The Religion of the Agamas (by Pathmarajah Nagalingam)

[Guest guest]

Dear All, The following book is from: http://www.siddha.com.my/religionoftheagamas/index.html Love and regards,Sreenadh==========================

The Religion of the Agamas

by Pathmarajah

Nagalingam

Introduction

 

 

A great deal of books have been written on Hinduism in

the last two centuries, both by western and Indian scholars, in english, other

european as well as Indian languages. Inspite of these writings there is not

much clarity on the source books of Hinduism and what it stands for. Rather, a

unbalanced and lopsided view of Hinduism is presented whether about the

religious texts, worship modes, beliefs, practices and ethics, leading even the

Hindus and Hindu scholars too to be confused about their religion. This is

because the whole lot of scholars simply followed the early perception and

presentation of Hinduism by european scholars like Max Mueller and proceeded to

reinforce it.

This E-Book attempts to correct those misperceptions and

present a more balanced view of the religion. It is a collection of

writings presented in like Navyashastra and Akandabaratam over

five years. Some of the articles have been appropriated from the writings of

other scholars and which were published in these forums. Due credit is

given to these authors.

The later chapters deals with some aspects of the

philosophy of Saiva Siddhanta which is the philosophy of the agamas.

Pathmarajah

Nagalingam

Kuala Lumpur

24th Nov, 2008

 

 

 

Chapter 1

 

 

 

The Great Traditions of Hinduism

Hinduism is thought to be a single monolithic religion

which we know is not true. Rather it consists of several hundred sampradayas or

spiritual lineages, which are independent, yet share commonness. These hundreds

of sampradayas can be group into four large sects, Saivism, Vaishnavism,

Shaktism and Smarthaism - all of which share some main traditions. These

sampradayas and sects are based on several long standing traditions.

1.Two Literary Traditions

There are two Literary traditions in Hinduism in which

original Hindu teachings have been recorded; the Sanskrit Tradition and the

Tamil Tradition. (There is a third Pali Tradition but it focuses on Buddhism

only). Of these three traditions, only Tamil is still a living tradition

whereas Sanskrit and Pali are dead for all practical purposes.

Much is known about the sanskrit texts which have been

quite thouroughly researched and commented upon. But most Hindus are not aware

that the tamil texts are equally voluminous as the sanskrit texts and some

parts are thought to be as ancient as the rig veda although admittedly much of

these old texts have been lost. These tamil texts are even more profound in its

universalist and all encompassing views covering not just Hindus but all

mankind, all life.

The tamil texts are approximately half of Hindu

literary-shastras. Only now are Hindu scholars beginning to realise this, that

all this while half of Hindu shastras are not known to most Hindu scholars,

swamis and acharyas in this last century as it is written in tamil. In the last

hundred years, most scholars and swamis wrote about Hinduism knowning only

about one-half or less of its shastric heritage.

Tamil literature is still growing. More has probably been

written on Hinduism in tamil in the last 300 years than compared to sanskrit

and all other vernacular languages in the last 1,000 years! Here is a part

listings of modern tamil writings at

http://www.geocities.com/athens/5180/chrono2.html for a glimpse of the the

extent of the growing Hindu shastric heritage!

2.Two Shastric Traditions

Two bodies of texts govern Hinduism as revealed scripture

or shruti; the Vedas and the Agamas, and both are in sanskrit. The vedas are

well known and is fire-ritual based worship or homas.

The agamas are far more voluminous (28

saiva plus 77 shakta plus 215 vaishnava texts, plus their upa agamas) than

the entire vedas and all other smirthis together. But few know much

about the agamas or quote from it in their writings. This is because it was

entirely written in the south and maintained entirely in south India, and that

it was written in the grantha script, not brahmi, nagari or

devanagiri. Grantha is old tamil script!

Have a look at grantha at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grantha

In other words the agamas were verbalised in sanskrit and

written in tamil. Herein lies the symbiosis of these two great literary and

shastric traditions. Sanskrit has two scripts, nagari and grantha, with the

vedas in nagari and the agamas in grantha.

Today, Hinduism all over the subcontinent is based on the

agamas, and is not vedic as Vivekananda too observed. Agama worship is temple

worship, home altar worship, temple ceremonies, holy days and festivals,

birth-to-death sacraments, etc, which is what Hinduism is today. While there

are commonalities in agama and veda worldviews, they are poles apart in

rituals. Even more telling is that they are unambiguous and specific in their

teachings, unlike the vedas which is general or deals with general principles

only.

We might as well call the Hindu religion as the 'Agama

Religion' rather than 'Hinduism' which word is of Iranian origin and

now an english word, or even 'Sanathana Dharma' which is a self patronising

description and not a name, and besides it contains the word 'dharma' which can

quite easily be extrapolated to include varnashrama. The followers are of this

religion can be called as 'agamists'.

Most of the agamas are still untranslated and only a few

are available in english, french or other languages.

3. Four Sectarian Traditions

There are four main sects as mentioned above,that is,

Saivism, Vaishnavism Shaktaism and Smartism. The first three are based on their

own sects of agamas; saiva agamas for the saivites, vaishnava agamas which is

also called the Pancharatra or Samhitas for the vaishnavaites, and lastly the

shakta agamas which is also called tantras for the shaktas.

On the other hand the smarthas are kalpa sutra priests

whose texts include the prasthana treya comprising the upanishads, vedanta

sutras and the bhagavadgita.

Kalpa Sutra

Sutra - 'thread or string'. These texts form the last stage of Vedic

literature, with verses written in very technical language, by different

writers between 500 and 200 BC. These works developed as a result

of the need to simplify the rites and rituals explained in the Brahmanas. These

concise treatises simplify Vedic teachings on rituals and their reasons. They

also simplify the concepts of customary law. They are known as the

"angas" or limbs of the four Vedas, but are considered

smriti. (smirthi is non revealed shastras and has no standing in

Hinduism just like astrology, etc.) It is not shruti. As the name

implies smarthas are followers of the smirthis not shrutis.

There are three known groups of text called sutras:

Shrautasutras, Grihyasutras and Dharmasutras, together known as the Kalpa

Sutra, and are considered attached to the Vedas.

Srauta Sutra gives the details of ceremonies to be

practiced by priests. It contains short passages of instruction for the

performance of the elaborate rituals described in the Vedas. For example, they

explain how to lay the sacrificial fire, or how to perform Chaturmasya

(workmen's guild rules). The Griha Sutras deal with domestic sacrifices and

rites to be performed by the householders (personal ethics of priests). The

Dharma Sutras refer to the customary law and practices.

The jyotisha and kalpa sutras are two of the vedangas,

but are not the vedas itself. By association to the word 'veda' many claim it

to be Vedic. That is incorrect. Followers of kalpa sutras are a class of

*priests* that follow the doctrines of the kalpa sutras and

not the vedas.

In later periods the kalpa sutras resurfaced as the Manu

shastras; householder rules and customary law of the smartha *priesthood*

which was tried to be imposed on the masses, unsuccessfully.

Today smartha priests serve in all agama temples and

abide by the agama rules scrupulously.

Conclusion

The non availability of agama texts in english and other

languages is what led Hinduism to be presented in an unbalanced and distorted

way to the westerners as well as the modern Hindus. The view presented

thus far is that Hinduism is veda centric, sanskrit centric and dharma/varna

centric, is wholly in error. Almost all the writers from Mueller to

Vivekananda to Sivananda and till today wrote based on knowledge of half the

literary traditions and half of the shastric traditions, an incomplete,

unbalanced and less informed view. Of interest to us here is that there is no

varna in the tamil and agama traditions which comprise approximately two-thirds

of Hindu heritage. The proper and balanced presentation of The Agama Religion

would show that Agamism, is universalist and egalitarian.

 

 

Chapter 2

 

 

Agamas versus Vedas

Agamas and Siddhanta, a subject that has been much

neglected or marginalized or obscured - and in a systematic manner - in much of

the popular and scholarly discourse on Hinduism in the English language, where

a depth of understanding that has surprisingly eluded and continues to elude

hundreds of other scholars.

The agamas are written in the sanskrit language but in

the tamil script grantham. One must know both sanskrit and tamil to read the

agamas. This excludes most non tamils. This may explain why the agamas were not

read outside of south India. Imagine the shastras of 95% of Hindus can only be

read by the tamil speakers. So the rest of the Hindus turn to the vedas,

upanishads, puranas and itihasas as it is in devanagiri, and their view of

Hinduism is reflected through that prism. This sums up our Hindu scholars who

for the last two hundred years have presented a distorted and lopsided view of

Hinduism which the masses, especially the english educated, just swallowed.

Most of the published books on Hinduism and itihasas have to be set aside, just

to get a proper perspective of Hinduism today.

The agamas have their own philosophy that overrides the

vedas and upanishads. It deals with worship and siddhanta philosophy, not

societal relationships. The agamas don't deal with samhitas as the vedas has

already comprehensively dealt with it. Additionally the agama being samhita

free enables any bakti hymns to be incorporated in worship rituals. Besides,

agama rituals does not require any samhitas as agama worship (murthis, mantras

and mudras) is comprehensive and complete as it is. Samhitas, music and temple

dancing are ancilliary and may be dispensed with.

The Pancaratras as practiced by

Vaisnavas and expounded in the Narayaniya are Agamic. The Pancaratra agama, for example, acknowledges the

existence of varnas and maybe shows respect to the Vedic tradition, but then

it goes and replaces all the Vedic rituals with non-caste-based rites! The Pancaratras of the Narayaniya stress the

equality of all and do not advocate svadharma. If not for the importance given to svadharma and

varnashramadharma, the Gita would be mostly Pancaratra/Agamic. (Dr. Paul Kekai

Manasala)

Here are some quotes about the origins of the vedas and

agamas taken from the Tirumantiram (circa 200BCE).

GREATNESS

OF VEDAS

 

51: Vedas Proclaim Dharma

No Dharma is, barring what the Vedas say;

Its central core the Vedas proclaim;

And the Wise ones ceased contentious brawls,

Intoned the lofty strains and Freedom's battle won.

52: Truth Of

Maker

Brahma spoke the Vedas, but Himself not the goal supreme;

He spoke the Vedas only the great Maker (Siva) to reveal;

He spoke them for the Holy sacrifices to perform,

He spoke them, the True One to manifest.

53: Moving Mood

In the beauteous Veda, aptly named the Rig,

As the moving mood behind, He (Siva) stood;

In the trembling chant of the Vedic priests He stood,

Himself the Eye of vision Central.

54: Supreme Path

The Holy Path is naught but the Path Supreme,

Who muse on the Lord, Himself the Path Supreme,

As Material-Immaterial, as Guru Divine,

They reach Siva's Pure Path-so Vedantas all declare.

55: One In

Several

Of the One, the Vedas chant in divisions six,

The One who yet in parts divisible does not be,

As divided parts they swam into their ken,

Then upgathered and swelled into the patterned whole.

56: Vedic

Sacrifices

Uncaught in the world's web of woman, song and dance,

Such alone seek the holy sacrifice to perform;

But the unpracticed in austerities do but reach

Desire's Abode, misery to find.

THE

GREATNESS OF THE AGAMAS

57: Agamas From

The Fifth Face Of Siva

The Lord that consorts the blue-hued One

Has the Agamas twenty-five and three;

Bowing low, the six and sixty sought

The Fifth-Faced One the Agamas' deep import to expound.

58: Agamas

Innumerable

The Sivagamas the Lord by Grace revealed;

In number a billion-million-twenty-eight

In them the Celestials the Lord's greatness gloried;

Him, I too shall muse and praise.

59: Agamic

Truths In 18 Languages

In eighteen various tongues they speak

The thoughts which Pandits alone know;

The Pandits' tongues numbering ten and eight

Are but what the Primal Lord declared.

60: Agamas Deep

In Content

The Agamas, the Lord by Grace revealed,

Deep and baffling even to the Gods in Heaven;

Seventy billion-millions though they be;

Like writing on the waters, eluding grasp.

61: Agamas

Revealed

The Infinite revealing the Infinite Vast

Came down to earth, Siva's Dharma to proclaim,

The immortals, then, Him as Nandi adored,

And He stood forth the Agamas articulating.

62: Agamas

Transmitted

From Siva the Infinite to Shakti and Sadasiva,

To Maheswara the Joyous, to Rudra Dev and Brahmisa,

So in succession unto Himself from Himself,

The nine Agamas our Nandi begot.

63: Nine Agamas

The Agamas so received are Karanam, Kamigam,

The Veeram good, the Sindam high and Vadulam,

Vyamalam the other, and Kalottaram,

The Subram pure and Makutam to crown.

64: Import Of

Agamas

Numberless the Sivagamas composed,

The Lord by His Grace revealed;

Yet they know not the wisdom He taught;

Like writing on water, the unnumbered fade.

65: Revealed

Alike In Sanskrit and Tamil

Devoid alike of rain and summer's gift of dew

Even the flashing lake had lost it's vernal bloom

Then did He in Sanskrit and Tamil at once,

Reveal the rich treasure of His Compassion to our Lady Great (Uma).

66: Key To

Mystery Of Life

Life takes its birth, stands preserved awhile,

And then its departure takes; caught

In that momentary wave of flux, Him we glimpse,

The Lord who in Tamil sweet and northern tongue

Life's mystery revealed.

Here are

excerpts from a book by a german scholar published in 1912.

Agamas

versus Vedas: The Seeking for God

Macrocosm vs Microcosm

 

SAIVA SIDDHANTA: An Indian School of Mystical Thought

 

by H.W. Schomerus, translated by Mary Law(2000, 1979)

First Published in 1912 under the German title ‘Der

Saiv Siddhanta’

 

Excerpts:

 

Do most Saivites base their thinking and feeling and

willing on Vedanta, or on Saiva Siddhanta? There is at present no evidence by

which to answer this question…….

 

The author of this book can claim to know only a very

small part of the immense store of Indian riches. He has some knowledge of

Tamil literature, but not of other non-Sanskrit writings, as a well-founded

judgment would require. So he is in no position to decide whether Vedanta is in

fact more influential than Saiva Siddhanta. But he would venture to say that

for southern India the influence of Saivite Vedanta has been underrated. He is inclined to the view that Saiva Siddhanta is (at

least in Tamil-speaking districts) a better key than Vedanta to an understanding

of the Saivite mind……

 

……Saiva Siddhanta is not a single and definite system

of thought, but rather a tendency, within Saivism, which includes several

distinct systems of thought; just as we might speak of a Vedantic tendency

which includes several systems differing on this point or on that…….. (p.4-5)

 

 

The Saivagamas, their Main Authority

 

Like all orthodox Indian schools, the school of Saiva

Siddhanta recognizes the authority of the Vedas, but not as the only authority,

or even the most important one. The Saivagamas stand

next to the Vedas, or even above them, as their scriptural authority. There is no need for us to survey the Vedic writings, as

there is a very substantial literature on this in German. The Saivagamas

require a more detailed treatment, so as to explain the origin and significance

of the Siddhantin schools……. to enable readers to evaluate the statement that

the Saivagamas are a scriptural authority for Saiva Siddhanta.

 

A full treatment of the Agama literature is

unfortunately not possible yet, as so little research has been done on it.

There seem to be two reasons for this. From a sixth-century manuscript of the

Sutasamhita (part of the Skanda Purana) found by Professor Bendall in Nepal,

which discusses the relation of the Vedas to the Agamas, we discover that even

at that early time many did not recognize the authority of the Agamas, and

indeed were hostile to them. Unlike most works, the

Agamas do not emphasise the supremacy of the Brahmins, so the Brahmins may well have opposed them, and certainly

did see to it that they were not widely known.

Many Agamas disappeared, either being destroyed or not copied and circulated;

and anyone familiar with the influence of Brahmins on Indian literature will

readily suppose that their opposition was responsible.

 

It is notable that in southern India the guardian of the wisdom of the Agamas was and is a Saivite

monastery led by non-Brahmins. The

unsympathetic attitude of the Brahmins must, then, have been partly responsible

for the Agamic literature being largely unknown even today.

 

But there is another and more important reason. The

theological representatives of Saiva Siddhanta believe that the Agamas, and the Saiva Siddhanta schools based upon them, lead souls to a still higher stage then do the Upanishads and

Vedanta; on beyond knowledge to mystical experience. Like most mystics, they think the masses cannot climb

that high, or even understand books about it. Only a few elect ones, they

think, are capable and worthy of learning what the Agamas teach. According to

Indian scholars with an English education, many manuscripts of Agamic works

have fallen victim to the fears of monks that these teachings might fall into

the hands of the uninitiated. Instead of being read and studied, they have been

or will be destroyed by insects, as the monasteries have long ceased to be

centres of learning.

 

A few of the Tamil manuscripts based on the Agamas

have now been printed (against opposition) and so made accessible to the public

at large. The detailed commentary on the Sivajnanabodha, the most important

work of Saiva Siddhanta, was only after long and almost futile efforts allowed

to be printed a few years ago, and then only in part (due to ants). A number of

manuscripts that can give valuable information about the Agamas and about the

systems built on them must still lie hidden in the libraries of monasteries,

and there is no immediate hope of their being brought into the light of the

day……

 

….. The word ‘Agama’ means ‘What was handed down’, suggesting that we are dealing with an ancient type of

literature.

 

Legend tells that, after the creation of the world,

Siva taught the twenty-eight Agamas by Srikantharudra to Nandiperuman. This

revelation is supposed to have taken place in Mount Mahendra, i.e. in the

Western Ghats, on the border between Travancore and Tinnevelly districts. D.

Savariroyan, Secretary of the Tamil Archaeological Sociey, is of the opinion

that the Agamas represent the oldest productions of Dravidian

literature; that they were written in prehistoric times in the Dravidian

(Tamil) tongue, that most of them were lost

in the great flood which swept away a large area south of what is now Cape

Comorin, the chief settlement of the old Dravidians; and that some part only of

the old Agama literature was later translated into Sanskrit, and preserved in

that form.

 

This theory is open to question. Perhaps, it is true

in this, that the home of the Agamas is to be looked

for in the Dravidian lands i.e. in southern India. From the south, they seem to

have made their way to the north, and later returned to the south again, where

they helped to expel Buddhism and Jainism,

which had taken a hold in those parts. However, even if we grant that the Agama

literature sprang from Dravidian sources, we must still admit that it fell very

early under the influence of Sanskrit literature. The surviving Agamas, and

their derivative writings, are clearly Sanskritic in character; for the Agamas

themselves are all in Sanskrit, and those derivative systems which are not

written in Sanskrit employ Sanskrit terminology…….. (p.6-8)

 

 

Significance of the Agamas

 

As is already clear, the

Agama literature is closely connected with the Sakta-, Siva-, and

Vaishnava-sects, that is, with the sects most

important in India. This suggests that the

Agamas may open up a perspective on present-day Hinduism, which

study of Vedas and Upanisads has failed to provide. And so many modern Indian scholars would claim.

 

Thus, P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar writes in the

Introduction to his Outlines of Indian Philosophy (Theosophical Publishing

Soceity, Benares and London, 1909), regarding the importance of the Agamas:

 

“Although the Hindu honours the Vedas as eternal,

and, with much pride, calls himself a Vedantist, and has recently resolved to

carry the light of Vedanta to the West, the living relgion of

the Indian today is based on the Agamas,

that is, on the Saiva, Sakta- and Vaisnavagamas …….. Although discussion is for preference based on

snippets of the Upanishads, the actual opinions and religious

beliefs of the Hindu are taken entirely from the Agamas.â€

 

In another part of the book he writes:

 

“The influence of the Agamas or (as they are more usually known) the tantra has become

very deep in Indian life. The living religion of the Hindu of

today is essentially tantric, from Cape Comorin as far as the furthest corner

of Tibet. Even the few genuine Vedic usages that have survived, and which are

thought to stem directly from the Vedas, the Sandhya, have been modified by

adding tantric usages. The Agamas also

influenced considerably the development of Vedanta philosophy. Samkara

was a supporter of the Sakta sects, and his

advaita interpretation of Vedanta, though clearly independent of the Sakta

Agama, is influenced by tantric theories. And Ramanuja, who on Doctor Thibauts’ view presents a less extreme form

of Vedanta, though one closer to the ideas of Badarayana, was a Vaishnavite,

and regarded the Vaishnava Agama as an authority, although he seldom cites it

in support of his exposition. Madhva stands so much under the

influence of the Agamas that his Commentary (on the Vedanta Sutra) is just a

catena of Agamic texts, with a few words put

in here and there to connect them.â€

 

Swami Vivekananda, the

representative of Hinduism at the Congress of Religions in Chicago, gave a

similar judgment at a Congress held in Madras:

 

“As to tantra and its influence, the fact is that

apart from the srouta and smarta rites, all other rituals being observed from

the Himalayas to Cape Comorin are drawn from the tantra, and they dominate the

worship of the Saktas, the Saivites and the Vaishnavites and all the others.â€

 

………. We can’t always be sure that a doctrine found in

the Agama schools really came from the Agamas themselves. And where we do find similar teaching in the Upanishads,

or in Nyaya, Samkhya, Yoga, etc., we still can’t work out which came earlier……..

 

Vedic religion is mainly magic. The Vedic minstrels sought to placate

the gods (who were personifications of natural forces) by offerings of ghee or

soma. The sacrifices were cast into the fire, which they regarded as the mouth

of the gods, spiced with mantras or magic incantations. Many of the mantras

were hymns of praise to the gods, but others were mere sound-combinations with

no meaning, or inarticulate sounds ‘like the sound of the bull’……..

Seeking God in

the microcosm

versus

Seeking God in the macrocosm

 

Seeing gods behind the forces of nature, they saw

them also behind the spoken mantra and the powers of the soul, and identified

these with the forces of nature, and finally gathered them together into Brahma, which the priest understood as the mantra (prayer) and

the philosopher read as the soul of man………. This tendency in the literature of

ancient India to seek God in the soul (the microcosm), and to worship him there produced the literature of the Upanishads, and reached its classic conclusion in the school of

Vedanta, which sought God identifying the soul with God. But not every Indian thinker went looking for God within

himself. Many continued to seek him in the macrocosm, his

creation; in the forces of nature, which had led to the notion of gods, and to

the idea of God. The attempt to understand

all Being as a unity…. meant they could not rest content with

the forces of nature, as the Vedic singers did, but drove on to seek an ultimate cause

behind the many forces of nature, i.e. a natural force from which all the

others derived, as from a mother. This one natural force, called Sakti, they

then took for God. But as they did not find him there, any more than in the

soul, they either took the Sakti as the immanent aspect of a hidden

transcendent God (in myth, as the female

aspect of divinity), or else just identified it with God. This

tendency to seek God in the macrocosm found expression and champion in the Agama

literature, and it lived on in the

philosophical schools based on them. And it is here that the real significance

of the Agama literature is to be found.

 

Some Indologists are familiar only with the development from Vedas to

Upanishads, and look to understand all of Hindu speculation on that basis. For them Idealism (God in the soul) is the essence of Hinduism, Samkara’s

Vedanta is inevitably taken as its classic expression: more they cannot see. But Indian speculation has not all fallen prey to man-defying

Idealism, though it is often so represented. Over the last

thousand years a great number of sects have developed, sharing one point

despite all their differences: they reject out-and-out idealism, and take the

macrocosm as their starting-point. Scholars

accustomed to tracing all Hindu speculation back to the ideas and initiatives

of the Upanishads cannot with the growth of all these sects. Unable to

accommodate them as off-shoots of the Upanishads, they treat them as revolts

against genuine Hinduism, and brand them as apostate; or else trace them back

to non-Indian and even to Christian influences. But

this whole puzzle about the development of these anti-Vedantic,

(no, anti-idealistic) sects and schools disappears

once we bring the Agama literature to bear on our study of Indian thought……. (p.13-17)

 

 

HILEO WIARDO SCHOMERUS (1879 â€" 1945) was Professor of

Religions and Mission Studies at Halle University.

Chapter 3

 

Hinduism has

nothing to do with the Vedas

It may seem hard to believe but Hinduism as it is known

and practised today has almost nothing to do with the vedas. Rather, Hinduism

is entirely based on the Agamas. Not only that, the Agamas prevailed in India

before the rise of vedic rites. The vedas came later.

By extension Hinduism has nothing to do with the puranas,

Mahabharata and Ramayana too. There are myths in Hinduism but those myths are

contained in the Agamas. The Agamas have their own myths about the

gods, and do not rely on the puranic myths at all. Agamic myths are

different from puranic myths on the same stories. For instance the birth of

Lord Ganesha, where it is stated that Lord Siva and Uma took the form

of elephants and created Ganesha out of love, which is entirely

different from the puranic and Mahabharata version.

None of this is new except that Hindus, educated by

english/western books and find it hard to digest the historical truth, but

rather keep parroting that the vedas and upanishads are the source and pinnacle

of Hinduism. How little they know!

The erroneous, but prevalent popular notion is that the

Agamas ultimately derived from the Vedas or are an amplification of it. This is

usually said to find comfort. But the fact is the

Agamas preceded the Vedas. It does not derive

from the vedas nor does it amplyfy anything from the vedas. The agamas has it's

own philosophy. Hinduism, consisting of Saivism, Vaishnavism and Saktism,

comprising practically 98% of the Hindus, whether they know it

or not, abide by the philosophy of the agamas, and not that of the upanishads.

Where does that leave the vedas, upanishads, puranas,

Mahabharata, Bhagavadgita, and Ramayana? At best as unrelated supplemental

readings. These supplementary texts have nothing to do with the

temples, festivals, sacraments or the philosophy, which is the core of the

religious and spiritual life of the Hindu. Along with it, all of its teachings

and philosophy, including varna. For there is no varna

in the Agamas!

It is better to hold the view that the Agamas, and the

vedas with its related texts the upanishads, puranas, itihasas and comentaries,

were two parallel and independent streams with much

conformity and similarity, and except that the Veda stream

was eventually replaced completely by the Agama stream. What exists today

is the Agama tradition, with the Veda tradition only in name.

Here are excerpts from a book.

History of the Tamils from the earliest times to

600 A.D.

P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar

http://books.google.com/books?id=ERq-OCn2cloC & printsec=frontcover & dq=P.T.+Srinivasa+Iyengar

Chapter 8

Nearly thirty years ago, I pointed out in my

Outlines of Indian philosophy that the religion that is practised today by the Hindus is almost entirely based on the Agamas and has little

or nothing to do with the Vedas. The vaidika

cult began to decay after the war of the

Mahabharata and has today almost died out. The greater part of the Srauta karma is entirely gone;

only a few elementary rites such as Agni adhana, a much simplified Vajapeya,

Garuda cayana and Somayaga are sporadically performed by a handful of people. The

Smartha karma is also fast dying out, so

that judged by the rule that the family of a brahmana whose members have

neglected to tend the holy fire for three generations loses its

brahmana status, extremely few families can be regarded as true brahmana ones.

...the Agama is technically the name and the Vedas was

well understood in ancient days, when the Agamika cults were

the rivals of the Vaidika cults; but as the two have now become

amalgamated for several centuries, the distinction between them is not

realised by the moderns, all the more so as the theory is now

prevalent that the Agamas are ultimately derived from the Vedas and do

but contain amplifications of the vedic teachings or rather adaptations of them

to suit the modern age.

The Agamika methods of worship being entirely fire-less

and not being accompanied by the recitation of Vedic mantras must have been

developed from the Dasyu rites. The Dasyu rites certainly prevailed throughout

India, in the south and in the north, before the rise of

Vedic rites.

Now with regard to the rites. the Vaidika rites are fire

rites. For each rite a fire has to be lighted and intensified into a flame and

on the flame the oblations have to be poured. The Agamika rites are fire-less; the

oblations have to be merely exhibited to the object of worship (icon) and then

taken away. In the former the oblations is consumed by the gods,

because it is thrown into the fire; in the latter the worshipper loses nothing

of his offerings because the god can take up only the subtle and unseen

parts, so the worshipper consumes it himself and distributes it to his

relations and friends.

But the main part of of the Agamika rites consist in the

repetition of the numerous names of the gods worshipped with the phrase 'namah'

(I bow) added. The essence of the Vaidika rites is the pouring of oblations,

but that of the Agamika is upacara, washing, decking and

feeding the god, in fact showing him all the attentions due to a human guest or

human king.

Hence in the Vaidika rite no physical representation or

representative of the deity worshipped was necessary, visible fire representing

all the gods; in the Agamika rites the only deity worshipped had to be

represented by some visible emblem being a fetish, a tool, such as a sword or

club, a living or dead tree, a stone, a running stream, a linga, a salagrama or

above all, a picture, or a statue of the deity in brick and mortar, a stone or

metal, made in the shape assigned to him by his worshippers.

The culmination.....of the Vaidika...is Jnana.... 'it is by

knowing him that (one) becomes immortal here, there is no other path for going

(to him)'. The culmination of the Agama way is Bakti. The worship of

the gods is but a copy of the methods of the worship of men - chiefly gurus and

kings.

 

Chapter 4

 

 

 

The Saivagamas

The

Tamils/South Indians invented grantha to write sanskrit, which is an earlier

script than nagari. And grantha was the forerunner to the evolving and

current Tamil script. In other words, a Tamil person two thousand years ago

simply by learning the grantha script could read and write tamil and sanskrit!

One script, two languages. As the vast majority of Hindu

shastras is written in grantha no one can truly claim to be a Hindu scholar if

he does not know the agamas.

As the

Agamas are monotheistic, Hinduism has to be decribed as a monotheistic religion

only.

There are 28

saivagamas, 215 vaishnava agamas and 77 sakta agamas. Each agama has an upa

agama. This article deals with the 28 Saiva Agamas, considered the original

agamas.

The

Saivagamas

by M.

Arunachalam,

Prof. Tamil University of Tanjavur

The Agamas,

though they constitute an equally large body of ancient Sanskrit source

material for a different concept of the same advaita philosophy of Vedanta,

have not been studied by any Orientalist; indeed they have not been studied at

all or studied in depth even by any Indian scholar except perhaps Dr.

Surendranatha Das Gupta (October 1885 - December 1952) of Calcutta, even under

the great handicap of the grantha script.

The agamas had

existed mostly in South India, in the Tamilnad, in palm leaf manuscript book

form in the homes of the Sivachariyas who had been entrusted with the duty of

organizing and performing the consecration and the congregational worship

(parartha puja) in the Siva temples for probably over two millennia and a half.

These Agamas are not available in north India to the extent they are available

in the south, although they had been responsible for the culture of the

whole of India. Dr. Das Gupta has stated that "No

Agama manuscript of any importance is found even in Banaras, the greatest

center of Hindu religion, Sanskrit studies and culture."

Besides,

all the Agamas manuscripts are available only in the grantha script, one which

had been invented by the Tamil people for writing their Sanskrit scriptures

more than fifteen hundred years ago. There is also a view that the

grantha was the script used when the Vedas were reduced to writing and that the

new nagari script came into vogue when the Vedic language gave place to

classical Sanskrit (Samskrt well constructed); in other words, grantha

script was much earlier than the nagari script. This grantha script was not in

use in the north, and the devanagari script of the north was unknown in the

south till the beginning of the twentieth century. It is too much to

expect Western Orientalists first of all to known of the existence of two

scripts for Sanskrit, and then to study two scripts for one language;

their study was confined to the devanagari script which was in use over a much

larger area of India and in the north.

It has been said

that the Upanishads and the Agamas branched off from the same stem, namely the

Vedas, and that the two dealt with the theory and the practice of philosophic

thought respectively. The general assumption that the Agamas deal only

with temples and temple worship is wrong. The Agamas consist of four

parts of which Kriya dealing with temple construction and rituals is one, and

jnana dealing with philosophy is another. They are as much

philosophic treatises as any other treatises like the Upanishads. The

Agamas are encyclopaedic in their treatment of all subjects pertaining to the

religious life of the worshipper and to the temple.

The Saiva Agamas

are some of the earliest books in the Sanskrit language on the Saiva religion

and philosophy, written over a period of several centuries before the Christian

era. They represent an independent class of writing by very early seers

who had an inward experience and enlightenment from the Supreme Being, Siva,

and who were also perhaps influenced by the Vedas in their original form. These

seers have to be considered as hailing from the South and not from the North.

But they were essentially representatives of all India and they reflected in

their thoughts, modes of meditation and worship, in their writing, and in their

very lives, the inherent theism of the South.

The Agamas claim

Vedic authority for their doctrines. The Agama doctrines are indeed theistic,

and such theism is not foreign to the Upanishads. The following Agamic passages

may be seem to affirm the derivation of the Agamas from the Vedas:

"The

siddhanta (agama) consists of the essence of the Veda." (Suprabhedagama)

"This

tantra (agama) is of the essence of the Veda. This siddhanta (agama) knowledge

which is the significance of Vedanta is supremely good."

(Mukutagama)

(Note: agama,

tantra and siddhanta means the same thing and is used interchangeably.)

The Agamas are

deemed to have scriptural authority and are often callled the Veda and the

Fifth Veda. As a matter of fact, the Sanskrit Nighantu (lexicon) names the Veda

as the Nigama, and the Tantra as the Agama. The Veda and the Agama both seem to

have been denoted by the common term sruti up to the 11th century, after which

period the above distinction of Nigama and Agama seems to have been adopted.

Swami Prajnanananda, quoted by Sir John Wooddroffe, has clearly established

that the Agamic (tantric) texts, as we known them today, had for the

most part preceded Buddhism, and only the Agamic cult had been able gradually to

swallow up Buddhism on the Indian sub-continent, and ultimately to banish it

altogether from the Indian soil; it was not the Upanishadic philosophy but the

Agamic cult that was responsible for the supplanting of Buddhism and for the

fusion of its salient features into the core of the Hindu religion.

This is a very important and pertinent observation deserving the careful

attention of all scholars.

The four parts

of the Agamas are likened to the four parts of the Vedas, namely the mantra

part or stotras comparable to charya of the Agamas, the brahmanas dealing with

rituals comparable to kriya, the aranyaka part analogous to the yoga, and the

Upanishad or philosophy part equivalent to the vidya or jnana pada of the

Agamas. It should be noted that the Agamas have their own mantras for all their

kriyas. They employ vedic mantras only for the stotra part. (In this sense that

one can say Agamas have alsmost completely replaced the Vedas as the basis of

current day Hinduism in India.)

Exponents of the

Agamas would go further and say that the Supreme of Saivism, Siva, is mentioned

in the Vedic terms such as the following:

Isa vasyam idam

sarvam.

Yah parah sa mahesvarah.

Sarve vai Rudrah.

Ambika pataye Umapataye.

Yo vai Rudras sa Bhagavan Bhurbhuvas suvah.

Tasmai namas tasmai tva jushtam

niyurajmi yasmai namas tat Sivah.

Haraya Rudraya Sarvaya Sivaya

Bhavaya Maha devaya Ugraya.

(All the names

mentioned in the last lines are the specific mantra names of Siva.)

Pasupataya

Rudraya Sankaraya Isanaya Svaha.

Siva ido dhyeyah, Sivam daras sarvam anyat parityajya.

Yada charmavat akasam veshtayishyanti manavah

Tada Sivam avijnaya duhkasyanto bhavishyati.

The Bharga sabda

in the Gayatri mantra (Bharhgo devasya dhimahi) is considered to refer to Siva.

Besides, the introduction of Sri Uma in the Kenopanishad explicity

enunciates the Saiva Siddhanta doctrine that ignonance can be dispelled only

with the bestowal of Siva's Grace which is personified as Sakti or

Uma.

Sa tasminneva

akase striyam ajagama,

bahu sobhamanam Umah, Haimavatim.

The

Kaivalyopanishad, one of the early Upanishads, claimed by many to be of the

Advaitic or Vedanta school, has the following lines (sloka 7):

Tam Aadi

madhyanta vihinam Ekam Vibhum

Chidanandam Arupam Adbhutam

Uma sahayam Paramesvaram Prabhum

Trilochanam Nilakantham Parsaantam.

The

Narada Parivrajakopanishad is a large Upanishad having nine upadesas of which

the eight deals with the Pranava. In the second sloka we find a phrase

'Sarvagamayas-Sivah'. Though the Upanishad could not have been one of the early

Upanishads, yet the mention of the Agama here as the form of Siva is

significant. The terms agama, tantra, siddhanta and

mantra are found used synonymously in many Agamic writtings.

The Saivagama is

also a general term applied to four different schools; the Saiva, Pasupata,

Soma and Lakula. Of these, the Saiva is said to have had three branches : Vama,

Dakshina and Siddhanta. Kapala, Kalamukha, Agora are all contained in the Vama

branch. The Dakshina branch includes Kashmir Saiva darshanas, Svachanda Bhairavam,

etc., making up a total of 18 Agamas. The Siddhanta branch has 28 Agamas, and

this article concerns with these 28 only.

The definition

of Siddhanta often quoted by writers may be given here :

"Siddhanta

nama yah parikshakaih bahu vitam parikshya

hetubhih sadayitva stapyate nurnayah sa siddhantah"

"That

which stands many tests and is finally established is the Siddhanta."

Gautama nyaya

sutram, 1.26

The 28 Saiva

Agamas are said to have been revealed from all the five faces of Siva. The

first four taught five Agamas each, while the last, Isana, gave rise to eight.

The Sadyojata

face revealed the Kamika, Yogaja, Cintya, Karana and Ajita. These were taught

to Kausika Rishi.

The Vamadeva face gave rise to Dipta, Sukshuma, Sahasra,

Amsumat and Suprabheda, and taught them to Kasyapa Rishi.

The Aghora face revealed Vijaya, Nisvasa, Svayambhuva, Agneya

(or Anala) and Vira, and

gave them to sage Bharadvaja.

The Tatpurusha gave rise to Raurava, Mukata, Vimala,

Chandrajnana and Mukhabimba (or

Bimba), and taught them to Sage Gautama.

The Isana face revealed Prodgita, Lalita, Siddha, Santana,

Sarvokta, Parameswara, Kirana

and Vatula to Sage Agastya.

Note:

Manikkavasagar accepts this tradition. He says that Siva revealed the Agamas

from the Mahendra hill from his five faces: Tiruvasagam 2, lines 19, 20.

From the volumn

of writing under each head; chariya, kriya, yoga and jnana, it can be clearly

seen that the emphasis of the Agamas was equally on the jnana and the kriya

parts; that is, both the philosophical and the ritualistic aspects. The Agamas

accept the Veda and build upon it. The Vedanta may be termed the basis for the

Agamic philosophy.

The kriya pada

considers not the individual man alone but considers man in society.

It has a concern and involvement in the community around. The temple is an

outward expression of this concern. Congregational worship, besides

festivals, is the one great force that holds together society without

disintegrating and the kriya pada lays down an elaborate code therefore which

is both emotional and artistic, and rational at the same time.

It is

this activity that has held together the Hindu society through so may centuries

when alien cultures and religions bombarded it through political and economic

impact. The kriya pada is in essence considered to be parallel to if

not identical with the yajnas of the Vedas.

But there are

several other equally important subjects which are also dealt with extensively.

As an instance, we may mention temple architecture. The details of temple

construction here given are beyond what an excellent modern architect

can dream of. Other allied subjects dealt with here are sculpture,

iconography, construction of the temple car, geology, horticulture, astronomy,

town planning, home science, water supply, health and hygiene, food and many

others. In short, we may say no area of human activity of the period about

2,000 years back has been left out.

The charya pada

deals with the daily observance and the personal discipline of the worshippers.

The purificatory ceremonies for the individual from the time of his birth, the

dikshas (initiations), the ultimate funeral rites and similar other ceremonies

are described here.

India,

particularly Tamilnad in South India, has an unbroken tradition in culture,

civilization and religion which has been continuing for several thousand years.

India is probably the only country which has retained the pristine character of

its ancient culture and civilization unbroken to this day. Even here, the North

of India has fared badly under successive onslaughts of invasions and cultures,

but it is agreed on all hands that the South has preserved its culture almost

intact; onslaughts have been fewer, less devastating, less disintegrating and

less powerful here. We would say that the Agamas, through their prescription of

spiritual goals for man, have served as the sentinels of the ancient culture.

The French

Institute of Indology, Pondichery, which has been able to gather in whole or in

parts, 28 principle Agamas so far (according to its Editor, Sri N. R. Bhatt)

and 45 of the Upagamas.

The publication

of 2 Agamas and 3 Upagamas: Raurava and Ajita Agama, and Matanga, Kalottara and

Mrgendra Upagama in the nagari script in the recent years by the French

Institute of Indology, Pondichery, under the able and dedicated guidance of the

late Dr.. Filliozat and Professor N. R. Bhat had brought the Agamas again into

focus.

Ref:

'The Saivagamas' by M. Arunachalam,

Prof. Tamil University of Tanjavur

Associate, Dharmapuram Aadheenam

Associate, Kasi Mutt

http://books.google.com/books?id=xnQbAAAAIAAJ & q=the+saivagamas & dq=the+saivagamas & pgis=1

Since then the

Makuta, Chandrajnana and Parameshvara Agama have also been published under the

auspices of a Math in Karnataka. The rest of the agamas and upagamas are

unpublished and only available in the grantha script.

The rishis who

received the agamas were Kausika, Kasyapa, Bharadvaja, Gautama and Agastya.

Please note that these are all rig vedic rishis, therefore the rig veda

and the agamas could not have been revealed at vastly different times,

nor can the veda and agama although independent, be different in philosophy,

nor can Brahman and Siva be different. The same persons authored the vedas and

agamas. Hence we must conclude that the vedas and agamas, while being independent,

speaks of the same Gods and the same teachings. Scholars should take note of

this in dating texts and temple worship. How can one then say the vedas is not

agamic, is not saivite? And vice versa.

As shown

elswhere, clearly Agni, Vishnu, Soma, Manyu, VIsvadevas, Maruts, even Indra,

and several others have been directly identified with God Rudra. Perhaps maybe

the only question is that only Rudra, Agni and Vishnu have been addressed in

the very honorific title of 'Bhagavan', in the process putting them supremely

ahead of all other vedic devatas.

In the southern

tamil tradition, Siva was referred to as Kadavul (trancendent-Immanent One),

Iraivan and Mukkanan (Three Eyed), Vishnu as Maal or Tirumal, Skanda as Muruga

and Ceyon (Red Lord), and Krishna as Thuvaraik Koman (king of Dwaraka. The

names are indicate of their nature and status in society.

There is another

tradition, that Siva revealed the agamas to Parvati and Nandi. Parvati in turn

revealed it to Lord Muruga. Nandi revealed it to his 8 disciples; Tirumular,

Patanjali, Vyaghrapada, Sanatkumar, Sivayogamuni, Sanakar, Sanadanar and

Sanandanar. The reason I am mentioning this tradition is that it is curious

that Rishi Nandi, who is also the guru of Vashishta, hailed from the

Himalayas [north Indian?], whereas all his disciples were south Indians,

and are vedic rishis themselves. How did they communicate and write?

We are all

familiar with the mantras and strotras corresponding with the 5 faces of Siva.

Most importantly, here we see with clarity that the tatpurusha mantras

(tatpurushaya vidmahe...) refer to Siva, and again here we see that the

original (tat or 'that') purusha is Siva., tying Him straight to the Rig Veda,

Purusha hymns and the Purusha Sukta.

Additionally,

Vishvamitra, the grand author of the gayatri mantras in the rig veda is also

the author of the Triyambaka mantra (aum triyambakam yajamahe). Clearly he

identifies the Three Eyed Lord as the granter of moksha. That, in my view,

makes all the gayatri mantras saivite, as is Vishvamitra and Vashista. The

same rishi cannot be meaning different Beings in different sutras and in

different texts.

Here are the

comments from the Intro to the Kamika Agama by M. Arunachalam.

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/agamas/

http://tinyurl.com/9qjan

"....the practical and living religion of the Hindus to

whatever denomination they may belong, is governed, as pointed out by Swami

Vivekananda, from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin by the Agamas only. For

the information of the ignorant and the biased it has to be

explained here that in point of chronology the Agamas are as

ancient as the Vedas and they are both acknowledged as Divine Revalation

from from the mouth of God. The vastness of Saivagamas (28 original saiva

agamas and 207 upagamas) - their slokas reckoned traditiolally at many lakhs...

The difference and distinction between the Vedas and the Agamas are that while

the Vedas spoke of many Gods and of one Brahman, the Agamas are out and

out monotheistic and their ontology is no less profound.

Later Saints

like Tirumular in his Tirumandram which is considered to be the essence of the

Agamas and Manikavachagar and Nammalvar (both Saiva and Vaisnava) and scholars

like Haradatta, Srikantha, Siva-grayogin Sivajnanaswani and Appaya Dikshita

have looked upon Vedas as common and the Agamas as specific as the latter

are for all irrespective of caste and sex that yearn for the descent

of the Grace of Siva.

Agamas are

common to the three prominent schools and they are called Agama in

Saivism, Samhita in Vaishnavism and Tantra in Saktiism.

The thousands of

temples in this country are standing monuments to the prevalence of the agamic

cult from the ages past down to the present day.

The agamic cult

which was that of the generality of the people and the Vedic cult which was

that of the priestly classes, officiating for themselves or for others, both

indigeneous, they existed and grew up side by side without extraneous influence

from the outside, the distinction between the two was in no sense racial.

The Theism of the

south or rather, the Saivism of tie Tamilians, was the growth of an unbroken

tradition probably from the pre-historic past and this had three

elements fused into it. These are worship of idols and images,

both in the shrines throughout the land and in the devotees own houses,

symbolism, and the inward meditation and realisation. These

three were not separate compartments but basically one harmonious integrated

whole.

When the

Upanisads were added on to the Vedas in the course of the later centuries, they

could not but be influenced by the religion and philosophy flourishing around

them. These naturally embody a considerable volume of the thought of the agamic

scholars, because some of the early Agamas were earlier than these later

Upanisads in point of time and the Agamas were much more alive and vibrating

with life and activity than the Upanisads, because they dealt with definite and

concrete objects, while the others dealt only with abstract concepts. The very

fact that some later Upanisads came to be written shows that the followers of

the original Upanisads had to take note of agamic thoughts and, to bring them

also into a single common fold, adopted the device of writing further

Upanisads, to embrace fresh thought on the same subject. The Saiva Upanisads

such as Brhadjabala did certainly come into existence a long time after the

Agamas."

 

The

Agamas Are Pre-Buddhist

"....To

bring a harmony between these two contesting movements, the calvinistic

doctrine, the doctrine of grace and the Chosen man appears in the Hindu scene

and we come to the age of Agamas. All agamas claim that they are all

God-inspired and all of them claim their origin to God himself. To the

Saivas they are the earliest revealed works in the Sanskrit Language on their

religion and Philosophy. Since Tirumoolar (2nd century A.D.) mention nine Saiva

Agamas by name (Thirumantiram. Samya Ed. 63) we may assume that those Agamas

were written a long time before him. The Pidagagama is the

name giben to the Buddhist Scripture Tripidaga. This came into existence

immediately after the Buddha attained Nirvana. The nomenclature of the Buddhist

religious treatise was obviously taken from the then existing Saiva treatises.

Hence we may conclude that the Saiva Agamas were in existence before

the 6th century B.C.

M.

GNANAPIRAGASAM

Former Principal, Parameswara College Jaffna.

 

Where

there are temples, there are agamas. A sumerian king visited and

endowed a temple in Gujarat in 940 BCE. Neminatha is mentioned in

the vedas as a rishi.

Nebuchadnazzar

I visited Jain temple of Neminatha

The literary

evidence seems to be supported by an epigraphic evidence. In Kathiawar, a

copper plate has been discovered on which there is an inscription. The king

Nebuchadnazzar (940 B. C.) who was also the lord of

Reva-nagara (in Kathiawar, Gujarat) and who belonged to Sumer tribe, has come

to the place (Dwarka) of the Yaduraja. He has built a temple and paid homage

and made the grant perpetual in favour of Lord Neminatha, the paramount deity

of Mt. Raivata. This inscription is of great historical importance. The king

named Nebuchadnazzar was living in the 10th century B. C. It

indicates that even in the tenth century B.C. there was the worship of

the temple of Neminatha the 22nd. Tirthankara of the Jains. It

goes to prove the historicity of Neminatha. Thus, there seems to be little

doubt about Neminatha as a historical figure but there is some difficulty in

fixing his date. He is said to be the contemporary of Krishna the hero of

Mahabharata.

 

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Neminatha

Nebuchadnazzar

(940 B. C.) was Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon and not Nebuchadnezzar II of

Babylon mentioned in Bible.

 

Chapter 5

 

 

 

Ajita Agama

The Ajita Agama

happens to be one of the first of any agama that has been fully translated into

English and French. This agama calls itself the Ajita Mahatantra or

'The Great Tantra of the Unconquered'. Ajita is a name of Siva.

The agamas deals

with temples, pujas, home shrines, temple festivals, life to death sacraments,

dikshas, etc - in short our religion in full. We only use the vedas for the

mantras and the bakti literature for hymns to be sung in temples and homes. The

Hindu religion would be better described as the Agama Religion, Agamism or

Tantrism rather than 'Hinduism', Vedic religion, or the self-patronising

'sanatana dharma'. Hopefully this word usage catches on, as it makes an impact

and captures the fleeting Hindu mind, because what we want is manuals on belief

and worship and not speculations. A reading of this agama tells us what all

other agamas would be like and hopefully the agamas would be widely studied and

quoted after this.

There are 28

saiva agamas and more than 207 upagamas. The agamic worldview is

reproduced in the temple; God is king, the temple is his home, and we

are its subjects. In the temple, the king is replaced by the Supreme

God. This agama is dated 10-12th century (although the oral tradition goes back

much further) and it refers to Bharata's teachings on music and dance. The

language of the agama is classical sanskrit and in verse form. Agama and tantra

both means the same thing and is used intercheangeably. Tantra is

explained as 'that which gives liberation to souls' (1.115)

The first

chapter talks of how the tantras (agamas) came to be. The Ajita is a dialogue

between Rudra the teacher to Vishnu the questioner and disciple. It is a

saasana, command, order, or instructions on worship.

The second

chapter talks of creation, the relationship of Siva to the other gods, and how

exactly the gods are one and the same, yet different murthis (forms). The origin

of the Linga is traced in the Ajita to the primordial times when The

Unknown appeared as a column of Fire to Brahma and Vishnu. That is

related here in chapter two. The Unknown is now identified as Sadasiva.

The relationship

of the gods is as follows:

Siva emanated Sadasiva as a hypostasis substate. Sadasiva then

emanated Mahesvara as a hypostasis substate. Mahesvara then emanated Rudra who

emanated Vishnu, who emanated Brahma. All these forms are an hypostasis

substate of the one and the same Being. Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra are

the three major hypostasis of Sadasiva, and all three share the Linga

as residence. Rudra is the upper part of the linga, Vishnu is the

middle part and Brahma is the lower part. Shakti is the pedestal, sockle or

peetha. Therefore three hypostasis is worshipped in the Linga. It is therefore

not correct to say that Brahma worship has disappeared entirely.

Because they are

hypostasis substates, to say that Vishnu is Siva is correct, to say that Shakti

is Siva is correct, to say that Vishnu created the world is correct, likewise

the other dieties. In the same way our soul pervades and animates our physical

body, in that same way our soul is animated by Brahma, who is animated by

Vishnu, who is animated by Rudra, who is animated by Mahesvara, who emanated

from sadasiva, which emanated from siva.

It is those who

are not familiar with this understandings that create unnecessary rivalries,

besides the different usage of terminology and names compounds the misunderstandings.

That said, there are the different saiva, vaishnava and shakta agamic

traditions, each of which must be fully observed as that tradition dictates,

without any dilution or mishmashing. The agamas commands it. The Ajita is a full and complete singular stand alone document,

and any temple can be based on just this one agama only, without referring to

other agamas. By this one agama alone, Hinduism in its fullness can be

perpetuated for eternity.

Sivalinga

The Ajita

clearly mentions the linga is a 'sign' (cihna) of Sadasiva. There

is no sexual connotations to the Linga, no sexual symbolism, as the translator

himself vouches, that it is a 'serious error'. The Linga is clearly

distinguished from all other figurative forms called murthis. Murthis

are emanation of Mahesvara, just like Vishnu and Rudra.

The

amorphic linga represents the sat-asat whereas the anthropomorphic other

dieties represent the Personal gods. Wherever the linga is

present, that place becomes a temple, and the central garbha, and all other

dieties becomes the entourage dieties. Those are the rules. One cannot

have a temple and have the linga as a surrounding entourage diety, even if it

is, say, Nataraja or Dakshinamurthi as the main murthi, as it makes no sense.

This agama makes a clear distinction between murthis and the linga. The

linga is not a murthi; its a sign, mark, emblem, of the the supreme. So

we have the linga, and murthis - both of which are worshipped in Hinduism. To

take note that Siva is not sat-asat (manifest-nonmanifest) whereas Sadasiva is

sat-asat. Therefore Siva cannot be represented by anything, not even a

sign. However nobody takes the trouble to make these kinds of

distinctions in casual discussions.

In philosophy

the Ajita is thoroughly monistic and theistic. Siva is the efficient and

material cause. Creation is real. It is His emanation. Only the Real emanates

from the Real. There is arising from, and merging back into.

Very little is

mentioned of devotees but only mentioned as yajamana or kartar. Puja

is explained as 'to honor'. In the vedic religion, the

specialists are the brahmins, the authors of the kalpa sutras. In the agamas,

the specialists refers to gurukal, acharya or desika, not brahmins.

However it mentions that the desikar lets the brahmins chant some mantras

during certain times. The desikars does not bother to chant it but conduct the

puja while the chanting goes on.

Women

are mentioned in the service of the temple; as rudrayatanayosit, meaning 'slaves

of Siva' who are responsible for the preparation of the wicks, oiling,

lighting the lamps and transport of the lamps on their heads for the nocturnal

waving of lights (aaraatrika). Thus women have a part to play in the temple

duties, apart from dancers and musicians, which the Ajita

mentions too.

There is no

mention of any mantra in the Ajita. It refers to and uses vedic mantras for all

its rituals. It simply says, use this or use that mantra without reproducing it

at all, indicating that the desika is fully familiar with vedic mantras. Yet it

transforms all vedic mantras into tantric mantras by the inclusion of aum, bija

mantras (ham, aim, haum, klim, etc), namah and svaha.

There is

mention of the four varnas in the Ajita but as the translator says, it is

suspected to be a later interpolation. Other thirteen whole chapters

have been excluded from this edition of the Ajita, as they have been confirmed

to be interpolations. Such is an indication of the alterations that

have been made to hindu shastras.

In 89 chapters

comprising 10,000 slokas, making it equal to the four

vedas in volume, the Ajita deals with the following;

creation,

relationship between Siva and the Gods, how the tantras came about, the natue

of Siva, how the linga came about, meaning of linga, types and characteristics

of the linga, materials used in making, selection of temple sites, earthworks,

worshipping the site-spirit, installing the sundial-gnomon, placing the first

bricks, temple sizes and characteristics, wall base, pillars, pedestal,

depositing materials in the garbha, installing the linga, ablutions, homas,

waving of lights, daily pujas, mudras, abhisegam, milk ablution, substances to

be used in pujas, temple pavilions, entourage shrines, installing icons of

various gods, circumnambulation, diksha, temple chariot, renovation, purification

rites, atonement of faults, pacification of portends, removal of decaying

lingas and murthis, swing, krritika and gauri festival, installation of

ganesha, skanda, sastha, trident, tower dieties, kestrapala, visnu, sarasvati,

surya, durga, jyestha, candesa, brahma, bull, rudra-narayana, installation of

murthis of deceased devotees, festivals and sacraments.

It contains

charts (snapana), diagrams, illustrations, of mudras and kumdams, measurements

and utensils. Thus we see that the Ajita is a manual for priests, temple

architects (stapatis) and sculptors (silpis). Chapters 3-89 does not concern

the rest of us.

Let us hear what

the Ajita Mahatantra says. Quotes from the Ajita Agama:

1.26

The supreme is taught as being the siva and designated by the word brahman.

That which is made of the sabda-brahman is traditionally known as sadasiva.

Note: Sadasiva

is akin to what we know as satchitadanda or saguna brahman, which is sat-asat.

Siva is neither sat-asat, He is nirguna or parabrahman. From this sat-asat arose

Mahesvara (Paramesvara), then Rudra, Vishnu and Brahma who are Personal Dieties

whereas Sadasiva is impersonal.

1.27-30

The pranava (is) will be directly the body of Sadasiva, O Janardana.

The god of gods, sadasiva is the cause of everything. The supreme Siva is

established as his cause, and is told to be supreme, as his nature is beyond

mind and speech. Therefore that which is the (material) cause is traditionally

known here as only Siva. Sadasiva is the agent, sustainer and supreme Lord.

From him is born Mahesvara from whom I, Rudra (am born). From me you (are born)

and from you Brahman, the grandfather of the world.

1.31-33

Having thus arisen (samutpanna) from (supreme Siva), this eternal

root-diety (muladeva) Lord Sadasiva, extending his grace to Mahesa and other

Lords of the world, thus ready to realise the properity of the whole world,

through us, bearing five faces, with five mouths uttered the whole mass of

books, vedas, etc.

Note: the

reference to 'arisen', one emanating/arising from the other. Also note the

reference to root-diety indicating all dieties arise/emanate from him. The

reason for creation is suggested here.

1.115

It spreads (tan) the vast subject matter based on essences and formula;

it gives salvation (traa) to souls; therefore it is called tantra.

2.1-2

Only that one who is Siva, superior to all, stable, supreme soul, great

lord, whose form is existence, consciousness and felicity, who is free from

existence and non existent manifestations (sat-asat), who is all pervading,

only him is named by the sages with the word brahman.

2.13-17

This Lord (Siva) is all that. There is nothing different from him. He

is the material cause, the mahat and the ahamkara, the tanmatras of sound,

touch,....the five (elements) earth, ....etc with the soul, raga, maya, vidya,

kala, niyati, etc, know him as sadasiva in the form of Siva.

2.17-21

Only him can be the Lord. He is I (Rudra) and you (Vishnu). He is the

god, i.e. Brahman etc., the Creators, Kasyapa etc. He is the seven sages, Moon

and Sun, Lords of planets. He is the king of gods (Indra), Kuberam, Varuna,

Yama, Agni, Nagesa (Adisesa) Nirrti, Vayu, Isanam all the chiefs of Ganas, the

eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, other excellent gods and demons, the eight fold

celestial species, the five fold animal one and the human one. Siva is told to

be the universe.

Note the

reference that He is also the material cause.

2.22-25

The four vedas with their secret (sections, i.e. upanishads) speak of

him.

2.28-30

Without his worship, with any other (rite) there is no benefit for

embodied souls.

Note the

reference to 'embodied souls'. Souls are actually embodied -

sariraka, not an illusion of bondage.)

2.30-32

Someone sometimes is entitled to perform inner worship (meditation);

those who have little knowledge are entitled to perform external worship

(temple worship). Being aware of this, lord of gods, Siva, who stands inside

everything, who (desires) to extend his grace to

all and gives creatures experience and liberation, this Siva

became Sadasiva. whose body is manifested as the five brahma (mantras).

Those who are

not familiar with meditation should pursue temple worship. These are

alternative methods to liberation but not mutually exclusive. Siva gives us

experience and through that, liberation.

2.33-38

From him (sadasiva) was born Isvara, the origin of all the (manifested)

gods, free from decline. From (Isvara) I was born and from me you (Vishnu), the

teacher of the universe. From you, in the lotus of your navel, sprung forth

Aja, the grandfather of the world. The consciousness who inhabits Siva should

be celebrated as Maya. Others (call her) Root principle (of matter)". She

also stands in a relation of material cause and effect in five bodies. Hear her

establishments. From her (is born) the diety Manonmani related to Sadasiva.

From (Manonmani) is born Gauri related to Mahesvara. From (Gauri) is born Uma

who is mine, she should be Bhavapriya. From (Uma) is born Padma who is related

to you, Vishnu. And from (Padma) is born Vani related to Brahman.

2. 38-41

The whole universe entirely is created by Brahman, protected by you

(Vishnu) and destroyed by me (Rudra). Thus a relation of material cause and

effect is established in us. The nature of body of Siva is told to be in

Sadasiva, etc., The nature of material cause is unique and established only in

him. This undecaying Sadasiva is worshipped in

the Linga, by us, led by Mahesvara and by all the creatures in the world.

3. 1-2

That which is the sign of the soul, i.e., a cause of manifestation of

the soul, such a sign for Sadasiva is

traditionally known as Sivalinga.

3.14-17

Because all the elements go (ga) to reabsorbtion (li) [in him] at the

time of destruction and spring forth (ga) [from him], for this reason he is called Linga. When

linga is worshipped, all the gods are worshipped.

A clear

reference to all elements merging into, and then issueing forth from Him. He

absorbs and reissues.

4.22 (Sites

unfit for installing a Linga)

Where stones and gravels are seen in huge quantity, where candalas,

pilindas etc stayed for long periods.

4. 24

The linga installed in the brahma-sthana ( ie. in the centre of the

village) will bring good to brahmins and kshatriyas.

11.2-3 (On fire

ritual oblations)

Siva standing in the linga receives the worship, standing

in the fire (agni homa fire ritual and offering of oblations in fire) takes the

offering. Siva is absolutely unique. Therefore, in both Siva

is the same. Considering this, one should worship Siva in the Linga and in

fire, with effort.

The reference to

linga worship and Agni worship in the homa fire ritual as one and the same

thing.

50.2-5

Skanda is born from my body. He has my energy, my valor. He was created

by me formerly as son of Uma, good for the world. He is also born of fire.

Therefore the fire origin is told of him. So that, among the best of the gods,

he does not have birth from a womb. In the

course of time he became a god with a manifest body, shining

like the blazing fire at the end of the world.

50.6-8

Therefore he is called Born of fire, Born of reed, Skanda, Kumara,

Senani, Subrahmanya, Guru. He is called by all these and other numerous names. Because he will cause jumping (skand) out of all sins, he is

Skanda. Because he will destroy (maar) evils (ku) he is well

known as Kumara. Because he protects the army of gods he has the quality of

army-leader (Senani).

Su-brahman-ya

means 'of the great brahman'.

89.1-3

I will tell the purification of the places. Listen O Lord of Kamala. If

a women in her courses, one recently delivered, a man born of adultery, an

outcaste, a despised one, a barber, a washerman, a dog, (a donkey), a cock, a

bird of prey, a vulture enter in the temple by mistake (the desika) should

perform a purification of the place in the beginning, then perform a sprinkling

ceremony... (text missing).

 

Chapter 6

 

 

 

The Magic of

Tantra - Invoking the Gods, Worshipping the Gods

Hinduism is a supernatural and magical religion.

Hindus invoke the gods, and honor the gods, and in that process seek

liberation, an end to the separation of the soul and god. The magics' are in

the mantras, tantras and yantras, and every Hindu is a shaman,

occultist, whether he knows it or not.

In both philosophy and practice, Hinduism as it is today,

is based on the agamas, with the veda samhitas as supplementary texts. Three

hundred and twenty agamas and over a thousand upagamas cover every aspect of

our religious and spiritual live. Some agamas are as large as the Quran (6,000

verses) and some are five times the size of the Bible (20,000 verses). In this

we are rich.

From temples to home altars, pujas, first feeding, ear

piercing to death and ancestor worship, festivals and holy days and temple

chariot pulling, initiations, fasts and other observances, why, even the sizes

and crafting of homa ladles, yak-hair fans, etchings on the conch, flags and

banners, - all these, the A to Z of Hinduism is dictated by the Agamas.

It has its myths, but which are quite different from itihasa and puranic myths.

In philosophy too the agamas provides its own, specific and clarified, nothing

to do with the upanishads. It does not depend on any schools of thought,

vedanta or otherwise. Hindus are Agamists. Hindus are Tantriks. To this we

supplement with vedic mantras, enchanting samhitas and soul moving bakti hymns that

are pleasing to the gods, songs that convey our deepest affections.

In the same way the vedas supplement the central agamas,

the shastras, and the saints, sages and sat gurus, supplement the temples. The

temples are the central pillar of Hinduism, the source of all shastras,

religious and spiritual life, and culture. The core of

Hinduism is the agamas, and the core of the agamas are the temples, and the

core of temples is the diety. Everything else in Hinduism are at its

remote fringes.

The mantra is the basic tool for the inner religious experience of the presence of god.

The worshipper by enunciation of the mantra, experiences the presence of the

living diety in the murthi of the temple and may have a personal exchange, from

soul to soul, with the diety, to perform his worship. It is an interaction

between a bonded soul occupying, pervading and animating a physical body, and a

supreme soul, God, occupying, pervading and animating a murthi. There

are tools to arrive at this interactive communicative inner experience; the

tools being mantra recital, imagination and dhyana.

"Like the ocean, the king is the recipient of all

valuables." (Kadambari)

This state of kings is also transferred to the temple,

which is the seat of magnification of all arts and culture. They include

architecture, sculpture, painting, singing, music, dances, language,

literature, hymns, rituals, mudras, yantras, garland making, flower decoration,

costuming, perfumery, and cuisine.

All that is performed in the world involves a

communication, an exchange between living, conscious beings, the subject and

the king, for instance. The worship, as a sublimated form of this

transaction, is an interaction between the conscious worshipper and the

conscious, living god, not with the stone statue or any other material

object of worship. The presence of the diety is achieved through ritualistic

action, on one side, and through the inner experience of the worshipper on the

another. In the temple, that is achieved by the worshipper, at the time

of his perception of the presence of god.

Every act of the worshipper implies the presence of the

diety in the statue, and in the mind of the worshipper. Worship is the

aspiration of the worshipper to suppress the separation of himself from the

object of worship. The worshipper works at amalgamating his self with

the supreme self. The ultimate stage in worship is the identification

of the worshipper and the diety, the same state as in that of

meditation. As a step towards that unity, the worshipper recreates himself as

an 'effigy of god'. In the Bhagavata god is a mirror who sends

back to the worshipper the sublimated image he has worked out.

"Not for himself does this Lord (Narasimha) desires

honor from an ignorant creature.....Any honor, which the creature extends to

the Sovereign Lord, is for himself, like the beauty made up on the face

extended to the mirror." Bhagavata 7.9.11

Note the reference to 'ignorant creatures'. That means

us!

The supreme is characterised as inaccessible to senses,

speech and mind, making contemplation and worship impossible. Therefore the

supreme makes himself accessible, through accessible hypostases

substates. In the Ajita the primary (mula) hypostasis is Sadasiva, and

from this, several more hypostasis substates, each of which has been

identified and named as a god, each with a specific name and form, and specific

functions. Each of these 'Gods' has a separate existence but

without altering the essence from which they emerged from. Each of

these 'Gods' is a metaphysical murthi (form) who inhabits the physical murthi

in the temple. Hindus worship the metaphysical murthi, in the physical

murthi, in the temple.

The three major hypostases are Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra,

and this inseparable triad shares the Linga as residence. All other murthis are

placed ritually around the linga as ancilliary murthis, or entourage

dieties, for the king is never alone.

We explain 'hypostasis substates' by the

anology of light, which at different frequencies appears as a spectrum of

colors. Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra and Mahesvara would be akin to the different colors,

with sadasiva as the undifferentiated light. There are no colors without the

light. Whereas the other gods (Ganesha, Skanda, Hanuman, etc) are the different

emanations of the same light, such as radiation, magnetism, alpha, beta and

gamma waves. The other gods do have a birth and separate existence, just like

souls, but all of whom will be eventually dissolved at mahapralaya by and into the

Agent of Dissolution.

The staff of the temple is called the desika,

acharya or gurukal, all signifying 'perceptor'. The assistants are

called murtipa (protector of the murthi), putraka, sadhaka and hotri (oblator)

when performing the homa. All of them are qualified by various dikshas. Today

we call the priests as gurukkals, and the assistants as pandarams.

Dikshas are open to all men and women and there

is no restrictions, making it spiritually an egalitarian religion. The agamas

are varna free. The basic samaya diksha empowers one to conduct daily

pujas in the home shrine which is a miniature temple, as a

daily sadhana of the initiated, and chant mantras in japa. All temple desikars

who naturally themselves have received the abisheka diksha, are empowered to

initiate any person. All others who are not initiated may simply worship in the

temple by observing the puja with palms together in reverence, sponsoring an

abishegam, etc., and, worship in the home shrine by simply singing any hymns

with offerings of flowers and garlands.

Other participants in the temple are the brahmins, who

are the professional recitors of the vedas, and the paricarakas who are

involved in the preparation of food and the transport of materials and

procession apparatus. This is the only part brahmins play in a temple. The

acharyas chant the mantras during the main course of the puja, whereas the

brahmins chant the vedic slokas during pujas or during a homa, and which is not

uttered by the acarya but left entrusted to the professional chanters.

Likewise, the professional chanters of bakti hymns, the othuvars, and the

temple dancers, have a part to play during the puja.

Women, referred to in the Ajita as 'slaves of

Rudra', are to prepare the lamps and wicks, transport them on their

head to the main shrine, oil them, light them and pass it to the desika for the

nocturnal waving of the lamps. Music and conch blowing is mandated during

pujas.

The simplest worship is gandhaadyair archayet -

synonymous expression, 'to worship with sandal paste, etc'. This involves

putting a little sandal paste on the icon, offering a flower, showing burning

incense, waving the lamp with ringing of bell, offering a spoonful of water,

while uttering a mantra of that Diety. This rite is executable in one minute,

and it answers to the idea of satisfying all the divine beings. This would be

the minimum daily worship sadhana for a Hindu.

Apart from pujas to the murthis the Ajita explains in

detail worship through homa (fire ritual) and kalasam

(an arrangement of water pots with coconut and mango leaves on top,

representing the body of the various gods). Both these rituals create the

presence of the diety there, and which 'charged' water in the pot is later

transferred to the murthi by way of ablutions, which transfers the divine

presence to the murthi. Both the homa and kalasam worship is a duplicate of the

murthi worship, yet it is stressed as indispensable for certain ceremonies, but

not for the daily worship of the murthi. So we know that a 'temporary

temple' can be established anywhere just by conducting a homa, or

kalasam worship. These rituals have the intent to create or recall the

presence of the diety as a living conscious being, in the murthi, in the

homa-fire, or in the kalasa water-pot.

Presence of the diety is a prerequisite for worship. This

is established by invoking and 'placing' the diety in a particular spot with a

rite of touching with darbha grass, 'looking' at a spot, or sprinkling water at

a spot while uttering a mantra. The purpose is to render an inert

unconscious spot fit for a conscious, living being to manifest therein.

In elaborate ceremonies, the sprinkling gives way to ablutions of water, milk

and other substances on the murthi while chanting mantras to

permanently establish the presence of the diety. The living diety

remains latent in the murthi all day, and is reinvoked or enlivened

each day. The Ajita calls this, the 're-

apparition', to explain the rite of daily re-enlivening.

Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of Kauai Aadheenam says, 'a

desika, by the power of his training, can turn a tree into a temple, and a

stone into a diety'.

The Ajita

is listed as the fifth agama, suggests it is an important one.

More Quotes from

the 'Great Tantra of the Unconquered' - the Ajita Agama

2.26-27

In the saiva tradition Siva is known as free from beginning, middle and

end, free by nature from the stain-entity, powerful, omniscient, endowed with

plenitude, non limited by directions of space, times, etc., beyond the range of

speech and mind, free of manifestation, without action, all pervading, always

seeing everything.

Note the mention

of 'saiva' tradition, indicating and accepting implicitly the existence of

other traditions.

3.2-3

Sadasiva, the unchangeable, great god, cause of all causes, is the

origin of that entity (Mahesvara) who is the origin of me (Rudra), origin of

you (Vishnu).

Note the

difference in the nature of siva and sadasiva which becomes important in

philosophy, and in understanding the

oneness and distinctions of the different gods.

26.2 (Ethymology

of the word mudra)

It gives joy to the gods and drives away the demons. The word mudra

tells the fact to have the properties of rejoicing and driving away.

26.3-66 mentions

forty mudras to be used in worship.

30.11-15

By worshipping the Linga one time, a mortal obtains the fruit of all

rituals, penances, gifts, pilgrimages, etc...There is no meritorious action

equal to the worship of the Linga in the three worlds, O Hari. As no limit of

the vast sky is seen anywhere, in the same way there is no limit to the merit

issued from the worship of the Linga. It alone is told to give experience of

higher worlds and liberation. By the force of the process of worshipping the

Linga of Siva who is everything, Brahman, Vishnu and others obtained the status

of god of gods.

Note: obtaining

the status of gods - reference to origin of linga mythology.

49.2-10 (The

birth of Vinayaka)

Once, when I was playing with Uma on the bank of the Manasa lake, we

saw elephants together with excellent she-elephants playing as they desired on

that attractive bank. In this beautiful lake with pleasant animals we took the

form of elephants for our enjoyment, and engendered an excellent son with an

elephant head with the thought 'we will play with him as we desire', thus told,

I did immediately all that I was told. Then after doing elephant play a long

time, and thinking of the good of the gods, with desire for the good of the

worlds, with Uma, I made this son a chastiser of god's enemies and foremost

leader of the forteenfold universe. Therefore his name is heard as Vinayaka

"Superior Leader'. I gave him the lordship of eighteen hosts (ganas) and

the lordship over obstacles, the lordship of riches and incomparability. Then

all the gods led by Indra, for the success of their aim, worshipped him at the

beginning of their actions.

This myth

differs sharply from the puranic myth. As agamas are shruti, it supercedes the

puranas, and the puranic myths can be dispensed with.

76.5-7

One should perform (circumnambulation) in an odd number, one, three,

five, seven, etc. The circumnambulation done with the number twenty one will be

superior...

76.8-9

In performing a circumnambulation one should proceed at a gentle gait,

with concentrated mind, placing one's footsteps after seeing, refraining from

talking to others, reciting vedic mantras or hymns.

20.269-272

(music during pujas)

During ablutions, when the curtain is removed, at the end of food

oblations, during the nocturnal offering of light, the offering of bali-s and

in the process of the daily festival (puja) there should be musical

instruments, but only the conch at the time of bringing the food oblation, of

bringing the betel, of bringing the flowers, eatable and drinkable materials.

 

Chapter 7

 

 

 

The Art of the Invocation

Based on the

Ajita MahaTantra as translated by N.R. Bhatt, Jean Filliozat and Pierre S.

Filliozat

The purpose of

revisiting the agamas is to 'bring it to the fore' in the

Hindu's consciousness of his shastras, evoke his interest to the centrality of

his religion, the temple and mystic worship practices, and away from puranic

myths and fantastic stories which are peripheral to the religion, and away from

the superceded vedas and upanishads which is 'redundant' and is a cause of

confusion. For the entirety of Hinduism (Saivism) may be recreated

today just on the basis of the Ajita only and nothing more, with the

philosophy built into the rites and rituals and not as a speculative

introspection. The objective is a mental reordering and refocussing on vitals -

the 'baktiful' worship, the core of the religion, where there is only the

worshipper and the worshipped, in supernatural communion, and no shastra nor

jaati.

Each of the

major branches of Hinduism; Saivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism, each with its

own set of agamas, are not a separate component of a tripartite

religion. Each is a full and complete system, one of three forms of a

total religion. It compares very much to a family of languages, the family

having a seemingly endless variations of languages and dialects, and each

language has its own structure. Yet all fulfill its most basic objective of

communication.

Saivism is a

religion of a one God, the supreme Siva. Numerous entities are around Him. They

are his creations and consequently his subjects with definate functions. They

are *not* other deities, as the nature of the eternal Isvara or 'Supreme Lord'

cannot be shared. They participate of his own essence at different

degrees. The major ones are told to be engendered by him, or to be an

outward manifestation of himself. The other entities or deities are an existence

separated from the essence but without altering the unity of the essence.

This then would be the understanding of the relationship between the gods; Siva

is the essence and the other gods are distinct existences that shares the

essence.

Whatever cause

there may be for the coming of an entity to a separate existence, and whatever

form it may take, the reason given for these hypostases of the supreme

god is the necessity of communication through worship, for the supreme

unmanifest god is inaccessible to the senses and the mind. That would

render worship impossible. Therefore the supreme god makes

himself accessible through these substate entities. The presence of a

deity is a prerequisite for worship. This is established at the time of

installation by elaborate rites, and reestablished at other times through

various rites.

The performance

of a dance, play or drama is known for its effect of communion with an audience

and the resultant aesthetic experience of pleasure. The performance of temple

pujas and rituals involves similar human efforts and ends in creating a

sublimated form of communion with God, an unburdening of concerns, and

an experience of mystic contentment and happiness.

"Worship'

derived from the words puja pujayam and archa pujayam

means 'to honour'. In temples there is always a main

unique Deity in the mulastanam, the target of a long elaborate sequence

of rites and rituals, culminating in the presenting of the final showing of

flames or aarathi. Part of the rituals includes the worship of an

entourage of divine and semi-divine deities, placed concentrically surrounding

the main deity.

Icon,

Water & Fire Worship

The mantra-body of Siva is first created by the worshipper in his heart by

concentrating on the diety and chanting the bija mantras; it is then

transferred from the top of the head of the worshipper to the Linga with

offering of flowers and mudra. The linga becomes the body of Siva. The

invitation to take residence (avahana) brings the presence of god to the fore.

It becomes a full manifestation, accessible to the senses. This brings the

presence of Siva in a general manner, for all devotees. Invitation has its

counterpart at the conclusion of worship, the rite of giving leave or

visarjana.

"The

desired coming and going of Siva (in the linga) occur through a body of

mantras, like the coming and going of a soul through bodies."

(Kamika Agama 1.4.356).

In the installed

linga the deity is invited and installed permanently in a ceremony called pratistha,

done to create, 'placing' (nyaasa) and let stay, and the latent

presence to be reawakened or re-enlivened each day. 'Looking at a

spot', niriksana, ritually transfers the consciousness of the deity in the

worshipper's mind to the spot or icon looked upon. The mental creation of the

mantra body of the god is 'placed' on the spot or icon. This is the essence of

Hindu worship. By concentrating on the deity within our minds, as the soul of

our soul, then looking at an icon ritually makes the inert

icon 'alive'. Worship can then begin.

In the case of

movable icons and water pots (kumbha), the rite is for creating and suspending the

presence, the contents of the pots being the object of elaborate worship, which

is later transferred to the main installed deity by ablution of the 'charged

waters' on it, executed with great pomp as the highlight of the ceremony,

thereby transferring the divine presence to the linga. In the case of the

fire-homa, the effects of the ritual is first transferred to the water pots by

touching the pots with a darbha grass, from there later transferred again to

the linga by ablutions.

Worship

for Oneself and Worship for Others

 

20.2-4a

Worship is traditionally known to be of two kinds, for oneself, and for

others. The worship (performed by) one who has been initiated by a guru, and

has received a linga, a movable one, given by him, on that (linga), or on another

temporary object, or on a sthandila (a ritually marked spot), or on (a pot of)

water, or on an icon, or on a diagram, or on a painting or on canvas, or in

one's own heart, will be the (worship) for oneself.

20.4b-7

When on a self born Sivalinga, or on a linga installed by Bana, by a

lord of celestial hots, by a god, a sage or man, on all mukhalingas, and

manifested ones (murthis), O Janardana, on all numerous lingas installed

everywhere, in temples, etc., the worship is done, having one's means of subsistence

procured by a king or persons similar to a king, or common people, that is

called (worship) for others, because the fruit is given to others.

Notes:

1. The recognition that all can worship, and with or without icons, or with any

icon, emphasises the acceptance of the universality of worship

practices by all, and in any way.

2. It is on this basis that most Hindus maintain a home shrine

where they conduct their daily worship for themselves in a way that they know

best. When one conducts a puja in the home shrine he/she is the archaka, no

matter what the jaati or sex is.

3. It is clearly mentioned that only archakas can perform congregational

worship (parartha pujas), whereas all other four classes and those who do not

belong to the four classes, the anuloma classes, savarna, etc. may only perform

worship for oneself (atmartha puja).

4. To be sure, as mentioned previously, there is mention of the varna names in

the agamas but there is no varna system of the smirthis as shown below!

Three

Types of Worship

20.19-21

Here the worship is told to be of three kinds; pure, mixed and mingled.

The pure worship ends with the meal. The mixed one ends with the daily festival

(nityotsava puja). The mingled one ends with the pure dance. Among these

worships, one should perform specifically the mixed one, or the mingled one, as

the worship done everyday, in the morning, noon and in the evening.

Notes:

1. Pure worship is that performed in the garbha and ends there with meal

offerings.

2. Mixed worship is pure worship followed by the utsava procession around the

garbha, and ends there.

3. Mingled is pure and mixed worship followed by singing of hymns, dance and

other artistic performances.

4. Mingled worship is mandated three times a day. It is not mandated for other

time juncture (yamas) worships.

Worship

of the Entourage Deities

The Linga with its representatives, twenty of which are mentioned, is clearly

distinguished from figurative forms called murthis. The linga represents

sadasiva, while the murthis (gods) are emanations of sadasiva who are actors of

feats in saiva mythology, and represented as entourage deities in ancilliary

shrines surrounding the main. Therefore saiva worship is precisely sadasiva

worship, and not Siva worship as that is impossible!

20.215-225

After the worship of the Linga, there should be worship of the lord of

bulls (Nandi), Nandin (Rishi Nandikesvara), Mahakala at the door, and then the

entourage deities who are placed in circles around in the main garbha in

concentric courtyards:

1. First Circle of

Entourage Dieties: Anantesa, Suksma, Sivottama, Ekanetra, Ekarudra, Trimurti,

Srikantha, and Sikhandin.

2. Second Circle of Entourage Dieties:Uma, Chandesa, Nandin, Mahakala, Bull,

Vighnesa, Mahasena and Bhrngisa.

3. Third Circle of Entourage Dieties: Indra, Agni, Yama, Nirrti, Varuna, Vayu,

Soma, Isana, Ananta and Kamalasana.

4. Fourth Circle of Entourage Dieties: thunderbolt, spear, staff, sword, noose,

goad, club, trident, lotus and disc.

Rite of

Entering the Siva temple

20.33-34

The worshipper (archaka) should get up early in the morning, complete

his daily rites, bath, etc., perform a circumnambulation before entering the

temple of Siva. He should clean his feet, sip water and, standing inside the

temple or near the door, throw a flower for Brahman.

Notes:

1.This rite applies to the archaka (priest) but all worshippers may execute it,

as the primary meaning of archaka is 'worshipper', therefore

this rite is applicable to worshippers. The entire Ajita Agama are instructions

to the archaka, or worshipper. The secondary meaning is the professional priest

of the temple, the sivacharya gurukkal who has received the various dikshas

which empower him to perform parartha pujas meant for the benefit of all

devotees. No room for societal varna here. Today archaka means gurukkal or

desika of a temple, and the primary meaning seems to have been missed.

2. Brahman here means vaastvadhipati, lord of the temple, here meaning the main

diety installed, or the linga.

3. This rite of offering a flower is accompanied by the uttering of the mantra,

'aum haam vaastvadhipataye brahmane namah'.

4. Most Hindu devotees today do abide at least some of these injuctions like

(1) a bath before a temple visit, (2)circumnambulating once outside the temple

walls, (3) washing the feet before entering the temple, (4) the worship act

(mudra) of palms together above the head upon entering the temple at the gate,

and (5) the simultaneous uttering of a simple mantra like 'siva, siva' when the

mudra is performed.

5. These five individual rites, when sequenced and stringed together

constitutes a worshipful ritual, a complete worship by itself, even

without attending the puja-aarathi, and this is a ritual of the archaka. Thus

they (all devotees) can be considered 'archaka' too in the broader meaning.

6. But the details and training required of an archaka of a temple necessitates

that only a trained professional can do the job. This has to necessarily

remain.

The

Worship of Siva in the Linga and in the Fire

The vedas deal with fire worship (yagam or homa), whereas the agamas deals with

worship of god through murthis, water as well as fire.

21.2-3

Siva standing in the Linga receives the worship; standing in fire he

takes the offering. Siva is absolutely unique. Therefore in both Siva is the

same.

Notes:

1. Worship of the linga or worship by homa fire offering is the same as the

recipient in either is the same.

2.We recall the first hymn in the Rigveda: 1.1.1

agnim iiLe purohitaM yajnasya devam Rtvijam hotaaraM ratnadhaatamam

I glorify Agni, the high priest of the sacrifice, the divine, the ministrant,

who presents the oblation (to the gods), and possesses great wealth (which he

presents to the worshipper).

This hymn by Vishvamitra address Agni both as a God (deva), and as a

fire - a medium through which oblations are presented to Him and the

gods, and a medium, a gateway, through which He and the other gods presents

benedictions to the worshipper. Agni is the recipient and ministrant of the

oblations - He summons the gods to the sacrificial ceremony to receive the

oblations and bestow benedictions on the worshipper. Here, Agni is the

archakar.

Dikshas

for All

 

77.11

The diksha of samayin and putra will be 'without seed'; the diksha of

sadhaka and acharya will be 'with seed'.

 

77.12

Now the diksha 'without seed' is taught as being of two kinds; one

gives liberation immediately, the other after death.

 

77.13

The diksha without seed, devoid of the practice of rules, should be for

young (people), simple minded, old people, women, those addicted to pleasures,

sick persons.

Notes:

1. The 'seed' is

the dependence on execution of rules, etc, which are the means to realise the

fruits produced by diksha. Diksha with seed requires much observances, and is

meant for priests.

2. The diksha

without seed, without much rules or observances is for the

masses, and for all. No one is excluded, not even the addict, the prostitute

nor the autistic, and liberation is assured while still living (jivanmukta), or

on death (mukti on death), depending on the type of diksha and the empowerment

of the gurukkal.

The various

diksha mentioned in other agamas are the samaya and vishesha for householders,

the nirvana, abisheka and archaryabisheka for the priests and assistants as

well as monks. In the archaryabisheka diksha, the archaka receives an ablution

with the water from five kumbhas (pots) in which have been 'placed' the five

mantras of the five faces of Siva, so that the archaka is identifiable

with Siva. This is followed by the gifting of the main instruments of

the priestly function and regal insignia, referring to the authority bestowed

upon him to be an invoker of the gods, on behalf of, and for the

benefit of the people.

Agamic

Mantras

Mantras are the primary tools of worship, and for an inner religious experience

of god, uttered along with a rite and often a mudra. It is a name of an entity,

a soul in the top of a hierarchy in spiritual entities and conveys a meaning. The

uttering of a name is the contemplation of the named entity, the

mental creation of the named entity, keeping it stable in the mind without

break or interference, then transfers this mental creation in the mind through

the top of the head to the icon.

A bija mantra is

used in all agamic rituals. Each deity has a bija and it is only used for that

deity. The bija consonant for Siva is H, and each of his

different hypostases are distinguished by the vowels that follows next; a e i o

u, for the five faces of Siva, indicating that each of the forms of the deity

emanates from the root Siva without being different from him. There is

no mantra H itself as it makes no sense, as the unmanifest Siva cannot be

represented by any icon or mantra. Namasivaya refers to the sat-asat formless

form sadasiva.

All the mantras

used in the Ajita are agamic mantras. There are no vedic mantras used at all.

The Ajita is completely free of vedic mantras. Here are some mantras chanted

for atonement of faults, purification, concentration, etc. These mantras are

footnoted as it is assumed that the desika is already familiar with it, an

indication that there was a parallel running oral tradition of the

agamas too.

20.56-68,

87.98-101

Aum hah sivaastraaya phat,

Aum slim pam sum hum paasupatraastraaya phat namah,

Aum brahmaastraaya phat,

Aum sim chim ksurikaastraaya phat,

Aum hum aghoraastraaya hum phat svaha,

Aum aam iim uum vyomavyaapine aum namah,

Aum hum haam ham haam hrdayaaya atmane namah,

Aum hlaam hlaam hlaam hlaam hlaam hrdayaaya hum phat,

Aum saam somaaya namah.

Cooking

the Naivedyam (or havis) and bali

There are several offerings to the deity in the course of worship including

water, flowers, sandal paste, betel leaf, etc. but the most important of all is

cooked food, called naivedyam or havis, or bali which are small rice balls or a

small portion of naivedyam.

22.124.128

He (the desika) should do the cleaning (of the pot) with recitation of

astra mantra. He should pour the water (into the pot) with recitation of

sadyojata mantra in a quantity equal to the rice. Afterwards he should lift up

(the vessel) with recitation of vamadeva mantra. After placing it over the

fire-place with the recitation of aghora mantra, he should place the fuel with

recitation of the astra mantra. After kindling the fire with recitation of

aghora mantra, after cooking, after removing (the vessel) with recitation of the

tatpurusha mantra, he should wipe all (the cooked items) with a wet hand (a

gesture of wiping without touching the food) with recitation of astra mantra.

Notes:

We may be seeing here a source of the garbha and kitchen divides, for only a

person who has received the required dikshas are able to perform this simple

rite of cooking.

Priests

& Patrons

The entire Ajita addresses only the priest (archaka) and the sculptor (silpin).

It addresses the devotee as the yajamana or kartar, the patron

who orders the ritual and provides for it and presides over it but himself has

very little part to play in the rituals. A client-professional

relationship exists here, and again no indication of a discriminatory

varna society, as the priest exists and depends on the worshipper. It indicates

an interdependent society.

General

Info

The pedestal that holds the linga in place is called the pitha,

pindika or even vedika, and not 'yoni' with its connotations as erroneously

thought. The clothing and attire used to drape the linga and murthis are

prepared by a class of weavers, devangas, who have received the samaya diksha.

Today, the devanga is a class of weavers in Karnataka.

The Ajita agama

does use varna terms like brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya and sudra. But the

translators N.R. Bhatt, Jean Filliozat and Pierre S. Filliozat suspect most of

those are later additions as most of these varna terms are found in the last

few verses of the chapters concerned and not in sync with the main thrust of

the Ajita. Nevertheless the translators did not exclude those verses but left

it as it is and noted their concerns in the introduction and in footnotes.

A case for a

varna society must show:

1. four broad endogamous groups enjoying vocational monopoly,

2. placed in a top down hierarchy,

3. where there is no access to some groups to study sanskrit and shastras,

4. where moksha giving dikshas are denied to some groups, who have to be born

again,

5. and where there is no access to temples by certain groups,

I see the first.

I do not see the next four. I have to conclude, as we all must, that there was

no varna society, only a jaati society, which itself is quite degrading.

 

Nakshatras

in the Agamas

There is only

some mention of kalas and yamas for temple pujas, muhurthas, nakstratras,

solstices, equinoxes and months in the Ajita, Paramesvara, Makuta, and

Candrajnana Agamas. There is no mention of rasis, thereby excluding

astrology.

From the Ajita

Agama: The Process of the Great Festival (utsava) - the stars and

lunar days fit for the immersion in sacred waters

27.1-2

Now, I will tell the process of the festival which brings welfare to all the world. Sava is that which is

called 'auspicious' and brings happiness to all creatures. That from which sava

is born (ud) is called 'utsava'.

Daily puja

festivals or utsava is performed for the benefit and welfare of the world.

27.8-11

In Caitra the star of Tvastr (Citra) is taught, in Vaisakha Surpa

(Visakha) is told, in Jyestha (the star) Mula, in Asadha the star of Visvadevas

(Uttara Asadha) is taught, in Sravana it should be Sravistha, in Proshapada

(Bhadrapada) Ajaikapad (Purvabhadrapada), in the month of Asvayuj (Asvina)

Asvini, in the month of Karttika Krittika, in the month of Margasirsa the star

of Rudra (Ardra) is told, in Pushya it should be the star of Brihaspati

(Pusya), in Magha the star of Pitr-s (Magha), in the month of Phalguna the star

of Aryaman (Uttaraphalguni) should be the star of the immersion (festival).

27.12

(The aforementioned) are stars in conjunct with the full moon (are fit

time for the festival of immersion in water).

27.14-15

(Or) in all the months, Caitra, etc., the star fit for the immersion

would be the star of Rudra (Ardra). In Magha or Jyestha months the sixth and

eight lunar days of the black fortnight (respectively) are taught as being for

the immersion; they give all desired fruits.

27.15-16

(Or) the excellent knower of the rituals (desika) should fix the parvan

(full moon and new moon) and the fourteenth lunar day of both forthnights, in

all the months, for the immersion.

The Process of

the Sraddha festival

69.5-7

One should perform the ablution (abishegam) ceremony on a day under the

following stars, starting from the month of Ardra, Ardra (Margasiras), Pushya,

Maagha, Uttara (Phalguni), Citra, Visakha, Mula, (Uttar)asadha, Sravana,

Purvabhadra, Asvini, and the star of Agni (Krittika), in coincidence with the

full moon or new moon day of the forthnight or not.

69.9

The wise should perform the festival up to the end of Ardra, every

month, on equinoxes, after an eclipse, or after other auspicious days (such as

Ganesha Chaturthi, Sarasvati puja, etc.)

Chapter 8

 

 

 

Hindu Chronology

There are gaps

in our understanding of Hindu history as the information is not complete.

Current evidence places the Indus Valley Civilisation between

3,300â€"1700 BCE, which is contemporaneous with the Sumerian Civilisation.

It is estimated that the vedic age was during the period of 2,500 BCE to 1,500

BCE, about one millenium antecedent to IVC and Sumeria. Prior to that was Mehgarh

at 5,500 BCE. Even prior was Dvaraka at 9,000 BCE. While all

of these sites shows evidences of Hinduism, there are gaps in between.

We know little

of the period from 1,500 BCE to 500 BCE, the birth of Buddha. There is a gap

between the vedic age to that of the shad dharsanas of post 500 BCE. We are

still unable to read the Indus script and tie it to the vedas. There is another

gap between the vedic age and the Indus Valley Civilisation. There is yet

another gap between the Indus Valley and Mehgarh.

The Jain

tirthankara Rsabhadeva, the first tirthankara, who was

worshipped, is mentioned in the vedas. The Padma Purana says Rama built a

temple and worshipped Muniswrathanath, the 20th Jain

tirthankara. So it is quite silly to say that the agamas antecedent the vedas.

They were contemporaneous, or the agamas were anterior.

Tolkappiam

precedes Astadhyayi by 2-3 centuries may have some merit as Agastya

was the guru of Tolkappiar. Agastya wrote several rig vedic, agamic and tamil

works. So he and Tolkappiar couldn't have been late. Besides the Cheras were

already ruling in full tolkappiar culture. And for sure Agamas were

pre-buddhist and pre-Nebuchadnezzar, 950 BCE.

But common sense

tells us that sanskrit and the vedic age could not have sprung all of a sudden

in much developed form in 1,500 BCE. Surely the language, religion and culture

must have been preceded by at least a millennium of development. It would be

logical to presume that there was a pre-vedic age, with origins in the Sumerian

and IVC. Prakrits (including tamil) precedes sanskrit. How could a well formed

language suddenly appear out of nowhere. Samskrta is well formed prakrits.

Prevedic texts cannot be overlooked anymore.

"Sanskrit

is not the Vedic language but was evolved out of the dead vedic Aryan and the

then regional languages of India called Prakrits which included Tamil and

Dravidian. The term Prakrit means 'previously created' and Sanskrit means

'perfectly created', thus the very name Sanskrit suggests its posteriority to

the Prakrits in origin. A study of Tolkappiam and Paninis' Astadhyayi shows

that Tolkappiam is anterior to Paniniam by 2 or 3 centuries."

http://www.intamm.com/linguistics/primary.htm

"I feel

that the history of Indian philosophies must begin from Sumerian where as I

have shown you find the central elements of even Buddhism and Jainism in the Gilgamesh

Epic. Samkhya and Yoga are present quite visibly in many

Sumerian texts. Right now I am studying the Solar Cosmology in the Sumerian

Kinglist and which is with us through Rig Veda, etc. While

Sumerian is definitely Archaic Tamil, and the whole Sangam culture of the

Tamils is a continuation of the Sumerian, it is not clear to me how they came

to settle in the South and Sri Lanka.,

 

The language of Vedas is also a variant of Archaic Tamils as Raghavan is also

trying to show. The metaphysical insights of Rig Veda are certainly

developments from the Sumerian. As I explore it, I notice that almost all the

basic trends in later Indian philosophies are presaged in Sumerian

philodophical and cosmological thinking so much so that we can say the

Indian is simply a footnote to the Sumerian and which is Dravidian if we go by

the language.

 

Noting that Yoga practices are widely prevalent, it may be that the Samkhya

System may be one of the earliest philosophical systems of the Hindu mind. The

Purusha-Prakirti of the Samkhya may actually be An-Inanna or

even Enki-Ninsikilla, the dancing gods of the Paradise Tilmun.

In the Sirbiyam of En Hudu Anna, it is said

that it is An who gives all powers to In-Anna and who because

of it, keeps on movimg tirelessly all the time. Here we can see that it is

In-Anna of the Sumerians, the Woman who keeps on giving birth tirelessly who is

the Prakirti, that which keeps on moving on its own. It may be possible that

the Samkhya System was in fact the Siva-Sakti dance demythologized and made

into a rigorous philosophical system.

 

Dr. Loganathan

akandabaratam/

The

pasupatas were the earliest of Hindu sampradayas going back into the BCE era.

Tagare says pasupata saivism is vedic and is the earliest

Hindu sampradaya among six shaiva sampradayas, and survives till present times.

(see G.V.Tagare, "Saivism: Some Glimpses", Delhi, 1996, p. 3). Gautama

and Kanada, founders of Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools

respectively, were Pasupatas (see Prof. R.K. Siddhantashastri, "Saivism

Through the Ages", Delhi, 1975, p. 99).

Mahabharata

mentions Krishna's initiation into Pashupatism (Anushasana-parvan, 14.379-380).

In the same chapter Yajnavalkya and Vyasa are said to have

been Pashupata-shaivas. But it is hardly surprising that these sages were

pasupatas as Yagnavalkya does assert that only by chanting the Sri Rudram does

one gets knowledge and moksha. We can see that most of the ancient sampradayas

were Pasupathas, Nandinathas or Adinathas. The latter two simply go by the name

of natha swamis today.

To have a

balanced view of Hinduism we have to know of a fuller list of the main

personages who shaped it and the texts by them. Here, we have an approximate Hindu Chronology of personages, texts and sampradayas:

PreVedic

(Sumerian) Period

3000 BCE Suruppak, NeRi

2300 BCE Enhudu Anna, Exaltations of In-Anna Kes Temple Hymns,

2000 BCE Sulgi, Hymn B

1800 BCE Hammurabi's Legal Code

1800 BCE Many Incantation Texts

Vedic/Agamic

Period

2500-1500 BCE > 420 rishis, Vedas and Agamas

PostVedic

1000 BCE Pasupata monastic orders

700 BCE Kapalika monastic orders

700 BCE Kalamukha monastic orders

600 BCE Kanada,

Vaisisekha

600 BCE Bhoga Rishi

600 BCE Agastya

600 BCE Lopamudra (or Kausitaki), Lalita Sahasranama

500 BCE Kaundinya, Panchartha Bhasya

500 BCE Kapila, Samhkya

400 BCE Vyasa

300 BCE Jaimini, Purva Mimamsa

250 BCE Nandinatha, Nandikesvara Kasika

200 BCE Tirumular, Tirumantiram

200 BCE Patanjali, Yoga Sutras

200 BCE Gautama, Nyaya Sutras

200 BCE Tiruvalluvar, Tirukural

100 CE Auvaiyar

I, Purananuru poems

200 CE Lakulisa, Pasupatha sutras, Karavana Mahatmya

200 CE Kusika

200 CE Garghya

200 CE Maitreya

600 CE Appar, Sundarar

675 CE Guhavasi Siddha

775 CE Rudrasambhu

800 CE Vasugupta, Siva Sutras

800 CE Adi Shankara, Sambandhar

850 CE Kallata, Spanda Sastra

850 CE Somananda, Siva Drishti

850 CE Ugrajyoti

850 CE Sadyojyoti

900 CE Utpaladeva, Pratyabijna Sutras

950 CE Manickavasagar, Nammalvar

975 CE Abinavagupta, Tantraloka

900 CE Matsyendranatha

1000 CE

Gorakhsanatha, Siddha Siddhanta Paddhati,

1056 CE Srikumara, Tatparyadipika

1100 CE Basavanna, Vacanas, Sakthi Visishadvaitha

1100 CE Allama Prabhu, Mantra Gopya

1200 CE Aghorasiva

1200 CE Ramanuja

1300 CE Auvaiyar II, Aathicoodi

1300 CE Meykandar

1300 CE Nimbarka

1300 CE Madhva

1500 CE Vallabha

1500 CE Chaitanya

1600 CE Appaya Dikshitar, Sivarkamani Dipika

We see a

gravitational paradigm powershift in the global picture of Hinduism, where the vedas are no longer the epicentre but a point on the continuous

path of Agamism, and where the Sumerian origins which has been partly

attested with linguistic evidences and archealogical artifacts, has found a

foundational position now firmly in place. A culmination of sorts. This view

corrects a lopsided view and the history of the Hindus that has long been

erroneously presented.

Chapter 9

 

 

Conventional Religions and the Real

Religion

As vedanta or 'the end of the vedas', i.e. upanishads, is the philosophy of

the vedas, the philosophy of the agamas is called siddhanta.

Religion or 'samaya' is that which leads to union. All theistic religions

profess to take their followers to God. Religion is therefore a power, and not

a lifeless bundle of doctrines and practices, or 'matam'. This article makes a

distinction between samayam and matam.

There was a time when religion held unquestioning sway and everyone abided

by it. But as new religions and variants came into being there was a clamor for

supremacy. Instead of religion giving life, knowledge and ethics to society, it

was religion that was to receive energy from society.

Most often than not human frailty worked on it and gave it a tragic

expression, assuming a militant spirit and brought all the ignoble concomitants

of discrimination, marginalisation, racism, bigotry and ultimately to war in

various guises. It sowed enmity and hatred instead of love and peace, contempt

and distrust instead of respect and good will, hypocrisy and corruption instead

of sincerity and honesty.

The awakening of this spirit had repercussions on its internal workings,

doctrines and practices. Whatever benign influences where smothered.

Formalities, nominalism, commercialism, skepticism of sciences and materialism

began to hold sway. Most of all was the introduction of prejudices and

superstitions in its clashes with other religions. Doctrines became dogma.

Samayam became matam. Now its serves just as a label to differentiate one from

another, to mark out people whether one is with us or against us.

These conventional religions lay stress on doctrines and

observances, and make extravagant claims regarding them. Authorship is

attributed to God and the texts are the infallible words of God, and it is

guaranteed that the practices leads one to the final truths and highest

conceivable happiness. The followers ignorantly imbibe this story as few

endeavor to examine the validity of these claims. Claims and beliefs are

instilled since childhood and the faithful grow in unquestioning faith and love

of it, strengthened by the faith of the surrounding community. The belief in

the divine origin, coupled with the hope of reward and fear of punishment,

compelled adherence. With ignorance and blind zeal, beliefs crystallized.

Those who have not been inoculated in these beliefs are unable to accept

these claims. That the beliefs have no substantial or insecure foundations and

crumbles upon the impact of demonstrable truths is repressed by further claims.

In order to silence them and remove doubts, attempts are made to elevate

religion to mystic levels, transcending not only science but also the

scientific approach.

With the advent of scientific knowledge, rationalism and discovery of the

world, most tall claims by religions are falling apart in the face of adverse

demonstrable truths. Faulty doctrines, structural defects and inability to lead

a soul to its goal, which are features of nearly all religions leads to its

failure as a samaya. If a religion holds out a goal, it must give an account of

the path, a road map and the means of attaining it. But few religions possess

such a scientific structures as they may not possess one or the other. Such is

the state of conventional religions.

A real religion is dynamic. It must be rational with

demonstrable truths. It must be able to uplift a soul and ultimately it it to

its goal. A real religion is not a creature of mankind but a sustainer of the

people instead of being sustained by it.

Most of us have had some 'religious experiences' whether

we realise it or not. At some time or other we have experienced altruism,

where we exhibited real sympathy for someone else and assisted them in some

way, perhaps a donation, or cooked a meal for the family, or drove someone to

see the doctor, or made some sacrifices for the benefit of others. This

selfless service produced a calm serene joy in us, a joy without excitement. This

is a religious experience of an ordinary type.

Such actions are found in all societies and even in criminals, transcending

the conventional notions of right and wrong, and us and them. This power is

pervasive in mankind and even animals. Animals too exhibit features of altruism

like selfless cooperation where the group concerns supersede that of

the individual, making religious experiences universal.

The outstanding feature of all religious experience is goodness.

A real religion manifests itself in goodness. It must therefore be a

cause of goodness. A concomitant of goodness is truth.

Goodness and truths goes together, as there is never goodness that is not based

on truth or vice versa. Where there is goodness and truths, there is peace and

harmony. This is a blissful state. So wherever there is

goodness there is truth and bliss. Real religion thus manifests itself as truth,

goodness and bliss, or what Saivism calls sat-chit-ananda.

A single act of goodness lasts forever and sat literally means that which

lasts forever. Since satchitananda is everlasting, it is real, and as

it is pervasive, it is universal. It permeates through all life and

all conventional religions. As even the most saintly of persons unceasingly has

the urge to do more, to go higher, there is no limit to this urge. The

objective of the urge is therefore perfection.

Real Religion may therefore be defined as the inward

dynamic power which urges all to strive for perfection. As it produces

perfect goodness, it must be something greater than that. Acting on

different people it produces different degrees of goodness. These degrees may

be defined as the goals of different conventional religions.

This universal power manifesting as an urge in mankind, in all life, for

the preservation of life and the pursuit of ideals, must have been put there by

some higher beneficent power, which itself is all pervading, and the

source of goodness, truth and bliss. The function of this power is,

step by step through various religions and philosophies, the evolution of the

world as a whole, to the attainment of perfection, that is, attainment

to the source of this satchitananda.

This Real Religion, which underlies all religions and all life, the

omniscient, all mighty and all loving power which controls and guides the

universe, and provides the urge and intuitive knowledge to the soul in its

onward march to perfection, is called in the Saiva religion as the Power

of God, or the Love of God or Siva-Shakti.

Saiva Siddhanta proceeds from here to built up its philosophy, based not on

authority, but on demonstrable truths, or axiomatic truths.

Some of the first postulates are;

1. something cannot come out of nothing, or become nothing,

2. change is a rearrangement of components,

3. whatever has no components, or is further unanalysable, cannot undergo

change,

4. that which does not change is real, is eternal,

5. things change under the action of a force or power,

6. that power (Shakti) is held by an Intelligent Being (Siva).

These rational postulates, prima facie, makes all conventional religions

and philosophies redundant. In Siddhanta this fundamental ontology (of god,

souls and the world) and postulates are not simply philosophic posits but

rather self evident Axiomatic Truths, truths like 2 plus 2 is

four, always there objectively and universally as something already in the mind

of all. These are also not the Axioms of the West but rather TRUTHS, always

there and already in the mind of all, only that not all might have arrived at

them yet.

It is a TRUTH

that clarifies all metaphysical questions and because of which there is apodictic

certainty as to the meaning of existence, a certainly that cannot be

shaken at all. If something is a postulate, it does give rise to this kind of

certainty that comes along with indubitability.

It is

not also a belief, a faith, etc, for once an Axiomatic Truth, there

can be no uncertainty of whatever kind. It cannot be further deconstructed and

stands there solidly and as the Axiomatic Truth without doubts and distortions.

(Dr. K. Loganathan)

 

References:

1. 'The Saiva School of Hinduism' by Principal Emeritus S.

Shivapadasundaram, Victoria College, Sri Lanka, 1934, based on the Siva Gnana

Siddiyar by Arulnandi, 13th century.

2. Thiruvarulpayan by Umapati Sivachariyar, 13th century scholar sage and

disciple of Meykandar, and who wrote 8 of the 14 Siddhanta Shastras, 9 books in

tamil and 2 in sanskrit.

Chapter 10

 

 

 

Developments in

Siddhanta

 

The philosophy

of the vedas is called vedanta and the philosophy of the agamas is called

agamanta, or siddhanta. Several philosophies arose from the vedas including the

shad dharsanas. However only vedanta survives as a school today, yet the other

shad dharsanas exist only as contributaries to the existing schools of though.

Today when

people think siddhanta, they think only of the Meykandar, tamil, and pluralism,

which is erroneous. It is not that siddhanta suddenly burst on the scene in the

13th century. The bakti saints were siddhantists. On top of the some 30

southern siddhanta schools, there were at least a dozen north Indian sanskrit

based siddhanta schools in the pre-Meykandar eras.

It is not that

siddhanta suddenly burst on the scene with Tirumular too. He simply wrote for

the first time the teachings of the agamas and vedanta into tamil. The entire

upanishads is siddhanta too. That word 'siddhanta' is used there. With temples,

there is triadism there, and so there is siddhanta, which pushes it into the

first millenium BCE, and prior to that.

Siddhanta preceded

Meykandar, preceded Tirumular, is found in the upanishads, is found in the

vedas, and probably preceded the vedas well into sumerian origins! It only took

first definitive order with Tirumular, then a second

definitive order with Aghorasiva, and finally a third

definitive order with Meykandar.

Siddhanta

underwent three stages of development:

1. Nandikesvara

in the 2nd century BCE (confirmed by Panini) and his disciple Tirumular

are the first known ones to propagate it, the former in sanskrit (Nandikesvara

Kasika which is monistic) and the latter in tamil (Tirumantiram).

2.

Aghorasiva in the 12th century combined the northern sanskrit and the

southern tamil schools, and perfected the rituals. He paved the way for the

beginning of a pluralist interpretation.

3. Meykandar

in the 13th century which deconstructed all other existings schools including

Shankara, Ramanuja, the buddhists and jains. We celebrate Meykandar because he

deconstructed Shankara's mayavada advaita vedanta.

In the history

of siddhanta we see a evolution of siddhanta from monism to a unique

non-dualism.

http://www.answers.com/topic/shaiva-siddhanta

http://www.saivism.net/sects/siddha/siddhasaivism.asp

The first known

guru of the Suddha, or "pure," Saiva Siddhanta tradition was

Maharishi Nandinatha of Kashmir (ca 250 BCE), recorded in Panini's book of

grammar as the teacher of Rishis Patanjali, Vyaghrapada and Vasishtha.

The only surviving written work of Maharishi Nandinatha is the twenty-six

Sanskrit verses, called the Nandikesvara Kasika, in which he carried forward

the ancient teachings.

Tirumular put

the vast writings of the Ã…gamas and the Suddha Siddhanta philosophy into the

Tamil language for the first time. Tirumular's Suddha Saiva Siddhanta shares

common distant roots with Mahasiddhayogi Gorakshanatha's

Siddha Siddhanta in that both are Natha teaching lineages. Tirumular's lineage

is known as the Nandinatha Sampradaya, while Gorakshanatha's

is called the Ã…dinatha Sampradaya.

A New

Siddhanta

It was in the

twelfth century that Aghorasiva took up the task of amalgamating

the Sanskrit Siddhanta tradition of the North with the Southern Tamil Siddhanta.

As the head of a branch monastery of the Ã…mardaka Order in Chidambaram,

Aghorasiva gave a unique slant to Saiva Siddhanta theology, paving the way for

a new pluralistic school.

In strongly

refuting any monist interpretations of Siddhanta, Aghorasiva brought a dramatic

change in the understanding of the Godhead by classifying the first five

principles, or tattvas (Nada, Bindu, Sadasiva, Èsvara and Suddhavidya), into

the category of pasa (bonds), stating they were effects of a cause and

inherently unconscious substances. This was clearly a departure from the

traditional teaching in which these five were part of the divine nature

of God. Aghorasiva thus inaugurated a new Siddhanta, divergent from

the original monistic Saiva Siddhanta of the Himalayas.

Despite

Aghorasiva's pluralistic viewpoint of Siddhanta, he was successful in

preserving the invaluable Sanskritic rituals of the ancient Ã…gamic tradition

through his writings. To this day, *Aghorasiva's Siddhanta philosophy

is followed by almost all of the hereditary Sivacharya (saiva-brahmins) temple

priests,* and his paddhati texts on the Ã…gamas have become the standard puja

manuals. His Kriyakramadyotika is a vast work

covering nearly all aspects of Saiva Siddhanta ritual, including dîksha,

saµskaras, atmartha puja and installation of Deities.

In the

thirteenth century, another important development occurred in Saiva Siddhanta

when Meykandar wrote the twelve-verse Sivajñanabodham.

Siddhanta was an

all-India phenomenan, and it still is. It is just that most people are not

aware of it but use vedanta and vedanta terms out of ignorance. If there is a

temple, a mantra chanted repetitiously, a yantra, a forehead mark, then that is

siddhanta, that is agama. Is there a place in India where there is no temple,

no one using forehead marks, no one chanting a mantra repetitiously?

"Kashmir is

the place where Saiva Siddhanta was flourshing well. There was exchange of

ideas between Tamilnadu and Kashmir. The texts are shared between them. Even in

the Tirumanthiram Verse 98 says, 'Thaththuva jnanam uraiththathu thaazhvarai'.

'Thazh varai' means on the low plains at the end of himalayas and here it

indicates Kashmir. Some says it is Mount Kailash but geographically it is still

a high mountain not the low hill plain. Ugrajothi,Satyojothi, Ramakantha I,

Ramakantha II are well known saiva siddhanta scholars from Kashmir and

extensively quoted in the pre MeykaNdar Saiva texts. Somasambhu, Agorasivam,

Appaiya Deekshitar, Neelakandar are well known Saivaite scholars from Tamilnadu

in the pre MeykaNdar era. While Kashmir scholars quotes extensively form the

Agamas of South indian origin in their books, the Tamilnadu scholars too quote

extensively from the texts of these Kashmir scholars.

In Tirumanthiram

Verse 102 Tirumular says;

kalantharuL

kaalaangar thampaal akorar

Nalantharu maaLikaith thaevar naathaanthar

PulamkoL paramananthar pokka thaevar

NilamthikaL moolar niraamayaththoarae

Which

means there were seven sages along with him; Kaalangar, Akoorar,

MaLikaiththaevar, Naathanthar, Paramanandar and Bhogathaevar. This Bhoga Thaevar is of Kashmir and the author of Thathuva

Pirakaasikai, the first book among the eight

books of Ashda Pirakaranam.

Whether he is originally from Kashmir or settled in Kashmir is not known.

Tirumanthiram Verse 70 says about four of them including Tirumular set to go

one each to four directions for spreading the message. So the Bhoga Devar may

be the one set to go to Kashmir. But these are all our presumptions and there

is no concrete evidence for these."

Dr. K. Loganathan

But siddhanta is

not widely known in India and its not just because of the language it was

written in. It is because writers omitted to mention that since most of the

works deals with Siddhanta, Saivism and Shaktism. There are hundreds of works

in sanskrit on the various schools of siddhanta, more than in tamil, and

written in all parts of India, mostly in the north. But the writers did not

want the Hindu public to know that; that siddhanta is more widespread

than vedanta, that it is equally (or more) associated with the north

than the south. The writers wrote focusing on vedanta, upanishads and the

bhagavadgita. This misrepresentation by omission led many to think that

siddhanta is only associated with the south or the tamils.

Judging by the

number of works in sanskrit and tamil, we can say that a majority of our

philosophers were siddhantists and the vast compendium of philosophies were on

siddhanta, and that vedanta is a minority opinion. Considering the two hundred

odd monastic orders of various sampradayas, and including the vaishnavas as

agama-based, as they truly are, one can say that the smartha-vedantic schools

is a tiny minority in Hinduism, less than 3%, and the rest of the 97% of the

Hindus are siddhantists. The siddhantic-agamic ascetics in Kasi alone outnumber

all the vedantins in India. The minute one applies a tilak on the forehead, one

is a siddhantin. Is there anyone in India that is not a siddhantin? But of

course people do not quite bother to delineate and articulate their

philosophical positions clearly that way.

On languages and

extent of literature, as mentioned before more than half the extant Hindu

literature today is in tamil, and any book or philosophy that does not deal

with the body of tamil literature, is not representative of Hinduism or its

philosophies, is not talking about Hinduism, it is talking of something else.

As the major part of sanskrit literature is written in ancient tamil grantham

script, and is not available in nagari or devanagari at all till today, not

available north of the vindhyas, one wonders how those philosophers and

scholars in the last two hundred years could have read those texts and write

about Hinduism and its philosophies.

 

A Brief

on Advaita in Siddhanta

Vedanta is

considered as the culmination of Vedas. Similarly, Saiva Siddhanta is

considered as the culmination of Saiva Agamas. It is for this reason Siddhanta

is sometimes referred to as ‘Agamanta’.

Unlike the

Vedanta, Saiva Siddhanta considers three kind of relationship of God

with the Soul. God is one with the Soul, along with the Soul, and

different from the Soul. This aspect of relationship in three states (onraai,

udanaai, veraai) is the Advaita relationship mentioned in Siddhanta

philosophy.

The three kinds

of relationship of God to the soul can be explained with an analogy. The Soul

is one with our physical body. Similarly God is one with the soul. The soul is

along with the body and animates it. Similarly God is along with the soul and

animates it. Yet the soul is different from the body. Similarly God is

different from the Soul.

The second

Aphorism of SivaJnanaBodham speaks of the Advaita relationship in Siddhanta

philosophy as follows:

 

“The primal Being, God, is non-separable from the souls, being one with

them, different from them and making them to take births and deaths

ceaselessly, experiencing the fruits of the twin karma. This is done by His

Sakthy who is eternally in implicit union with Him.†(Dr. K. Ganesalingam)

The above is a

concise summary of the similarities and differences between siddhanta and

vedanta over the term advaita. As one can readily see, siddhanta is far more

sophisticated, and in fact bridges non-dual, dual and plural relationships of

god, soul and the world. Siddhanta is not different from vedanta, just more

sophisticated in explaining the relationship of the triad. Which is why sages

and scholars say vedanta is general and siddhanta is specific. This makes

vedanta dated, passe, and well, obsolete, as we have moved far forward from

being mere simplistic.

Additionally,

the explanations of the three-fold relationships within siddhanta gives rise to

monistic theism (advaita isvarapada) and pluralism, although both agree on all

the points, that souls are beginningless, that there is actual

embodiment (sariraka) of the soul and disembodiment.

In my opinion

Meykandar's philosophy, insofar as the relationship between god and soul, is

not pluralism but a unique monism or advaita. Kauai Aadheenam calls it 'advaita

isvarapada' or monistic theism. It is non dual. At the same time since there is

Isvara, a Personal God, there is dualism, and as there is padam, there is

worship which makes it outright dualism as the path or marga.

In the beginning

there was neither existence nor non existence. Nothing was there. Suddenly

Brahma and Vishnu sprang forth from Nowhere, and were wondering who they were,

and from where did they come from, what they should do, and whether they should

create the world, and if so, who should do it. Then they were astonished to see

an infinite linga of light arise from the Nowhere. So they

decided to find its origin and ends in order to prove their own greatness.

Today, like the

two gods, scholars want to do the same thing. They want to 'measure' god, find

the ends, figure out and map the entire route, leave no mystery behind, no

stone unturned. Isn't this what all philosophers do - try and 'measure' God? We

are the 'gods' searching for causes and reasons for creation, and just how

exactly dissolution is going to take place, all in minute detail, step by step,

frame by frame detail, with ample footnotes thrown in.

Even Brahma and

Vishnu couldn't and surrendered in abject humility. Only then He revealed

Himself to them, and even after that, the gods could not describe it

for the benefit of us all, for posterity. We better do the same thing.

I propose we too surrender so that He may reveal to us. It seems like a wiser

idea.

There is an

area, the state called parasiva, which cannot be explained. In

this transcendent state no one can even say if God exists or not, or if soul

exists or not, let alone the relationship is one or two. In this area, it's

best to leave it as an inexplicable mystery that only Rudra the Dissolver would

know.

The same logic

applies in that matter of creation of souls and worlds. We will only end up

with very logical and rational explanations but based on non

falsifiable postulates. Since creation is very difficult to explain, we

*might* have a better chance at exploring dissolution. Understanding cosmic

dissolution may give us some understanding on creation.

We observe

atrophy in this universe and its logical to infer that dissolution in the world

is already taking place. We are well into mahapralaya. The texts tells us that

all including the gods and all iconic forms will dissolve into that great

Nothingness, the inexplicable parasiva. At that point only Rudra exists, and

there will be no one to ask Him any questions, like, why? There will be no one

to observe what He does after absorbtion. And how long the period of rest

lasts. This does not arise as time and space too will be absorbed. And whether

there will be any re-creation, and if so, how exactly Rudra does it.

Nobody knows.

The questions don't arise as there is no one around to ask and record for

posterity, and accordingly there are no answers. The same applies on creation.

This is where we must stop the 'measuring'. The ends - creation and dissolution

should always remain as the mysteries of god, and not as subjects of

philosophies.

Chapter 11

 

 

 

What is a Siddhanta

 

 

Tamil Civilization

Vol.3 No.2 & 3

SIDDHANTA MUKTI: AN ENQUIRY INTO THE ULTIMATE END OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

Dr.K.Loganathan

I believe that

each person must struggle metaphysically and rediscover for himself the

Fundamental Ontology of Triadism with which the metaphysics assumes the name of

Saiva Siddhanta.

 

1.0 The

Rules of the Game

The

metaphysical question of the meaning of life, why we are here as

creatures in the world with bodies and psychophysical utensils for effecting

actions and gaining experience, painful at times; where we are heading to and

so forth resolves itself into the question about mukti or moksa

(Ta.vIdu) the highest of the four purusarthas.

As the brilliant

and insightful biographical sketches of the Saiva Nayanmars given by Sekkilar

in the famous Periapuranam would reveal, no matter what route we have taken in

our intellectual development, no matter how these developmental processes have been

conditioned by accidents of birth, historical circumstances and cultural

dynamics, this question of questions bursts upon one, gripping the soul so

earnestly that all other endeavours are reduced to triviality and

superficiality. The historical records of the Nayanmars, Alvars and a host of

others throughout the world also reveal that this question is not the privilege

of the rich or those with some divine rights decreed by tradition or

scriptures. It emerges in the bosom of man and woman alike, rich and the poor,

the privileged and the underprivileged. It emerges in the contexts of a life

shattering vacuum in the deepest recesses of the person, raising him or her

immediately above the ordinary. The person gripped with this question is reborn

with all that constitued him, that was him buried irrevocably deep down.

Kingdoms are given up, family and kinship ties severed, the pleasures of life

forsaken in search of an answer to this basic question of life, of existence.

Persons stung

with this question constitute a new community of their own where the accidents

of birth and attainments in scholarship, power and wealth are absolutely

irrelevant. They become a new species of human beings with a deep and implicit

understanding of each other, in particular, the common presuppositions that now

begin to condition their existence. The commonalities that unite these beings

do not identify the method with which they seek the answers. The methods are as

diverse as the individuals and each brings along a distinct temper and

orientation, at least at the beginning. Seeking an answer to this

question is actually an attempt to gain clarity with respect to the goal, the

terminus absolutes of existence as such. A new mode of psychic

struggle develops within, where all the intellectual and behavioral

competencies are pressed into service for the supreme task of gaining

this clarity. Metaphysical systems, religious cults, philosophy,

sacred music, dance, drama, poetry, yogas and tapas, mantras and yantras and so

forth constitute some of the methods recorded in the history of mankind.

In all these,

the philosophic method has a pre-eminence over the others. The term

'philosophy' is used here in the Indian sense i.e. a rational enquiry

into the sustaining darsana or katci, i.e., a vision, an insight or the

grounding Idea. A gestaltic Idea, a global vision of the world that

channels the psychic processes of the individual and hence regulates his

behaviour becomes the object of philosophical enquiry under certain

circumstances. For the Idea could be vague, mistaken, irrelevant, not ultimate

and so forth.

The Idea

is an objective reality and hence it is possible to undertake an

enquiry into it and work towards a consensus and clarity. It is possible for

many to gain a vision of the sustaining Ideas and thereby agree or disagree

among themselves. It may also be impossible for many for lack of sufficient

intellectual tuning (apakkuvam) and where such is the case a training program

is installed to gradually heighten the sensitivity and competency to the

required levels. This sensitivity is only a precondition for gaining a vision

of Ideas and thereby qualify for a discourse on them. The enquiry then

is conducted among individuals who have visions of the Ideas but who

are inclined differently with respect to different Ideas. Where a

consensus is reached, a particular Idea among the different Ideas is assented

to as the most comprehensive, meaningful, errorless, satisfying and so forth.

The

philosophical enquiry, then, though throughly rational, is not logical in the

ordinary sense of the term. It is thoroughly rational in the sense that we use

principles that we are aware of and can be stated in explicit terms and

simultaneously avoid the a priori acceptance of a body of scriptures or

the pronouncements of a particular individual as absolutely authoritative and

so forth. The enquiry rightly should begin with suspending all the

accomplishments of the cultural and intellectual past-- there must be an

intellectual nudity, so to speak, a nirvana of prejudices and presuppositions.

It is only within the framework of such an enquiry, an Idea among so many Ideas

could emerge as the final, the ultimate, the true, the most meaningful.

We shall use the term siddhanta to designate an Idea

with the above qualifying characteristics or ilakkaNam.

The term

siddhanta is appropriate in many ways. It is a compound formed of two terms

viz. sid and anta. Sid is an ancient proto-Dravidian term which occurs as sid

in Sumerian with such meanings as 'recitation', 'calculation', 'reckoning' and

so forth. The old Tamil term cettu 'to think, ponder' is obviousoly a

derivative of this. In view of this, it is possible to consider cittam,

cintanai, citti, cittar and so forth as Tamil words related to the ancient

proto-Dravidian sid. The sense we propose for the present use is that of

vision, an insight, an awareness or consciousness as structured by an Idea.

This combined with the meaning of 'limiting' the 'highest' and so forth

associated with anta, we are led to view the meaning of siddhanta, as

the most enduring, unassailable, errorless, the absolutely true, the most

meaningful, the most comprehensive vision or consciousness as constituted by an

Idea. Siddhanta Mukti would then be a vision of Mukti, a

consciousness of the ultimate goal of existence that answers to the above

qualifications.

It must be

stated here rather emphatically that an enquiry into Siddhanta Mukti, is not an

enquiry into the psychological processes involved in the genesis of the Ideas

on mukti. We are indifferent as to its genesis- whether it is revealed

in dreams or some other subliminal states of consciousness, or intuited through

ardent tapas and yogas or arrived at through careful considerations of the

semantic and other nuances of the sacred literature or through the performances

of the sacred dances or singing and listening to sacred hymns and mantras, or

through meditative practices using the yantras as props and so forth do not

furnish the criteria that command our assent as to its ultimacy-- the

anta-ic character of the consciousness of the most meaningful goal of

existence. The routes followed give us only knowledge of the routes and not

that of the terminus. In following a route, we are aware of the route and that

we are heading somewhere and these two are distinct. The route does not reveal

the Idea that sustains the travel, the Idea too, other than sustaining the

travel, does not incline the individuals to a particular route. The routes

could be numerous, for clearly the existence of one does not preclude the

possibility of another.

A caution is

necessary here. While it is possible for many routes to reach the same

destination, it is equally possible for different routes to reach different

destinations. Also we cannot, strictly speaking, sever the linkage

between routes and destinations. One may very well have chosen a

particular route knowing very well where it leads to and such a person may be

inclined positively towards some other routes knowing very well or not being

informed (by reliable persons) that these too lead towards the same goal.

Among

individuals who differ in their concept of where they are heading too, what is

the meaning of existence, we have to resolve first the differences in this

domain before coming to resolving difference in the choice or routes. Only

subsequent to clearly grasping that a particular Idea of mukti is the highest,

the most meaningful and the true, that we possess the appropriate criteria for

deciding which among the different possible routes could be trusted upon and

which could not. An enquiry into Siddhanta mukti is undertaken

precisely for this purpose: to sensitize ourselves to the criteriological

features of the sense of mukti that answers to the description of the ultimate

goal of existence.

Such an

enquiry, it must be noted, precludes those incapable of ever generating, even

vaguely, such an idea at all. They are prephilosophic,

lacking the cognitive tuning that would reveal, in some form or other, the

notion of the ultimate goal of existence. They exist, live as creatures of

nature pulled and pushed by forces beyond their comprehension.

 

This enquiry then would be confined to those who have risen above the natural

state of existence and seek to attain a reflective awareness, a clear grasp of

the true mukti. Let us also note carefully: an enquiry into siddhanta

mukti is not a logical enquiry, a deductive, inductive or even abductive

acrobatics. There are no a priori axioms or rules of inference on the basis of

which we churn out notions of mukti and select one among the many as the true

one. It is not a nigamana of Indian Logic nor a theorem of the Western logic.

What then are

the rules of the game?

What we

are seeking is clarity of vision and in that clarity also realizing that a

particular vision of mukti cannot be subverted or supplanted by another.

In the process of the enquiry, we gain vision after vision of that which we

have called mukti, sensitize ourselves to what each one of them imply in terms

of the mode of existence in the world, attitude towards existence and react to

those implications and thereby evaluate them in some sense. Generating a vision

or idea, noting its implications for existence, reacting to that implied

possibility and thereby evaluating the vision itself constitute the activities

involved in this enquiry. It can be seen that the process is akin to

recognizing something as what one is after and ascertaining that there

is no error in this recognition. This enquiry then presupposes

a specific cognitive capacity among all - that of being able to

recognise a particular vision of mukti as constituting the ultimate. We possess

in other words a citsakti (as Agora Sivacariar would describe it) within our

cognitive competency that enables us to recognise a vision of mukti as

the ultimate one. However, the vision in itself, no matter how clearly

it is grasped, cannot reveal itself as the ultimate and true- the citsakti

remains impotent under such circumstances. The citsakti becomes

operative only when the vision is brought to bear upon existence - how

the Idea would ground the manner in which we would relate ourselves to the

world. The citsakti guides existence and is operative in every conduct of life,

in every action we execute.

There is also

another set of circumstances within which citsakti becomes operative. When

one among the different visions of mukti stands out as the most comprehensive,

that which subverts and supplants other visions but remains itself unsupplanted

and unsubverted and beyond and above which no other visions of the

same species can even be generated, citsakti becomes operative in recognising

this as the siddhanta mukti or para mukti.

The notions of

'supplanting' and 'subverting' that we have used above needs further

clarification. The notion of siddhanta as a vision that remains unsupplanted

and unsubverted is a more general notion than the notion of siddhanta mukti

-i.e. the Idea of mukti that is a siddhanta. A siddhanta, first of all,

is a vision, a sight or perception of something. A vision, it must be

noted, is always that of someone and of something. The objects are there prior

to the vision; the vision reveals the objects to the individual who generates

the vision. A vision is not a light that exists on its own revealing objects in

addition to revealing itself. A vision is a generated consciousness of an

object and therefore there must be the generator of the consciousness and the

object of which it is a consciousness.

What is clear

also is that neither the processes of generation nor the subjective inputs of

the generating self establish its validity. A vision is valid and correct if it

is true to the object it reveals, the object of which it is a vision. And this

is again established by citsakti through evaluating a number of visions of the

same objects. The citsakti recognises one among the many possible ones as free

of aberrations, distortions, and so forth. The many visions prior to the

activation of citsakti remain ungrounded- they could not be valued as true or

illusory, misleading and so forth. A vision is seen as an illusion, as an

error, only when through the functions of citsakti, another vision emerges as

true to the object. An illusion is then a supplanted or subverted vision and

siddhanta is that which supplants and subverts. An enquiry into siddhanta then

arises on the implicit assumption that visions that define our consciousness of

the world remain ungrounded- we are neither certain not uncertain with respect

to their validity. Note that a vision could be a siddhanta right at its

inception, but we are unable to say so before the operations of citsakti, till

it is noted that it remains unsupplanted and unsubverted. Describing a

siddhanta as free of doubt and error, as is done by Arunandi Sivacariar, though

not incorrect, is inadequate. Such a definition does not reveal the procedures

involved in the establishments of siddhantas. Doubts and uncertainties are

subjective conditions and the absence of these is not sufficient for grounding

a vision as a siddhanta. In perceiving we gain a vision with or without

accompanying uncertainties and where this vision is further cognised as true to

the object of which it is a vision, that it remains stable despite changing

vicissitudes, an invariant across time and space, it becomes a siddhanta. This

may be what Arunandi meant by AcaRRu aRivatakum in which case what we are doing

now would be restating his case perhaps in greater detail.

Siddhantas are

then visions grounded well in reality, consciousness of the world that can be

depended upon, trusted upon, taken as true and so forth. In ordinary existence

we presuppose many such siddhantas and act successfully for obtaining whatever

we want.

Siddhantas as

such can be numerous, each existing independently of others. They constitute

the consciousness space of an individual thereby influencing his behaviour.

There are certain general characteristics of siddhantas that ought to be noted

carefully.

(A) The

siddhantas constitute a coherent system with any one of the siddhantas not

subverting or supplanting another. All siddhantas, are stable, true and

non-illusory and hence the trusted basis of consciousness. They are all equally

beyond doubt and uncertainty.

We shall term

this the coherence theses.

(B) Now a belief

in a vision and a tenacious clinging to it for some psychological reason or other

(membership to a cult, assent to a sacred lore, enslavery to a guru etc.)

should not be mistaken with a siddhanta. Also, while a siddhanta commands a

consensus of opinions, an assent by a vast majority of people, these in

themselves do not constitute the identifying criteria of a siddhanta. Whether

assented or not, a siddhanta is a siddhanta for all people and for all times.

Siddhantas are objective entities cognisable by all under certain specifiable

conditions. Siddhantas are visions that can be discovered, insights that can be

gained, by any, provided certain preconditions are satisfied.

We shall term

this the objectivity thesis.

© Siddhantas,

as already noted, are stable, invariant, uncontroverted, unsupplantable vision

of Reality, visions of the world out there that constitute the basis of human

consciousness. As such, it is clear that they are trusted, relied upon,

presupposed in all our endeavours. Having accepted them as siddhantas, we

cannot feign to deny them, distrust them, cast a methodical doubt on them and

so forth.

 

This we shall term the reliability thesis.

The siddhantas

on the whole then constitute a coherent system, are reliable (or relied upon)

and objective.

A certain

qualification is necessary here. While siddhantas constitute the basis of

consciousness, they are not the only elements constituting consciousness.

Visions of reality that are not grounded yet as siddhantas or known positively

as ungroundable; visions known positively as illusory, misleading and so forth

are also elements of consciousness. What the reliability thesis seeks to affirm

is that among such visions that constitute sonsciousness, there must be at

least some that are siddhantas, that not all of them are illusory or

ungroundable and so forth.

Having clarified

the meaning of siddhanta, we have also to clarify in a similar manner the

concept of mukti.

Mukti,

let us recall, answers to the question of the meaning of existence. It provides

the sense for living, the overriding goal of all our endeavours and struggles. It

provides a vision of what a psyche would be ultimately, at the end of both the

evolutionary and developmental process, a vision that is absolutely

satisfying and that which nullifies any looking beyond. It is the

absolute end of psychical existence to which not only there is no alternative

but also about which nothing else is even thinkable. It is a vision of a sense,

a meaning for living, that sublimates any further endeavour in that direction;

the vision closes on itself putting an end to the whole quest. It is a

terminus that terminates all enquiry, all struggles towards perceiving

the meaning of existence.

The siddhanta

mukti then must be such a vision that is coherent with the other Siddhantas,

objective in the sense outlined earlier and of course reliable.

Now an important

objection could be raised. The language in which this whole enquiry is couched

presupposes a certain view, a vision, and therefore inconsistent with the

principles enunciated. The objection is valid. But let it be noted: we are aware

of it and are prepared to cast out the whole perspective, should it emerge

erroneous. The vision presupposed is that which is consistent with the view

that human behaviour is essentially that of acting, doing this and that for

accomplishing something or other, on the basis of whatever one is aware of. This

vision of behaviour, which has been discussed in greater detail elsewhere, is

taken as a siddhanta, at least provisionally. No enquiry is free of

perspectives; what is required is an awareness that a certain perspective is

being presupposed as well as a preparedness to cast it aside, should it emerge

erroneous in the course of investigations.

This explanation

justifies beginning our enquiry with the understanding that living is

learning and there are on the whole three distinct but interrelated

strands of learning. The alpha-learning is the instrumental

learning, the primary motivation being self-gratification. It is an outcome of

activities indulged in for self itself and not for any other. It is also a form

of learning that is directed away from the self so that it does not reveal to

the learner the changes taking place within the psychic constitution. Such

changes remain unconscious to the alpha-person.

At some point in

time, attention shifts to such changes in the psyche and with this we have the

onset of beta-learning. The subjectivity of the psyche, the

learner is attended to and it develops from being an enquiry into the nature of

the psyche to transforming it into image-selfs that are generated within as

better alternatives. The technology is one of disengagement through intense

reflection and meditation so that in the end, the psyche is freed from some

deep limiting factors (karma and maya) and becomes truly autonomous. The only

delimiter that remains is ANavam causing a Darkness or Ignorance to prevail in

consciousness. The learning processes that bring about the elimination

of this Darkness within has been termed gamm -learning.

In retrospect it

turns out that gamma-learning is primary and one that has been there all along,

though unconscious to the individual. It is that which regulates the

predispositions underlying alpha-learning and changes in personality during

beta-learning.

The psyche

becomes conscious of gamma-learning at the end of beta-learning and pursues it

with all the vigour that can be mustered. During the conscious phase of

gamma-learning, it is seen to be one of archetype-assimilation. This

constitutes the characterstic feature of gamma-learning. This means that during

the unconscious phases of gamma-learning it is also one of

archetype-assimilation, the archetype being images of the Supreme Deity

characterised by fractional portions of three aspects: Universal Consciousness,

Absolute Power and Unconditional Love i.e. C, P and L. Each archetype

is a measure of these three with the higher constituted with larger measures.

The mechanism of gamma-learning can then be seen as follows, at least

provisionally.

A psyche [s-A]

is at any time an archetype assimilated as its being-- incorporated as itself

unconsciously initially but consciously subsequent to beta-learning. Here

"s" stands for self and "A" the archetype assimilated or

about to be assimilated. It holds in vision the next level of archetype and

endeavours to assimilate it and become that. This process continues until the

special archetype [s-A]* emerges in consciousness. The C,P and L are no more

fractions but rather full portions. This is obviously the ultimate in the

archetypical formations and therefore once the psychic transformations to this

specific archetype is effected, an ultimate end in gamma-learning is reached. The

essential consciousness of the gamma-learner who is given the consciousness of

[s-A]* that sustains his learning is: 'I am That' with ' I ' referring to the

self and 'That' referring to [A*].

The 'I' refers

to a psyche and when used by different people then to different psyches. The

referent is not unique. Also the referents are not all identical - while being

psyches, they could be psyches that have incorporated different archetypes.

This sort of

analysis cannot be carried over to 'That'. For the referent here is unique, no

matter who refers to it, it is one and the same transcending space and time and

identity of the referee.

Is it possible

then to have a vision of mukti as this ultimate stage of archteypical

assimilation? All psyches in the end become [A*], and hence indistinguishable

from each other no matter what route they have taken in this transformational

process. The person is also identical with the Deity for he would have a full

measure of C,P and L that is characteristic only of the Deity.

This vision

immediately raises many problems. If we retain the identity of each psyche and

at the same time maintain that ultimately they are indistinguishable from Deity,

then, of course, eventually there would be infinitely many Deities, equal in

Consciousness, Power and Love.

This vision

creates uneasiness within us, for all along we have assumed the

uniqueness of D- there could be only one Supreme Deity even when infinitely

many psyches attain mukti.

We are forced to

explore other possibilities, generate other visions that do not contradict

established siddhantas.

2.0 The

Theistic Considerations

One possibility

that occurs immediately and which is currently advocated by Advaita

Vedanties is to remove from the above vision the idea that the psyches

retain their identity even in mukti. We could say that in mukti, the situation

is different -the psyche is no more at this point. It becomes materially one

with the Deity, absolutely non-different from it. All psyches then dissolve

their being into the being of Deity at the point of mukti. The psyches will not

be experiencing the Deity as the psyches are no more. The limit of ' I am That'

tranformations is evaporation, or dissolution of I; in the end there is only

That.

This vision

brings along with it the whole range of vedantic ideas. If in the end only That

has being, clearly all else must be false, suddha mithai, maya and so forth.

This vision supplants a whole range of others, and it must be emphasized, the

whole range of others that we have taken as siddhanta. It does not falsify this

or that belief that could have been mistakenly taken as siddhanta; but rather,

it wipes out the whole lot of them indiscriminately. It does not rectify our

mistakes, correct our errrors and improve upon our visions. It cuts

asunder the fundamental idea that sustains our existence viz., that of learning

and developing into higher and higher levels through learning.

Not alone that,

it also leads to the notion that even our siddhanta about the Deity

i.e. an entity characterised by a full measure of C, P and L, is mistaken.

Since in the limit only D is real and there is no experienceing of Deity, there

could be no language about It-the mukti is anirvacana. Hence also qualityless-

nirguna. We are forced to revise our notion of Deity-- the Deity prior to mukti

is saguna i.e. with the qualities of C, P and L. But on mukti it becomes

nirguna. The archetypes, including the highest are mere images, mirages of the

Absolute which is in itself Nirguna Brahman, undermining again our earlier idea

about the archetypes.

Clearly this is

unacceptable. The mukti as Siddhanta can correct and rectify our mistaken

visions about it and the related ones but it cannot supplant the entire range

of Siddhantas and beliefs that sustain existence and make even this enquiry

possible. There may be errors in our visions but all visions are not erroneous.

That we learn is a Siddhanta and that this enquiry is part of this learning

process is also a Siddhanta. They are incontrovertibly true; visions that can

never, never be supplanted. We are then forced to conclude that the vision of

Vedanta Mukti is mistaken, erroneous and an illusion. Along with this, we have

to reject the whole of the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara.

Now there is

another alternative proposed within the tradition of Advaita Vedanta. One can

cite Catcitananta Pillai (19th. Century; see his Vedanta

Ilakkanam) as the most brilliant exponent of this veiw.

It is undeniable

that there are psyches and during the learning phases at least, an infinity of

them. There is subjectivity in every experience - to say that a vision is an

experience is to admit there is subjectivity and hence a psyche. Now mukti is a

vision and hence an experience and therefore undeniably the experience of a

psyche. The psyche is even in mukti. This means, in the formulation of learning

process as one of 'I am That', 'That' vaporises and only 'I' exists. Since 'I'

only exists, has being in this ultimate state it follows, all psyches become

identical in this limiting case. This means that perceived differences and

individuality during the learning phases, must be false, a mithai, purely an

appearance rather that reality. Since 'That' also disappears, it also follows

that the archetypes are mere chimeras, subjective constructions, imaginative

fictions without any substantive reality. Since 'I' only is ultimately real, it

also follows the self must also be the Deity, the Atman is Brahman--- it is one

and the same entity, the psyche, that has been perceived (wrongly of course) as

Atman and Brahman. These difference are aspectual and not real and vaporise

during mukti.

This vision

which grounds the psyche as the sole absolute reality and the perceived

differences, distinctions and so forth to mere appearances, create the same

problems as Sankara's Advaita and hence we have to reject it on the same

grounds as well.

These monisms

uproot and supplant the most obvious Siddhantas and undermine the very reality

of the enquiry that we are pursuing now. This very real thing that all of us

are pursuing so earnestly now, all of a sudden as if by a sinister magic, is

made into a dream-like reality. It negates the whole of experience,

negating even the objectively valid distinctions that we have established. What

is more, we cannot now, from this perspective, distinguish between cakkiram

(conscious experience) and coppanam (dream consciousness) denying what we are

most certain.

We reject both

the Brahman Advaita of Sankara and the Atman Advaita of Catcitanantar to secure

the siddhantas we live by. This mukti cannot be Siddhanta Mukti, a vision of

the ultimate that we seek to establish without supplanting what we know for

sure as Siddhanta and the right to pursue further enquiries into siddhantas by

rectifying our errors, correcting our mistakes, misperceptions and so forth.

The Vedantic concept of mukti does not accord with the criteria we have

established.

What

emerges from this analysis is that we cannot deny the reality of both Atman and

Brahman, the psyche and the Deity in the Siddhanta Mukti.

Let us now

consider other possibilities with this realization firmly anchored in our

consciousness.

The psyche is,

exists, has being and so does the Deity in mukti. But the psyche in mukti is

not the one in ordinary life-it is Deity- psyche indistinguishable from Deity

in terms of C(consciousness), P(ower) and L(ove). Becoming

indistinguishable from the Deity in this manner could then be construed as the

mukti we are seeking. But then how do we avoid the multiplicity of Deities that

results?

Perhaps we have

not really understood the Deity as it is till we are face to face with this

dilemma. Deity is not simply a unique entity with the full measure of C, P and

L; it is a totality that includes all as parts of Itself. The learning psyches,

the psyches that have attained mukti all are equally parts of Deity. The

difference between the ordinary Souls and the Muktas is simply one of

estrangement and integration. The psyches that have attained mukti

become fit to be integrated into the very body of the Supreme Deity without any

more of even the slightest estrangement. The Deity is the Highest Person, the

most inclusive Organismic Substance, the most inclusive Totality greater than

which there is nothing. (Recall Nammalvar's famous: Uyarvara uyarnalam

utaiyavan.) The multiplicity of individuals -- intelligent non-intelligent

equally alike-- are integrated into a single collective substance, a unity of

individuals whose individuality is not annihilated. The psyche in mukti retains

its identity, it is not annihilated but through a process of integration into

the body of the Deity of a most intimate kind, loses its sense of

individuality to a sense of Unity with the Totality. We have then the

vision of mukti as 'duality -- non-duality' so ably expounded by Ramanuja

using the visions of the original genius Nammalvar that goes under the name Visistatvaita.

This view,

unfortunately, is not without its problem. The solution, it turns out, is no

solution at all. It is simply a clever artefact devised to give a meaning to

the sense of oneness with Deity on attaining mukti. In conceptualising this as

being integrated into the very body of the Deity in a most intimate kind of

manner (sexual union is an apt analogy here), what we attain is a sense of

oneness with a simultaneous loss of self-consciousness. The psychic

consciousness is trapped in the consciousness of supreme bliss and thus

prevented from being self-conscious. The absence of self consciousness also means

that it is not conscious that it is experiencing something, united to something

as a result of which it is in a state of Supreme Bliss. This leads to the

conclusion that a psyche integrated thus is not conscious of the Deity at all.

In this concept of mukti, the vision of the Deity is blocked off from the

consciousness of the psyche that has attained mukti and is experiencing the

supreme bliss.

This immediately

strikes us as defective. A psyche whose consciousness is not fully translucent

is still a psyche with Darkness within; a psyche imperfect in some ways. Even

when we re -establish the consciousness of Deity to such a psyche through

postulating oscillations between consciousness of supreme bliss and

consciousness of Deity, the imperfection is not removed. It exists

each time it experiences the supreme bliss and since the experience is

cyclical, this defect is also not something that becomes eliminated completely.

If this vision

of mukti is now revised and reconstrued as a state where there is both consciousness

of the Deity and/or being integrated in a most intimate kind of manner with it,

together with the consciousness of Supreme Bliss, the unitary consciousness

postulated is no more. The consciousness of Deity brings along with it

consciousness of self as the one in whose consciousness the Deity is. The

subject-object distinction in consciousness is there betraying an absence of

advaita.

This concept of

mukti then fails to validate itself. Much more serious is the manner in which

it supplants the Siddhanta that living is learning, that knowledge is a product

of learning. For in the vision of mukti as an integration of self into the body

of the Deity which is now seen as the most inclusive Totality, clearly the

processes involved are not learning processes. Learning as activities that

remove Ignorance are supplanted and replaced with processes, largely emotional

in nature, of attaching, uniting with, surrendering to and so forth i.e.

prapatti. What would facilitate integration is emotional proximity, closeness

or identity and such processes are not learning processes. Philosophic

endeavours to gain an understanding of a deeper kind cannot be accommodated and

religious life would be interpreted as a non-intelletual enterprise with the

jnana route discarded as vain. Philosophic reasonings would be confined to

justifying the approach of absolute self-surrender (prapatti) thus denying the

autonomy of the intellectual powers

On these grounds

again the 'dual-nondual' concept of mukti fails to ground itself as Siddhanta

and we are forced to discard as erroneous approaches such as that of Ramanuja

and his followers.

The above theses

and the detailed analysis we have provided make the source of the problems

rather clear viz. the attempt to maintain both the sense of oneness

with the Deity and the non-annihilation of the psyche even at this terminal

point. Another alternative immediately occurs to us now: we can deny

the psyche ever becoming the [s-D]* and maintain that it is the nature of the

psyche to maintain its being and its distinctness from the Deity even at the

point of mukti.

No psyche can

ever acquire the full measure of C, P and L and hence equal D in any way. The

Deity is forever above the psyche and there is always an absolute, unbridgeable

chasm between the two. For the psyche is a dependent entity while the Deity is

not. Whatever measure of C, P and L that a psyche has, is not something that is

generated by itself-it has them by virture of the benevolence of the Deity. The

Deity has the power to withdraw and should this be done, the psyche will have

nothing, it will be pushed again into utter Darkness.

This then is a

duality thesis, much like that advocated by Madhva.

The point in

favour of this thesis is that it retains all the Siddhantas that we have accepted

hitherto, in particular our understanding of the Deity as one having a full

measure of C, P and L and the learning paradigm within which

we have been operating. (Hence the acceptance of Siva and the creation of

Sankara-Narayana cult among the followers.)

But this concept

again fails to validate itself. For if there is always an absolute distinction

between a psyche and Deity, then no matter at what point in time, the psyche

can never become the ultimate Deity-Self i.e. [s-D]* This means that there is

forever a Darkness within the psyche -- a Darkness even on attaining mukti. But

this Darkness, as we have already noted, is due to the presence of ANava malam

in the psyche, a delimiter that somehow introduces a Darkness,

an Ignorance within. Now this, certainly, is contradictory to the

concept of mukti as a state where the psyche is absolutely free from all the

delimiters. Mukti, we are inclined to believe, is a state of absolute purity

and not defective in any sense.

We are again

forced to reject the duality-thesis on the grounds that it does not correspond

to our concept of mukti in an essential manner.

We have, with

this rejection, reached a crisis in philosophy. There appears to be no way of

grounding mukti as Siddhanta. No matter how we look at it within the paradigms

that we have accepted as Siddhanta, mukti refuses to ground itself, validate

itself. We are forced then to question the paradigm itself. Perhaps the

learning approach we have adopted with its acceptance of the reality of

innumerable and anati psyches, a Supreme Deity and a cluster of malas equally

anati, Siddhantas consonant with the concept that behaviour is

essentially that of acting, doing something to achieve something are erroneous

in a very subtle way. We have to reject all these and explore the new

possibilities that emerge and consider them one by one.

For reasons that

will become obvious later, we shall call all these new alternatives

reductionistic theses.

3.0 The

Reductionistic Theses

a) In order to

adhere still to the concept of human behaviour as that of effecting of actions,

we could retain the psyches and elimate the Deity from our ontology. If we do

this, of course, we have to abandon a number of the other categories as well,

in particular the things we have termed Deep Limiting Constraints. We have to

maintain that there are no such malas - the individual differences in behaviour

of the creatures, the hierarchical differences among them and so forth are to

be explained by some other means. We can attribute, for example, the

delimitedness, the imperfections of the creatures to the physical bodies they

own and the cultural, social and ecological environments to which they are

exposed. The psyche in itself is absolutely pure, it is its commerce

with the material bodies that is the source of the psychological defects and

imperfections.

If the psyche is

pure in itself, then it must be pure consciousness devoid of any wants, needs

and so forth. In other words the psyche is not that which acts, the agent of

actions. The agent must be then the material substratum to which the psyche is

engaged. The material substratum must be active, in perpetual, unceasing motion

creating the impression that the creatures are in process.

With this vision

of creature behaviour, the concept of mukti as a state where the psyche is

detached completely from any commerce with matter suggests itself. Once thus

detached. The psyche regains its original purity, becomes absolute and 'pure'

consciousness without any defilements or pollutions. The psyche becomes the

Purusa, that detached and aloof consciousness that has effected the separation.

We are now

discussing views close to those of classical samkhya, probably

the first philosophical school to emerge in the Indian soil.

When we further

identify this Purusa with Brahman, and take the psyches not as real substantive

entities but rather 'reflections' of Brahman, which is in itself Pure

Consciousness, in a polluting material complex, we have the doctrines of a sect

of Vira Saivas (expounded in Siddhanta Sikamani of

Sivaprakasar). On mukti then, the psyches are no more, all equally become

Brahman. On this account the concept of delusion, so characteristic of Vedanta

doctrines, re-emerges with a new twist. The psyches are seen only as

'empirical selfs' but which are deluded into thinking as real substantive

entities in virtue of the fact that they mistakenly attribute the agency of

actions to themselves. With the escape from this delusion, the

empirical selves are no more, the atman becomes Brahman again.

What is wrong

with this? Why are we reluctant to accept this as the ultimate human

possibility? We cannot reject it on the ground that it subverts the Siddhantas

we live by. They are given a peculiar status -- they are true as far as it

goes, as far as ordinary existence goes. But they are not absolutely true; in

the ultimate stage of development, they are not simply false but they cease to

be; they evaporate into a Nothingness.

The ground for

rejecting it must be found within the postulates - we should point out, if we

could, an internal inconsistency among the among the postulates.

And we can see

it as follows. Among the processes mentioned, the most interesting are those

related to effecting a real separation of the psyche from the defiling material

substratum. Clearly this is not accidental and haphazard, without any sense of

direction. It is a directed course of activities that leads to something

immensely beneficial to the psyches - viz., liberation from being defiled by

active involvement with material complexes. Hence, certainly, it could not be

simply processes of the perpetually active prakriti. If it is not, then it

must be activities, initiated by the psyches themselves to effect the severance

from being imprisoned in a material complex. The concept of action and

along with it the psyches as their agent is being smuggled back in

contradiction to the assertion that behaviour is simply a process of the

ceaselessly active prakriti. Now if the psyches are agents of such actions,

then clearly they act out of a need, the need to effect a liberation from being

defiled by the commerce with the defiling matter. This then brings along with

it the idea that the psyches are imperfect in themselves; from the beginning

they have an intrinsic weakness, a proneness to be involved with material

complexes.

With this

analysis, we are back to square one - to the concept of psyches as

agents who act primarily to liberate themselves from the deep limiting factors

that expose them to being 'defiled' by material complexes.

For similar

reasons we have to reject the Vira Saiva doctrines as well. The psyches

that act to liberate themselves form delusions through effecting a

disengagement from material bodies, clearly cannot be simply 'reflections' of

Brahman within a material substratum i.e. insubstantial, shadowy creatures.

They are real as they effect real actions.

b) In the

reductionistic escape routes, as the above thesis makes it abundantly clear,

the retention of either the psyche or Deity leads to internal contradtictions.

Therefore another possibility suggests itself - we can reject the substantive

reality of both the psyches and Deity and admit only a stream of consnciousness

instead. An acting creature can be reconceptualized as a flow or stream of two

kinds of processess - one material and another consciousness. To accommodate

continuous change we may even postulate momentary particulars instantaneous

realities, the ksanas, that emerge incessantly without being caused and without

causing anything. What a creature sees as suffering is actually a turbulence in

the flow of the instantaneous realities. Peace comes to prevail and immense

bliss along with it when this turbulence is eliminated and a coherence is

achieved.

We are now

talking, of course, the kinds of solutions Gautama Buddha gave that have been

so influential all over the world. What is taking place here, it must be noted,

is also a reconceptualization of the concept of mukti itself. Along with

rejecting the learning paradigm of behaviour, the concept of mukti as something

that is expereinced by a psyche is also rejected. More than that, in this

vision there is no experience to talk about at all. There is flow of

consciousness either turbulent or coherent and that is about all. There is

nothing which sees, perceives a thing as such and such, confirms or corrects

its perception and so forth.

The problem with

this perspective is that it fails to account for the fact that there is

experience and that it is an experience of something. As Husserl,

Sartre, Ramanuja and a host of others have noted, consciousness is normally

always consciousness of something; consciousness in revealing itself, also

reveals something other that itself. It is translucent as Sartre would describe

it. And as it is stated by Thirumular, if there is nanam then there is also

neeyam.

With this

clarification in mind if we review the Buddhist solution, we will note that the

stream of consciousness is also a stream of momentary particulars just like the

quanta of energy pulses that constitute the material base. Now if both are

perfectly discontinuous, and a continuously changing flow of instantaneous

particulars, with nothing permanent, a problem arises - there could be no

distinction between turbulence and coherence in flow. Hence along with it, the

distinction between living in suffering and attaining mukti. The elimination of

the psyches and the Deity eliminates also the very question of mukti in obvious

contradiction to the very enquiry we are undertaking.

 

The attempt to redefine the stream of consciousness in terms of a stream of

thoughts along with other changes in the concept of material world, that become

necessary (e.g.William James in his Principles of Psychology) also does not

solve the problem. Thoughts are not simply impressions; they are generated forms

of awareness which presuppose a complex execution of cognitive acts of various

sorts, an execution that cannot take place without there being an intelligent

agent. This whole question has been explored in greater detail in the

linguistic discipline that goes by the name of Process Grammar. Thoughts simply

do not emerge one after another in a continuous flow-one is generated,

maintained and terminated and another generated and so forth. Neither the

thoughts themselves nor the material processes terminate one and originate

another. Such generative and terminative changes are products of actions where

there is an intelligent exercise of power betraying a substantive intelligent

entity as the causal agent of such action. Thus we derive a self-contradiction

within the perspective of this more drastic reductionistic thesis. The concept

of mukti then fails to ground itself as a Siddhanta -- the mukti thus defined

is not the Siddhanta mukti that we are seeking.

c) The

reductionistic theses centering on the psyches and Deity are fruitless; they do

not lead to concepts of mukti that strike us as the concept of mukti that we

are seeking. The only concept that is left is the concept of mukti itself. It

would appear that for avoiding self-contradictions we have to accept the

existence of innumerable psyches and a Supreme Deity as a Siddhanta. But could

we redefine the concept of mukti with which we started and thus avoid the

problems that surfaced initially? Mukti may not have anything to do with

gamma-learning. Perhaps we are mistaken in our concept of learning, in our

identification of the three strands of alpha beta and gamma forms of learning

and the features we attributed to these and the manner in which we thought they

interact.

i) We could, for

example, settle for just one form of learning - that of acquiring logically

valid knowledge, knowledge free of doubt and error. The attainment of such

clear and logically non-erroneous knowledge constitutes learning and where all

that is to be known is in fact known without error and doubt, then we have

reached a point where we could proceed no further. We could define the

attainment of such a perfect state of knowledge as mukti, much like the nyaya-vaisesika

philosophers of ancient India.

But there are

problems.For one thing, if mukti is such an attainment, then perhaps no one

could ever attain it. Knowledge is infinite and no matter how many times a

psyche is reborn and no matter how gifted it is in its intellectual powers, a

state of consciousness where it knows all that is to be known without doubt and

error is an impossibility. Mukti thus defined is made something unattainable

forever. The psyches are condemned to a perpetual cycle of births and deaths.

Now, this can be

avoided by defining mukti not as the attainment of perfect knowledge but rather

the intellectual capacity for logically valid, doubt-and-error free knowledge.

With this

redefinition, the focus shifts to subjective conditions of the learning psyche.

Mukti is a kind of transformation of the subjectivity of the learning psyches.

If it is the subjectivity of the psyches that is the source of misperceptions,

fallacious conclusions, errors and so forth, then clearly, we are returning to

the concept of learning that was rejected initially. Learning is not simply a process

where error free knowledge is acquired; it contains also processes whereby the

psyches are transformed. This brings back the concepts of Deep Limiting

Constraints in the psychic constitution and the three strands of

learning with which we started this enquiry.

ii) The above

problems emerge when we try to redefine learning in terms of acquisition of

logically valid knowledge. But that is not the only alternative available for

redefining learning. We can, for example, redefine it as a process in which there

is ethical development -- through true visions a person discards the

impurities, the factors that 'defile' the pscyhe and attains a purity where it

sees only the good, and the right. Learning is ethical development and it

ceases when the visions are good and perfect.

We can recognise

such a trend of thought in the essential insights of the Jaina thinkers.

If such a perfection is a subjective condition then it raises the problems

about grounding it absolutely. Different psyches could differ in their concept

of what constitutes the good and perfect vision and there appears to be no

means for agreeing or disagreeing. It could turn out to be simply a matter

opinion, subjective fancies, imaginative fictions rather that something

objectively valid for all. And what fails on this criteria, cannot certainly be

siddhanta mukti.

It must also be

noted that both these attempts to redefine learning and thereby the concept of

mukti, also make the Deity irrelevant for the enterprise. The role of the Deity

in learning is problematic - it has to be reduced to an Ideal Self, the limit

of what every psyche could become. If this is done then the Deity becomes a

projection, a fiction without any substantive reality whose sole function is to

provide a criterion for development. And since it is purely subjective, this

Ideal Self again fails to resolve conflicts in case where different Ideal Selfs

are postulated.

We have reached

another point of crisis. Our hopes of grounding mukti on the basis of a variety

of reductionistic theses also fail through self-contradictions. The vision of

mukti that emerge in the course of all conceivable reductionistic approaches

disintegrate for lack of logical cohesion, consistency among the visions taken

as Siddhanta. However, one important fact emerges through noting the

inconsistency of these reductionistic attempts. They establish as sound, as

valid the notion of learning with which we started our enquiry. They validate

as siddhanta our concept of behaviour as effecting of actions and that creatures

are in fact icca-nanam-kriya corubi. Learning is an activity in which there is

reduction in the scope of ignorance and that development is the gradual

reduction of Darkness/Ignorance within the psychic constitution.

But within this

framework, what could be the concept of mukti that is obviously and irrefutably

a Siddhanta?

4.0 The

Siddhanta Mukti

The solution is

glaring at us but due to some imperfections within us, we have failed to note

it. Perhaps it is something that we could think of only by experiencing the

crises that we have faced in our enquiry.

Let us recall

the vedantic type of enquiry we conducted at the beginning of the essay where

we noted with dismay the failure of the time honoured concepts of mukti that

have been fathered upon the Vedas and the Upanisads. The Advaita of Sankara and

its variants, the visistadvaita of Nammalvar-Ramanja and the uncomproming

dvaita of Madhava all fail to ground themselves within the frame-work

of the learning paradigm that we have assumed and now seen most certainly

as the siddhanta. What is uniformly true of all these Vedantic doctrines is

that they try to locate mukti within the gamma-type of learning.

And they do this for an obvious reason - they lack a developmental perspective;

they fail because they do not have the concept of transcendence,

creative advance, the lifting up of a struggling psyche to a higher plane,

happening of the most beneficial kind and whose agent is not the psyche

but the Supreme Deity Himself.

This

transcendence is then, what has been left unconsidered so far. Mukti then is

not an accomplishment of the psyche, it is not the end of the

psycho-transformational processes where eventually the psyche becomes the

highest archetype and thereby equalling the Deity itself in C, P and L. Mukti is

a transcendence from being a gamma-learner. It is a happening that immediately

lifts the psyche above the existential form of being a learner. On

mukti the psyche transcends the learning processes and becomes one with the

Deity. Facilitating such a transcendence is not annihilating,

evaporating or destroying the psyche. It is a lifting up to another level of

existence, the highest level of existence possible for any psyche. It is the

ultimate state of existence effected upon the psyches by the Supreme Deity

Himself.

It must be noted

that the phenomenon of transcendence is not something new. It has been all

along the essence of gamma-learning. It is that which provides that initial dim

awarenes for psyches completely enveloped in utter Darkness and launches them

into phenomenal existence as icca-jnanam-kriya-corubi. It is that which

underlies each ascendance in learning and existence which finally lead the

psyches into human type of existence where consciousness of itself as it is

becomes available to the psyches. It is also that phenomenon which underlies

each one of the disengagements the psyche effects and finally confronts the

Deity itself as a gamma-learner. At some point in this phase another

transcendence occurs leading the psyches to their ultimate form of existence.

This has to be

ultimate for a number of reasons. We have seen that gamma-learning is a form of

learning directly under the control of the deity. The alpha and beta learnings

are something brought about by the psyches with whatever foundation provided by

the Deity through the mechanism of gamma-learning. The essence of

gamma-learning is its autonomy - it is not a derivative process such as that of

alpha and beta learning processes. In other words, there cannot be another

level of learning which indirectly shapes the forms of gamma-learning. If

that is so, then it is transparent that on transcending gamma-learning, a

psyche ceases to be a learner. It is transposed into a form where there does

not arise any need to learn; more generally, it becomes a psyche without any

needs at all. It is filled up, there is no more even the shadow of Darkness

within its consciousness. It has no will of its own, no more tendencies to

effect actions for reasons of the self and for itself. The final

transcendence does not annihilate the psyche, the subject but rather only the

selfhood, the ego or the subjectivity. The experiences are the experiences of a

subject but, it must be emphasized, without any subjectivity, without any

atmabodha 'mental constructs'. The psyche is absolutely pure without any will

for atmabodha.

The will of the

Deity becomes its will. The psyche, in other words, is no more an

icca-nanam-kriya-corubi but simply a nanam-kriya corubi like the Deity Himself.

This

transcendental experience without any subjectivity is peculiar. The

experience is the experience of the Deity - the psyche coincides with the Deity

in being. It is a oneness in being, in behaving. The psyche moves in

perfect harmony, in perfect synchronicity with the Deity. Dispositionally the

psyche is indistinguishable form the Deity. All its activities are in fact the

activities of the Deity. The very subjectivity that would lead to activities of

its own is annihilated completely and irrecoverably.

This

perfect coincidence, coherence and homogeneity with Deity, the impossibility of

distinguishing the psyche form the Deity dispositionally, is the real meaning

of oneness (advaita) that we sensed as part of the meaning of mukti.

The psyche in mukti is not equal in anyway to the Deity; it is rather

indistinguishable form the Deity because of the perfect harmony and

homogeneity. Such a psyche then because of this coincidence and homogeneity is

the Deity itself - the true guru; it does not do anything that the Deity does

not. It is the Deity itself as far as behaviour goes. The language of such a

psyche also becomes a deep silence (mouna mudra) as it is unable to establish a

fissure between itself and the Deity. It shows, however, its oneness in

disposition, in behaviour.

This then is the

Siddhanta Mukti on the criteria that we have established earlier. It grounds

itself - there are no internal contradicitons or controverting of established

siddhantas. It is perfectly coherent with the concept of living as

learning and existence as a struggle to remove the Darkness within. It

is also deeply satisfying and appears to be the right solution, beyond any

shadow of doubt, to the problem of the meaning of human existence.

The Siddhanta Mukti is not annihilation of the subject, but only the

constrained subjectivity. It is a transposition into an inseparable unity, a

supremely blissful oneness with the Deity Himself. Most certainly we

cannot think of anything higher than that homogeneity.

Now we are in a

better position to understand the essence of Saiva Siddhanta and in what sense

it is a refinement of Vedanta (vedanta telivam siddhantam). It gives an account

of advaita without annihilating the psyche in the process. The psyche is there

as a subject, however, without any subjectivity. This clearly is, what was

meant by " atu taane aakiya anneRi" and "eekan aaki iRai paNi

niRRaal" pregnant phrases used by Meykandar in his Sivanana Bodam. It is

not Vedantic monism that reduces the earlier siddhantas into mirages and

delusions, a falsity of a peculiar kind.

The siddhantas

remain siddhantas-the valid visions remain valid for eternity; the attainment

of mukti does not change the earlier visions that were grounded as valid. By

seizing upon the concept of transcendence that the developmental perspective of

Saiva Siddhanta afforded, Meykandar, for the first time in the history of

mankind, gave the outlines of a concept of mukti that is indeed the siddhanta.

In all humility,

homages to Meykandar, that illustrious son of the Tamil genius.

Chapter 12

 

 

 

 

Siddhanta is not different from vedanta, it is just more sophisticated in

explaining the relationship of the triad, that is God, soul and the world.

Which is why sages and scholars say vedanta is general and siddhanta is

specific. This makes vedanta dated, passe, and well,

obsolete, as we have moved far forward from being mere simplistic.

Here is a very scintillating concise summary of the

similarities and differences between siddhanta and vedanta, especially on the

meaning of 'advaita' or 'not-two. As one can readily see, siddhanta is far more

sophisticated, and bridges non-dual, dual and plural relationships of god, soul

and the world.

Additionally, the explanations of the three-fold

relationships within siddhanta gives rise to monistic theism (advaita

isvarapada), pure non dualness (suddha saiva siddhanta) and pluralism, although

all agree on all the points, that souls are beginningless, there is actual

embodiment (sariraka) of the soul and disembodiment. It is this that gives rise

to many interpretations of siddhanta and the confusion within it.

The Siddhanta View of

Advaita

by Dr.

Ganesalingam

According to

Advaita Vedanta, God or Brahmam is the only Reality. Soul is not different from

Brahman. Individual self is Brahman himself. Among the varying views in the

Vedas, this view is also seen among them. “It is One only; Brahmam is without

duality" (without a second), (‘Ekam eva, Athvidiyam Brahmam’) is a

sentence giving this view. Sankara’s Advaita concept is consistent with it.

 

Vedanta is considered as the culmination of Vedas. Similarly, Saiva Siddhanta

is considered as the culmination of Saiva Agamas. It is for this reason

Siddhanta is sometimes referred to as ‘Agamanta’.

Unlike the

Vedanta, Saiva Siddhanta considers three kind of relationship of God with the

Soul. God is one with the Soul, along with the Soul, and different from the

Soul. This aspect of relationship in three states (onraai, udanaai, veraai) is

the Advaita relationship mentioned in Siddhanta philosophy.

The

above-mentioned Vedic sentence is interpreted in this background. According to

the Saiva Siddhantists, after telling, “It is One only†(‘Ekam eva’), it is not

necessary to tell again “Advidiyam Brahmam†(Brahmam is without a second’); It

only means that there is no Being equal to or same as Brahmam.

 

The three kind of relationship of God to the soul can be explained with an

analogy. Soul is one with our physical body. Similarly God is one with the

soul. The soul is along with the body and animates it. Similarly God is along

with the soul and animates it. Yet the soul is different from the body.

Similarly God is different from the Soul.

 

The second Aphorism of Sivagnanabodham speaks of the Advaita relationship in

Siddhanta philosophy as follows:

 

“The primal Being, God, is non-separable from the souls, being one with them,

different from them and making them to take births and deaths ceaselessly,

experiencing the fruits of the twin karma. This is done by His Sakthy who is

eternally in implicit union with Him.â€

Chapter 13

The Agamas, though they constitute an equally large body

of ancient Sanskrit source material for a different concept of the same advaita

philosophy of Vedanta, have not been studied by any Orientalist; indeed they

have not been studied at all or studiedwas unknown in the south till the

beginning of the twentieth century. It is too much to expect Western

Orientalists first of all to known of the existence of two scripts for

Sanskrit, and then to study two scripts for one language; their study was

confined to the devanagari script which was in use over a much larger area of

India and in the north when the Vedas were reduced to writing and that the new

nagari script came into vogue when the Vedic language.

[As per the info given Siddha.com this book

contains 30 chapters, but only this much is available on net.]

== 0 ==

 

==========================