anterior to that of Sri Sankara’s Bashya itself. And though he does not call his Vedanta Bashya as such, it is popularly known as Visishtadwaitha Bashya or Sutta Adwaita Bashya. And the work is published in parts in the Pandit Vols. 6 and 7. This commentary of Sri Kanta Charya, the learned translator of the Vedanta Sutras, Mr. George Thibaut does not seem to have come across, and he nowhere alludes to it by name; and yet the results arrived at by him as to the teachings of the Sutras after a lengthy discussion and comparison of the respective interpretations of the texts by Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja, exactly fall in with the interpretation of the Sutras by Sri Kanta Charya.
The learned translator observes (Introduction p. c.) “If, now, I am shortly to sum up the results of the preceding enquiry, as to the teaching of the Sutras, I must give it as my opinion that they do not set forth the distinction of a higher and lower knowledge of Brahman; that they do not acknowledge the distinction of Brahman and Isvara in Sankara’s sense; that they do not hold the doctrine of the unreality of the world; that they do not, with Sankara, proclaim the absolute identity of the individual and the highest self.” These are exactly the points where Sankara and Sri Kanta differ.
The translator further remarks that he agrees with Ramanuja’s mode of interpretation in some important details, for instance, in regard to the doctrine of Parinama Vada and interpretation of fourth Adhyaya. These are also the points where Ramanuja agrees with Sri Kanta. But Sri Kanta differs from both in their interpretations of the passages referring to Nirguna and Saguna Brahm and follows the doctrine of the Siddhantha School. And the doctrine of Parinama Vada is the only distinguishing mark of Sri Kanta’s Vedanta Philosophy as opposed to the Siddhantha Philosophy; and it is this Vedanta and not Sankara’s Vedanta, that is referred to approvingly by all Tamil writers and Sagas, as in the passage of Thirumular and ThayuManavar above quoted.
The ground work of Sivagnana Botham is the one adopted by Sri Kanta for the Vedanta Sutras, and as far as I have been able to compare, they exactly tally, except where Sankara’s forced explanations enter; and the passages will certainly lose their meaning unless it is viewed in its proper place, as for instance, in regard to the purport of the 2nd Sutra of the first Adhyaya, the objection of the translator (p. xcii), which is perfectly cogent, will lose its point, if it is not taken as a definition of God but as involving the proof of the existence of God. The Sutra, “Brahman is that whence the origination and so on (i.e. the sustentation and reabsorption) of this world proceed,” is exactly the same as the first Sutra of Sivagnana Botham and the same meaning is conveyed by the first Kural of Thiruvalluvar also.
In passing, I may refer the render to the Swetaswatara Upanishad, translated by Dr. Roer, the philosophy of which is exactly the same as herein expounded, though the learned doctor puzzles himself as to what this philosophy could be which is neither Vedanta, nor Sankhya nor Yoga and yet reconciles or attempts to reconcile all these doctrines.
Coming back to the Agamas, very little is known regarding its antiquity from the point of view of the European Scholar. The Nyayikas use the word Agama Pramana, where we would now say Sruti Pramana, meaning Revealed Word, the word of God or of the highest authority. So that the Agamas should go back for behind their time. As the popular phrase runs, Vedagama Purana Itikasa Smritis, its period should be fixed after the Vedas and before the rest of the group. Observes Rev. Hoisington, the first translator into English of Sivagnana Botham, “the Agamam which contains the doctrinal treatise given in this work, may safely be ascribed to what I would term the Philosophical Period of Hinduism, the period between the Vedic and Puranic Eras.
These doctrines can be traced in the earlier works of the Puranic period, in the Ramayana, the Bhagavat Gita, and the Manava Dharma Sastra. They are so alluded to and involved in those works, as to evince that they were already systematized and established. We have the evidence or some Tamil works that the Agama doctrines were revived in the south of India before Brahminism by which I mean Mythological Hinduism obtained any prominent place there. From some statements in the Ramayana, it would appear that they were adopted in the South before Rama’s time. This would fix their date at more than a thousand years before the Christian Era, certainly as early as that of the Ramayanam.”
Adopting another method, it can be very easily shown that they go far behind the date of Buddha, and though it is said that the religion of the Hindus at that time was Hinduism (a meaningless word from the stand point of the Hindu) the only religion which stood against Buddhism and Jainism in their palmist days and into which they finally merged themselves, without leaving a single vestige in India, was the Saiva Religion.
The struggles between Buddhism and Jainism and Saivaism are celebrated in the annals of our saints, Upamanya Bhakta Vilasa and the Tamil Peria Purana, and of these saints the great Manickavachaka, the famous author of Thiruvachakam belonged to the Buddhist period and the great Gnana Sambantha and Vakisa, the authors of ‘Thevaram,’ belonged to the Jain period, though our learned Swami Vivekananda seems to know very little of them, in spite of the fact that all our temples in Southern India and not a few in the utmost bounds of Mysore Province contain their images and all the principal festivals in Madras and in the mofussil are celebrated in their honor,
I refer to the Makiladi feast in Thiruvottiyur, Aruvathumuvar feast in Mylapore, Aruthra feast in Chidambaram and Avanimula feast in Madura, not to speak of innumerable other feasts connected with every other temple. Such is the paucity of knowledge possessed by foreigners and conveyed in the English language regarding south Indian Chronology, language, religion and Philosophy, chiefly through want of patriotism and enthusiasm on the part of Tamil speaking Indians of the South. Regarding the antiquity of the Saiva Religion itself, M. Barth after observing that the genesis of the Religion is involved in extreme obscurity says that “the Vedic writings chance upon them and as it were go along side of them, during the very period of their formation.”
Of course the difficulty will appear to those who study these writings and the Philosophy contained in them apart from the Religion and Religious beliefs of the people and the religion and beliefs of the people apart from the writings and the Philosophy contained therein, and the difficulty will certainly vanish when the two are studied together and it is perceived how intimately the two are connected together and how the one enters into the very whoof and warp of the other. Coming now to the work in question, the twelve Sanskrit Sutras in Anushtup meter form part of Rourava Agama and have been separately styled and handed down as ‘Sivagnana Botham.’ The Saivas believe that this is the very book which was in the hands of the Divine Guru, Dhakshanamurthi and these were the very doctrines which He taught to the Great Vedic Rishis, Sanaka, Sanathara, Sanantana and Sanatkumara.
At any rate, as an example of such close and condensed reasoning, embracing as it does the whole of the field of Religion and Philosophy, the work is unparalleled.
The Sariraka Sutras of Vyasa, which contain the same four divisions as the present work, consist of 555 Sutras. There can be no doubt that the Tamilians, having very early secured a translation of this work through Meikanda Deva with his invaluable commentary, cared to possess no translation of any other work on Philosophy from the Sanskrit, and in spite of the great praise that is bestowed on the Bhagavat Gita, the Tamil reader knows nothing about it, and it is only recently a Tamil translation has been got out.
Of the merits of this Philosophy, which is discussed here as the Adwaitha Philosophy, the word Visishtadwaitha having never come into use with the Tamil writers, I need say nothing here following the example of the first translator Rev. H. R. Hoisington who neither says a word in blame nor in praise of it, leaving the readers themselves to form their opinions. It is more than 40 years since he published his translation of this work and of two other works in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. No. IV. And I am not in a position to know what criticism it elicited then. Probably it was shelved as offering no points of attack. The objections usually taken by Missionaries and Oriental Scholars against Vedantism fall flat if urged against this theory, as herein expounded.
Of the Rev. H. R. Hoisington and his translation, I must say a few words. He was an American Missionary attached to the Batticotta Seminary in Ceylon. He came to know of the work early and it is almost pathetic now to read after 40 years, what difficulties he had to contend with, before he was able to master the subject and complete the translation and no meed of praise is sufficient for this and other disinterested seekers after the truth, wherever it may be found. Nor are these difficulties even vanished to-day. Consequent on the extreme terseness of diction and brevity of expression employed in the work, even the ordinary Pundits are not able to understand without proper commentaries; and very few Pundits could be found in Southern India who are able to expound the text properly even now.
For several years, it was in my thoughts to attempt a translation of this work, and time and place not permitting, I was only able to begin it about the middle of last year and when I had fairly begun my translation, I learnt from a note in Trubner’s Sarva Darsana Sangraha that a previous translation of this work existed and hunting out for this book, I chanced upon an old catalogue of Bishop Caldwell and I subsequently traced out the possession of Bishop Caldwell’s book to Rev. J. Lazarus, B. A., of Madras who very courteously lent me the use of the book and to whom my best thanks are due. I have used the book to see that I do not go wrong in essential points and in the language of the translation. Rev. Hoisington’s translation is not literal and is very free and was evidently made from a very free paraphrase given of the text by the pundits. I do not find anything corresponding to the Varthika commentary of Meikanda Deva in his translation; and in the elucidation of the text and original commentary, I have followed the excellent commentary of Sivagnana Yogi, which I think was not available to Mr. Hoisington, in print then. I must say here that it gave me very great encouragement and pleasure to proceed in the task to hear from a well-known Professor of the South, who wrote to say, “It gives me very great pleasure that the Saiva Siddhanta Philosophy is after all, to be written in English. I should myself have undertaken the work gladly, if my health had permitted the task. As it is, I am happy you have found time to undertake the difficult though laudable task of translating into English, the Philosophic teachings of our Siddhanta Sastras.”
I hope the notes which I have added will be found of use to the ordinary reader in understanding the text and I have also added a Glossary of most Sanskrit names and words used in the work. Contrary to the usual practice I have indulged in Tamil quotations, for which, I hope the reader will excuse me. I have largely drawn on ‘ThayuManavar,’ for the simple reason that he is read by all alike and there is no one in Southern India who does not know him. It is also my object to show how the Philosophy herein expounded has passed into the current thought of the people and their common language, for it might be taken as true that no religion of Philosophy is entitled to be called a living one which does not enter into the common thought of the people and their language. I may also say that my explanation of the text has the full approval of several Orthodox Pundits, of whom I can mention Sri la Sri S. Somasundara Nayagar of Madras, to whom I am largely indebted by means of his lectures and books and pamphlets, for the little knowledge of Saiva religion and Philosophy which I may possess. Of course, I must not omit to mention my obligations to Brahma Sri Mathakandana Venkatagiri Sastrigal, the great Saivite Preacher of Malabar who is a Siddhanthi and a follower of Sri Kanta Charya.
His Holiness the Pandara Sannadhigal of Thiruvavaduthorai Mutt and His Holiness, Rai Bahadur, Thirugnana Sambantha Pandara Sannadhigal of Madura Mutt have also been pleased to go through portions of the work and to express their great satisfaction.
In the next note, I will refer briefly to the life of Meikanda Daver who translated the Sutras into Tamil and added his commentary to it and that of some of his followers and commentators
