I’m thinking of reflecting together, about Saiva Siddhantham , in a different way, so that you can appreciate a bit more in depth, the subjects you have learnt till present.
What is Saiva Siddhantham ?
To answer this question, one must look at the sastra called “Sivaprakasam“.
St.Umapati Sivam says that He will explain the meaning of “Saiva Siddhantham ” in the 7th Verse of “Sivaprakasam. And in the 99th Verse, He summarises all the explanations about “Saiva Siddhantham ” till that point. On what philosophical basis – “வாதம்”, does Saiva Siddhantham argue its principles. But today the word “வாதம்”/ vaatham, has taken different connotations.
The line of argument that Saiva Siddhantham takes is called “Satkaariya Vaatham”, Sat meaning The thing which exists, and by logical extension, the things that exists which manifest itself; Kaariyam. Kabila MaaMunivar was the one who coined this term, on the basis of sāṃkhya philosophy work. This works is deemed to be around ~5000 years old. St. Umapati Sivam says Saiva Siddhantha uses the sāṃkhya philosophy as the basis for arguing its principles.
Generally, In Siddhatham, one should never say that its one’s own ideas/perspectives. Rather one should always highlight the scriptural work and the verse number, which is referred to, by the person expounding it. Just as a lawyer should quote the law to be a lawyer, so does one need to quote the Siddhantha Sastras in a similar manner.
I keep often repeating that one who has clearly understood the 7th and 99th verse of Sivaprakasam, has understood what can be called “Saiva Siddhantha in a nutshell’.
As for the word “Satkaariya Vaadam “, don’t assume it to be some random word in the scriptures. It is not. It’s simply science. That’s why we have chosen this topic today of which the word “vignanam”, a combination of ” Vishesha + Jnana”, means “special Knowledge” or simply science.
“MeiJnanam” means “True Knowledge” and is different from “ViJnanam “. The nuance is that all “ViJnanam “does not need to be necessarily true.
Modern science uses the term “law of conservation of matter” which is the equivalent to “Saatkariya Vaadam “. A matter which exists will never cease to exist though it may change its form. In science, there is law and there is theory. A theory can be accepted to be true until it’s disproven by future developments whereas laws cannot be disproven as they are empirically validated under certain conditions. This is why it’s called “Law of conservation of matter” and not “theory of conservation of matter”. Reason I’m highlighting this is because you should be assuming that you are reading Saiva Siddhantham solelybased on belief. This is why i took this topic today so that you can realise that Saiva Siddhantham (and by logical extension, Hindu Santana Dharma) is not based solely on beliefs as compared to non-Indic faiths, where blind faith alone rules the roost.
So, a ViJnani/scientist, has not created new matter by oneself. Rather, one mixes one or two different types of matter, and creates a different matter. The word Maya is nothing but matter subject to evolution and involution, in simple terms. Now there is a language debate around the origins of the word maya. Consider if i travel to England, they would ask for the english equivalent of maya, without bothering about the language debate around it. The english equivalent for maya is primordial matrix. The source from which matter manifests, is called matrix. And it is ever existing.
தோற்றமும் நிலையு மீறும் மாயையின் தொழில தென்றே
சாற்றிடு முலகம் வித்துச் சாகாதி அணுக்க ளாக
ஏற்றதே லீண்டு நிற்கும் இல்லதே லியைவ தின்றாம்
மாற்றநீ மறந்தா யித்தால் மாயையை மதித்தி டாயே. 34Tōṟṟamum nilaiyu mīṟum māyaiyiṉ toḻila teṉṟē
cāṟṟiṭu mulakam vittuc cākāti aṇukka ḷāka
ēṟṟatē līṇṭu niṟkum illatē liyaiva tiṉṟām
māṟṟanī maṟantā yittāl māyaiyai matitti ṭāyē.
The wise declare that the world evolves from Maya and the common people also can point out that in the seed, the tree and branches &c, are contained in a suitable condition, and otherwise, they won’t be produced; and these words you have forgotten. Understands therefore that Maya is the material cause.
SivaJnana Siddhiyar, ArulNandhi Sivam
Next another confusion rises. You should not assume this to be simply tamizh words but rather ViJnana/scientific truths. What the scientists call as primordial matrix, Saiva Siddhantha defines it as maya. The words differ but the meaning remains the same.
Next is Tatuvam/Tatva which is incorrectly understood as philosophy. (jovially) from a worldly perspective, if you don’t understand what i say, then its tatuvam. People will say that that fellow is speaking tatuvam. Then what is the meaning of the word Tatuvam? There are 36 Tatvas in Saiva Siddhantham and if you ask someone today to translate it, then they will incorrectly translate it as 36 Philosophies of Saiva Siddhantha. The reason i’m explaining in English is because in a few decades from now, our children and grandchildren will need to be taught in english. As our children and grandchildren are not learning tamizh. We can read tamizh but don’t understand its entire meaning whereas the future generations will not even be able to read tamizh. The students of the current generation are all studying in english medium schools, and no one wants to admit their children in tamizh medium schools.
That means “that which exists”.
Tvam means character.
Therefore, Tatvam means “character of an existing thing”.
Arivu is the next word in Saiva Siddhantham. We assume arivu means knowledge. Saiva Siddhantham defines Arivu as the experience that arises via the 5 senses. In english, Arivu stands for Perception. The point is that it’s not wrong to have not fully understood something but it’s dangerous to misunderstand something. Not understanding is not a sin, misunderstanding is a sin, no matter what topic or domain one wishes to learn. Such is the case at present; hence we must understand the basis of what is being explained in the Sastras. The reason for our misunderstanding is due to negative effects of other languages, news articles etc.,
Is ant a thing with arivu/perception? A child will say that the ant does not have arivu/perception, but Saiva Siddhantha saysthat an ant or an elephant, are sentient being with experiences via its sense organs.
ஒன்று அறிவதுவே உற்று அறிவதுவே
இரண்டு அறிவதுவே அதனொடு நாவே
மூன்று அறிவதுவே அவற்றொடு மூக்கே
நான்கு அறிவதுவே அவற்றொடு கண்ணே
ஐந்து அறிவதுவே அவற்றொடு செவியே
ஆறு அறிவதுவே அவற்றொடு மனனே
நேரிதின் உணர்ந்தோர் நெறிப்படுத் தினரே.Oṉṟu aṟivatuvē uṟṟu aṟivatuvē
iraṇṭu aṟivatuvē ataṉoṭu nāvē
mūṉṟu aṟivatuvē avaṟṟoṭu mūkkē
nāṉku aṟivatuvē avaṟṟoṭu kaṇṇē
aintu aṟivatuvē avaṟṟoṭu ceviyē
āṟu aṟivatuvē avaṟṟoṭu maṉaṉē
nēritiṉ uṇarntōr neṟippaṭut tiṉarē.
Scholars have classified living organisms under six heads :-or-ariv-uyir having the sense,of touch alone, u-ariv-uyir having the senses of touch and taste, tnii-v-ariv-uyir having the senses of touch, taste and smell, ndl-ariv-uyir having the senses of touch, taste, smell and sight, ai-y-ariv-uyir having the senses of touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing and ar-ariv-uyir having the power of discrimination in addition to the above five senses.
Tolkappiyam Porul Adhigaram, Marapiyal 571 – Tolkāppiyam with English Commentary, Vol. 1 (Eḻuttadikāram) and Vol. 2 (Poruḷatikāram), P.S. Subrahmanya Sastri
So before studying Tatvams, one should not confuse oneself with the worldly words and definitions.
Saiva Siddhantham says that there was time when the Aanma/Soul existed without the physical body at one point in time. Siva then creates the physical body from maya. This must be explained from whence came the physical body else satkaariya Vaadham will be disproven. Siddhantha calls it Tanu, Karana, Bhuvana and Bhogam. This is what we call as creation. The aanma/Soul which previously existed without a physical body, is now given one, from Maya/Primordial matrix. The fellow Indic faiths call maya as Illusion. This difference between Vedanta and Siddhantha, must be understood.
ஏகன் அனேகன் இருள்கரும மாயையிரண்
டாகவிவை யாறாதி யில். 52
The one God, the many souls, the dark Anava, Karma, the Suddha and Asuddha Mayas, all these six are eternal.
CHAPTER VI, LIGHT ON THE PATH – Tiruvarutpayan, St. Umapati Sivam
When the Lord appears as a Guru, what will He teach?
The One (the Lord), the many (souls), darkness (ANava), karma and twofold mAyA (suddha and asuddha) – these have no beginning.
The fact that these 6 are without beginning, must be understood clearly. The Sastras must be quoted as is the norm in Siddhantha.
When asked whether Vedanta and Siddhantha were opposed to each other, our Saints highlighted that it was not the case. This creates a confusion in our minds as we saw in the case of the definition of maya.
<Kumaraguru Swamigal quote about vedantam and Siddhantham>
He says that if one peels and eat the fruit, its vedantam whereas if one juices the fruit in a mixer and consumes it, then its Siddhantham. Siddhantham is but the juice of the fruit of Vedanta which we cannot refute, as the juice is indeed extracted from the fruit and hence not different.
St. Umapati says that the clear explanation of the Vedantam, is Siddhantham.
There is science about the creation of the world/universe. One person asked me that you are saying the world is created from maya, but the Vijnanis/Scientists do not say so. Science calls it cosmology in which there are at least 13 different theories which explains how the universe was created. Only when all scientists arrive at the same thing, will the theory become a law. Until then all these remain theories and theories don’t have to be necessarily true.
Without having the basic underlying knowledge, one should not do research. One lady from London called Ruth Raina, came to study Saiva Siddhantham. She says that all that Saiva Siddhantha says, is science but the reason why ViJnanis/scientists are not aware of this is because, there are not able to understand the terminologies used by theMeiJnanis (Seers). “The poetic usage of the language by seers”.
If anyone studies and comprehends the basis of Saiva Siddhantha, then one should naturally feel a longing as to why such a profound Tatvam/ character of an existing thing, has not spread across the world. Did this longing occur only for those born in Bharat, especially Tamil Nadu? No.
Does the world exist from the beginning or was it created by God? To answer this, one should know தர்க சாஸ்திரம் which means knowing how to debate, because if one says the world existing from the beginning then why did God need to create it? Or if it was created by God, then where did God create it from? The answer is the world was without beginning in the causal state and it became the world as we perceive it, in the effective state. For ex., is polythene bag existing since beginning or was it created? The answer being that the polythene bag existed as various matter in the causal state and became the polythene bag in its effective state.
What this means is that in the causal state, the world existed since the beginning and in the effective state, it was created as a perceivable form. And who brought about this change from the causal state to the effective state, God.
There was a person named Ingersoll who asked that “If God created the world, then who created God? ” and “if God is self-manifested then why can’t the universe manifest itself?”. For anyone who has properly studied Saiva Siddhantha, this question does not even arise.
There are 3 people who read Saiva Siddhantham properly by first learnt Tamizh.
- Rev. H.R. Hoisington
- G.U. Pope
- H.W. Scomerus
Hoisington was already adept in 4 languages and after coming to India (from the US) he learnt both tamizh and Sanskrit. He then learnt SivaJnanaBotham in depth. He mentioned that there existed neither in Greek nor in Latin philosophy, such Tatvams. He mentioned that all christian monks should study this magnus opus of Saiva Siddhantha. It’s surprising that a Christian Rev., would espouse such a thought, considering that he was the founder of the Church of South India (CSI), which is responsible for converting gullible Indians via hook or crook, to christianity. He also translated Sivaprakasam and Tattuva Kattalei along with SivaJnanaBotham (St. Meykandar).
G.U. Pope was the one who translated Tiruvasagam into english. But he highlighted that those who read Tiruvasagam, should not mistake St. ManickaVasagar as a philosopher. But how to make the readers aware of this important distinction? So, he translated Tiruvarutpayan and placed it before Tiruvasagam, so that any englishman who reads Tiruvarutpayan will clearly understand the basis of Saiva Siddhantham and hence that Tiruvasagam is not a literary work but a scriptural one and that St. Manickavasagar was not a philosopher but a MeiJnani/seer.
That’s why he titled the book, “Tiruvasagam, the sacred utterances of the Saint and Sage ManickaVasaga”. The reason being that he felt that there was no point in studying Tiruvasagam without having first clearly understood the Saiva Siddhantham expounded in Tiruvarutpayan. Also, while translating Tirukural, he named it as “Tirukural, the ethics of Tiruvalluva Nayanar”. Funnily, we are still arguing about Tiruvalluvar where even G.U. Pope had clearly mentioned it.
The third person was H.W. Scomerus, from Germany. He translated the Saiva Siddhantha works into german which has now been translated from german to english.
The reason for talking about this is that at first, understanding such works is difficult but later the same becomes a source of joy when known, becomes nectar when understood and finally bliss, when experienced.
There’s also a person from Czech Republic by the name of Kamil Zvelibi who spoke 52 languages. We are struggling to even learn 2 languages. Also, this shows the continuity of education from previous lives. There is no possibility that one can learn 52 languages in a single life except if not for the cumulation from previous lives. Only those who has studied multiple languages, has the competence to grade them, and not those who have studied none but claim superiority. He highlighted during a conference at Madurai that Saiva Siddhantha may be ranked as the perfect and cleverest systems of human thought.
These can be taken as foreigners who have studied Saiva Siddhantham and sharing their appreciation/plaudits whereas we are just coming into Saiva Siddhantham.
Bertrand Russell mentioned that Pythagoras was only one who, in 532 B.C said that the soul is immortal, and no other western (non-Indic) religion says this. (Jokingly) Seems like Pythagoras did some sort of Siva Punyam in his previous births.
“[Pythagoras] is one of the most interesting and puzzling men in history. Not only are the traditions concerning him an almost inextricable mixture of truth and falsehood, but even in their…least disputable form they present us with a very curious psychology…He founded a religion, of which the main tenets were the transmigration of souls and the sinfulness of eating beans…His religion…acquired control of the State and established a rule of the saints. But the unregenerate hankered after beans, and sooner or later rebelled.”
― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy Vol. I/VI
There is a huge difference between learning Saiva Siddhantham via translations and learning it directly in Tamizh. The 3 aforementioned Christians learnt tamizh first and then studied Saiva Siddhantham, that too via Saiva Siddhantha teachers.
Siva is the owner of Maya. Now what is Eeswaran? Eeswaran means “owner of all Aiswaryams” and our Leader. There is a difference between owner and leader. Maya belongs to Siva and hence He can use it as He pleases whereas we are His Adimai/Dasas/Followers. Maya is PariGraha Sakti to Siva. The Sakti that never separates from Siva is called Tathanmiya Sakti. SivaJnana Munivar in his Maapadiyam calls this PariGraha Sakti as Valli.
I will take you to marina beach to see the worker’s statue. You can see that they are moving the boulders using an iron rod as a lever. If i give you the same iron rod to move the boulder, you’ll not be able to, as you don’t have the same power. So, to extrapolate this, the power inherent in them and which cannot be given to you, is Taathanmiya Sakti. The iron rod that is used to move the boulder and which can be given to you, is PariGraha Sakti. Both are necessary.
Maya and Siva are different, yet Maya belongs to Siva, using which, He manifests the matter inherent in the cosmos. Sivadoes not need to prove His ownership over Maya and St. Tiru JnanaSambandar sings about this in His Tevaram. Unless one has learnt the Sastras, one will not think about this line in Tevaram in this context. Only by reading Sastras will such questions even arise in the first place. This is why we should learn the Sastras because the nuances in the intrinsic nuances in the Tirumurais, will never be understood without the understanding of the Sastras.
Sat (Sanskrit) == Mei (true) (Tamizh)
Asat = Poi(false)
While Mei in normal usage refers to true, it has a different connotation in the Sastras / Tirumurais. For ex., maya is Mei/true whereas the tattvas that manifests from maya is not. St. ManickaVasagar sings about this His Magnus Opus Tiruvasagam.
Tiru SivaJnana Munivar writes in His work, SivaJnana Maapadiyam about what is Mei (True) and what is Poi (false). That which does not lose its inherent characteristics for infinity, is Mei (True) and that which manifests and gets sublimated in time, is Poi(false). This shows how the connotation of a normal tamizh word differs in daily usage and in the Sastras.
Asat is not the opposite of Sat.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
– Albert Einstein
What Siddhantha says is that science is not opposed to Siddhantha or vice versa but that there are things beyond the boundaries of science, and which cannot be comprehended by our (pasus) limited intelligence. This is why St. ManickaVasaga Peruman paradoxically sings in Tiruvasagam that Siva is attainable in one context and unattainable in another.
One does not become a Saiva Siddhanthi simply by accepting Siva as the Godhead. One must accept the 6 points as well, to be considered as a Saiva Siddhanthi.
Saivam is the only faith that highlights points of other faiths and their inherent loopholes as well as explaining the how and the why.
So, we should read the Sastras via a Guru and not as per one’s wish, as the possibility of misunderstanding and misinterpretation is very high.