Sankarpa Nirakaranam

5. Tazhaicevi mazhaimatap puzhainedun tadakkai

vattarum mummai nattam nalvai

pasam ankusam tesurum eyir onn

kaniyivai tangum punita narkarattu

angadam katakam pongizhai aram

10 niraimani cudikaik karaiyanal katcevi

konda tinperum pandik karuntal

kaliru tan iurkazhal karutaa

veliruru tuyaram vittinam perite

Commentary :- This is an invocation to Lord Ganesa whose blessing is sought whenever anything auspicious is begun and who is, as St. Tirumular the author of Tirumantiram says, the source of all knowledge (jnana-kolundu). St. Meikandadeva, the author of Sivajnanabodham, the basic sutras of Saiva Siddhanta has also an invocation to Ganesa in the famous verse ‘Kallal nizhal malai’, Sivajnana Swami, the commentator of the Sutras and also of Sivajnanamapadiyam points out that Siva dispelled the doubts of Nandi, who became the first recipient of the Supreme knowledge. Sivajnanabodham, and as Ganesa was granted to the world by His grace, the learned do not make any distinction between Father and Son.

In this invocation, Umapati Sivacarya follows this tradition and says that by meditating on Ganesa we shall be freed from all sorrows and doubts. That is why, he says, that all great men who are tapasvins always pray to Ganesa and their love for Him is never satisfied but grows more and more.

The rest of the verse gives a description of the glorious form of Ganesa.

PAYIRAM (PROLOGUE)

VERSE 2

(Text) Perunkatal utavum karunkadu vanki

kantarat tamaitta antamil kadavul

balarai unarttum melaver pola

ketpor alavai kotpadu porulal

5 aruliya kalaigal alakila valavai

palapala samaya panmait tanre; aktal

ithuve porulenru atannilai araitalin

vetror panuval errorkku isaiya

10 marupadu kuruvar atanal

Meaning : He is the Supreme Being (antamil kadavul) that took for himself the poison that emanated when the Devaa and Asuras churned the ocean and gave them the assurance that as He is the source of all good, evil will have no force. Just as parents give instruction and work to their children according to the stages of their maturity, so also the means of knowledge are various according to the standpoints and limits of the seekers of knowledge. So the sastras are various according to the samaya. Persons who know one, declare that alone is the true knowledge. They will not agree with those devoted to another. They will thus differ from one another.

Commentary :-

Here is the basic statement about the problem of philosophy. Knowledge is integral but comprehension is according to the stages of the seekers and the means and method they employ, viz, alavai and ketpadu. So the systems are many. But those who seek one path will declare that theirs is the true one and theirs only the true meaning and will differ from others.

Umapati Sivacarya here echoes the sentiment of the earlier teachers, viz., ST Meikandadeva and Arulnandi Sivacarya. The former speaks of ‘utankiyaintu tammil punaramai’ of the different protoganists. The latter says :-

Odu samayangal porulunaru nulkal

onrotonru ovvamal ulapalavum; ivarrul

yatu samayam porul nul yatu inkennil

ituvakum atuvallatenum pinakku

- Sivajnana Siddhiyar, 265.

Arul nandi Sivacarya says that this is the true religion, postulate and book which knows no such conflict as “This is true. That is not”,but can resolve them all under one supreme intuition and has in its scheme of synthesis each of them given a well defined place. That is the true Religion, the Truth and the Book. All others are finite and partial. This is the beautiful stand point of Saiva Siddhanta and its teachers.

............................................................. Atanal

(Text) Purac camayangal cirappila vaki

arulil mandarai verulura mayakki

alakait terin nilayil tirum

inkivai nirku ningaa samayam

15 muviru takuti meviya tamum

onro tonru centutum nilaiyil

arum mara virudaittu ivarrul

evvamilla Saiva nar camavattu

alakil agamam nilavudal ula avai

20 kanakam iraniyam kancanamizham

dhana nidhi adakam damaniyam enru-ip

palapeyar payappator porule pola

patipasu pasa vidhimurai kulakkum

(11-23)

Meaning :-

So, heterodox systems ( like Lokayatta, Samana, Mimamsa, Mayavada and Paucaratra) are not meritorious, and persons who do not have the grace of Siva remain in ignorance. Just as those who mistake the mirage as water and hope to quench their thirst are disillusioned, so also these systems will appear as true, but will not prove to be so. While this so, even the six systems ( Saivam., Pasupatam, Mahaviratam, Kalamukham, Vamamand Ehairavam) which are within the fold will also differ from one another, though true each in its own way. Of these the faultless Saivam is the one which is sustained by the many Agamas which came from Siva. If it be asked why there should be so many Agamas for one system, it is like calling gold by many names like kanakam, hiranyam, kancanam, ihzam, dhanam, nidhi, adakam and dhamaniyam. All the Agamas speak about Pati, pasu and pasa only.

Commentary :-

These lines mark the distinction of Saivam from both the outer and inner systems. Its excellence and validity are due to the fact that it is sustained by the Saiva Agamas - not one but many which speak of the three categories Pati, pasu and pasa. The fact that more than one Agama is concerned with it is not a matter of divergence but only many statements about the same susbtance. The unanimity of postulates is the first essential of a true philosophy.

(Text) Vaainda nulkal aaintanar aki

25 asanaki visiya samattudan

ezhanju irunuredutta ayiram

vazhunal sakanam maruva nirpa

ponpodhu malinda arputam ani

aaraam vizhavil porrer alayattu

30 era enmar nirayil iruppa

mayangu vada mayaa vadi

muyangida orutalai mutuvetir manicer

pennai culnda venneyam pati tikazh

meikandavan arul kaikanda avarkalil

35 oruvar ortalai maruvi iruppa

vancap piravikku anji vantoruvan

edu irai arulena ituvenum maya vatiyai ayalinar marutalaittu arul tara

(24-38)

Commentary :-

This gives the setting in which this work was written. The person referred to as the disciple who earned the grace of Sri Meikandadeva is the author Umapati Sivacarya himself. He also gives the year in which the work was written, viz., Saka 1235 corresponding to 1313 A.D. This is a valuable clue to fix thedate of Sri Meikandadeva himself.

It is to be noted that the author has given clearly the method he uses employ in the exposition. He says that both sides had argued well though each refuted the other and so he propose to use the method of tarka and visaya. The author means that this work will make the reader distinguish between vada, jalpa, vitanda and hetu to understand what is reason and what not, the four common elements in a simile and the methods of arguments and the support.

Meaning :-

Having read and pondered over the Agamas, the teacher who has received the diksas to be qualified as such, held a discussion in the Saka year 1235 and on the Sixth festival day of the month of Ani in the hall of chariot ( thermantapam, at Tillai, where the Greatest Teacher dances. Six of the learned protoganists were seated for discussion. ( According to another text it is eight). On the one side the Mayavadin was seated. On the other side one fo the disciples who received the grace of Sri Meikandar of Tiruvennainallur girdled by the river Pennai. Came there one who yearning to end the powerful cycle of births asked the learned men what the means thereof might be. The Mayavadin expounded his solution. Others refuted it and tried to establish theirs. In this way one refuted the other.

Meaning :-

The Graceful one spake thus. “The way in which you established your view ( sankalpa) and refuted the opposite views ( nirakara) is fine and taking the arguments from both sides, and using the four methods of logic namely vadam, jalpa, vithandai and hetu and the four kinds of illustration namely, vinai, payan, mei and uru. I shall expound the truth using tarkam and visaya so that the discerning and those who have earned the grace to know the truth may not be dismayed by doubts on the true meaning. In this attempt, may be, I will make the truly learned laugh !”

(Text) marravar ayalinar avarurai maruttu

40 sorrara ayalinar avarum tolaivurru

inne eluvarum munne kailuly

angayal irunta arulinar azhakitu

ninkal sankarpam nirakarit tamalena

marravar uraitta sorraru porulkodu

45 vata cerpai vitandaiy metuvam

otu nalvakai uvamaiyum tikazhtara

arulcer mantar verulce ramal

tarkamum vitaiyamum karka

nalkavi mandar nakanavir ruvane (39 - 49)

Vaadam is the dialogue between guru and sisya or between those with like objectives and without basis. By their arguments the errors are eliminated and truth deduced.

Cerpai ( jalpa) is the method of refuting the other’s view and establishing ones own beyond doubt.

Vitandai ( wrangng) is the method of refuting the other’s view without the necessity to establish one’s own and thus achieve the purpose.

Hetu is logic ( alavai) by using vinai, payan, mei and uru.

Vitharam or Vada ( debate) consists of cerpai, vitandi and hetu and they may be called argument ( or logic), wrangling ( or sphistry), cavil, ( or destructive argument) and reason ( or probans) respectively.

The author then proceeds to set out the sankalpa or thesis of the Mayavadin.

VERSE 3

1. MAYAVADI SANKARPAM

Having stated the standpoint of the faultless doctrine of Saiva Siddhanta and the manner he proposes to refute the other systems, the author, Umapati Sivacarya proceeds to take up first the Mayavadin’s sankalpa (exposition) and its nirakarana ( refutation).

Mayavadi Sankarpam

(Text) Navirriya nirayin avidhayi nonurai

nithan arivan, suddhan, akantithan,

niruvikarpan, nirtattuvan, niranjanan,

colvagai evaiyum totaraa tooimani

5 varmbil veda cirantaru paramporul

sattai evaiyum tanai aviddhai

thothathu uyarnta tolcutar muva

inna tanmaiyan ekan anekan

kannal peruncuvai tannil pirava

10 petriyinin iruntu porpant iyalpinin

vanvali analvir mann marun tanna

mana dathu aarain kosa

toguti yakkai pakutiyatu oruputai

suddhi velli ottatena mittayil

15 tenena lagum tanmaittu (1-15)

Meaning :-

The Mayavadin who postulates, avidya, declares that his Brahman is natyan

( indestructible), arivan ( knowledge ), suddhan ( pure), akantithan ( indivisble), nirvikalpan ( unchanging), nirtattuvan ( irreducible), niranjanan ( unstained), indescribable like a pure gem; the ultimate Reality at the crest of the uncircumscribed Vedas; Sat, all-pervading, yet not affected by avidya Primordial light of never-aging nature, One ( ekan) and Many ( anekan) , not knowing His own nature like the sugarcane that knows not it is sweetness, but in creation manifesting like gold in ornament; Ether, air fire, earth and water, the six dhatus, the five kosas, and bodies made of them. Such a world is, like the shell appearing as silver, a mitya, making Brahman to be appear as prapanca.

(Text) ..................Ulutaiyil

cinnul takamayin vetrumai mari ee

tenna panmaiya teninilai pazhampoo

tol nar vayiram taruttarum tonmayin

vanaarantirai nurai taru vaimayil

20 kootum acittai cittu utavaatenil

nelpatar palalatil param tarumitu

tanniyal penrum vilayat tenrum

munnula maraigal mozhitalin orunul

pan mani nilayim pasuppal enavum

25 pala akal neeril alarkatir enavum

kooval azhi kulamciru kuzhikal

vavi yavaiyum varupunal enavum

avvavatratanki atiyul nizhal ena

tonri yakkai nal kanthattu irumbum

30 kanavil teenkum kankulil kayirum

punalil tonrum peither ceitiyum

annatum pinnar nannira palinkena

patinal kararattu oru moonravathat

nalum nalum nayanturum irupayan

35 tannil cara tonmai tanmai

tarpana nizhal kannkurri paaintarre (15 - 36)

Meaning :-

It might appear that the world is not different from Brahman. If it be asked why the prapanca seems different from Brahman, understand that the difference is like that of the spider and the thread emanating from it. Also, the diversity in the prapanca is like the leaf, fruit, flower, pulp, skin, fibre and seed all forming the tree and like the waves, foam, ripples and bubbles of water of the sea. So the Prapanca which is acit appears from Brahman which is cit, but consider that paddy gives forth cbaff and straw. Brahman which is sat also produces prapanca which is Jada. This is the nature of Brahman and it is not affected by the upadhis and it is only the play ( vilayattu or lila) of Brahman assert. Thus assert the Vedas, which are anadi, Will the Brahman be seen as many, just as the prapanca is which is seen as many ? No. Like the thread which is one although it passes through many coloured beads, like the milk which is white whatever be the colour of the cows like the sun which is one although its reflections in the water in many vessels are many and like the same rain that fills the well, tank, sea, pond and hcannel, Brahman is One. Likewise, although jivas are many, the indwelling Intelligence is the same. Just as the reflection in a mirror is not part of it, so also, cit or intelligence which resides in the body, is not part of it. If the intelligence is not part of the body, then how does the body function? It is like the magnet which is apart from the iron but yet makes it act in the presence. Why should intelligence experience pleasure and pain although it is different from the body? It is like the experience of sorrow in a dream, like seeing a rope as snake in the dark and mistaking mirage as water. As the Brahman does not experience pleasure and pain, intelligence will not be affected by pleasure and pain if its true nature is understood. But we see intelligence affected by the fruits of action by its association with them. In reality Brahman is not affected by the association of intelligence with the indriyas. Is the crystal affected by the many coloured hues which pass through it and are reflected by it? The ten indriyas, and the four antahkaranas ( 14 together) function in jagrat state ( whose centre is between the eyebrows); the antahkaranas function in susupti whose centre is the heart. The intelligence experiences these avastas every day. Does it suffer from the effects of good and bad ? Although associated with them, the Brahman is not affected by them. It is like this : one’s face is reflected in mirror, but if one strikes a blow by a stone at the eye in the mirror, the mirror only gets broken and the eye is no : injured at all.

(Text) Ivviyal bandha bhavvamatu akala

vin mutal tanta konmoop padalattu

irul ara uditta kaltaka vivekam

40 tannil tonri sadhakam araittayum

managap pirippum madi izhal vankalum

pola gnyaalam poyyara kazhi ee

tane tanai tannil tannai

rane kantu tannalam utru

45 vasayyil tattuvam asi-padattu tellval

ahame Brahman aylran enna arintu

acalanaki nal cola cola madhi ena

kontitum...... (37 -48)

Meaning :-

(The Sate in mukit is now explained). How to avoid the sequel of births on account of the maya upadhis? The clouds which are formed in the sky hide it causing darkness, but the darkness is dispelled by the wind which shatters the clouds. So also viveka jnana of Brahman dispels all the darkness that is imposed. If one pulls out the sticks, straw and beams of which a house is composed, there will be no house; if one pulls away from a piece of cloth, thread by thread, no cloth remains. So also if by viveka jnana one discriminates Brahman from earth, fire, water etc. the prapanca which never had a swarupa of its own disappears. Likewise if the upadhis are not identified with the Intelligent self, Brahman will become the self. Its swarupa will be regained and it will enjoy the bliss. The flawless truth of the padam tat-tvam-asi will be realised and there will be the plenary relation of aham brahma asmi. Then the self must stand steadfast and realise that the affections of the upadhis are like the affections of the agitated reflections of the moon in water that is shaken, while the real moon remains unaffected. This is the lakshana of the jivanmukta.

(Text) Utalam vintakal katathum

angula aktu utaitara enkumam tagaitte

50 ivvagai unarntu ceitozhil araatha

matavor taamum katanaa iyatrum

kanma kaanta tonmai purivaal

totriya vittai merkatai araniyil

ezunteri avatrai vizhunkiya tenna

55 tannozinta ulla tanai ozhiyum

annilai anri azhivaru muthi

eyaa tenru tan iyalbai

mayavadi vakuthu uraittanane.

Meaning :-

(Now Para-mukti lakshna is stated) When the true relation with the body is realised and the false given up, the intelligence and Brahman merge like the ether in a pot that gets merged with the outer ether when the pot is broken ( guda-akas and para-akas) and they become one. This is Para mukti. Having realised that That Thou Art by viveka jnnana, if one is not able to give up his karmas, he must aspire for Brahma gnana and he must practice Sadhana chathurstaya - ( four paths). As the fire sticks when churned produce fire which burn the stick itself, the karmas will be destroyed ( rendered ineffective) by the viveka jana that arises from karma. In that state one shall remain. Thus spake the Mayavadin ( The refutation by the Iykavadin then follows).

Commentary :-

It may be noted that in this work Umapati Sivacarya takes up the refutation of mayavada straight away while Arulnandi Sivacarya in Sivajnana Siddhiyar, Parapaksa, takes up the refutation of that system as the eleventh in the series commencing from Lokayata to Pancaratra, the 14 systems being Lokayata, Sautrantika, Yogacara, Madhyamika, Vaibhasika, Nikantavada, Ajivika Bhattacarya, Prabhakara, Sabdabrahmavada, Mayavada, Bhaskara, Nirisvarasankhya and Pancaratra. Arulnandi had gone beyond Mayavada to some systems of Vedanta which eliminated some of the basic defects of the mayavada but are still its variants. Umapati confines himself to mayavada as the basic system to be refuted and more or less follows the line of exposition adopted by Arulnandi but more succinctly and in some respects more sophisticatedly. In fact Umapati’s statement of the postulates is longer in length that Arulnandi’s, although he uses the same traditional udharanas like the thread through the beads etc. Compare the citations below :-

Tane tannaai anubhogam tannil tannai anubhavithittu

une yire unarve enru ..........

nane Brahman ena teliyum jnanam Brhama jnaname !

- Arulnandi Sivacarya

Tane tannai tannil tannai

tane kantu tan nalam utru

vasaiyil tatvamasi padat - telival

Ahame Brahman ayinim ena arintu.....

- Umapati Sivacarya

In the refutation part ( marutalai or nirakarana) Umapati takes ont eh argument where Arulnandi had left, so to say, and has devoted 254 lines against Arulnandi, 72 lines. This more thorough - going rebuttal of ekanmavada was apparently found necessary by him to discredit the monistic trends in the later schools of inner Saivism like Sivasamavada and Sankrantavada. This refutation is on a parallel with that of certain Sankhya systems which though postulating as usvara were still left with unacceptable doctrines.

The author’s refutation of Mayavada which follows, therefore, deserves careful study.

----------

2. MAYAVADA NIRAKARANAM

Umapati Sivacarya now gives the refutation of Mayavada.. It is the longest and most elaborate and runs at 254 lines.

Mayavadi nirakarna

(Text) Uraitarum Brahman Onrenum uraikkan

varum pramanam marai enil, arumarai

onrenratanri iruporul uraittal

manranru; abhedam nadiya porulal

5 bhedamum abhedamum othaventaa ;

bhedamenimum abhedameninum

bhedaabhedameninum amaiyum nin

aiyamil uraiyil paiya vantulatam

tikazh pramana ikazhvum untari

10 petham bhedam muthi abhedamel

anaavattitamam, avai irutiranum ;

ini appazhamohi irantala onrel

anriyum pethamum bhedatturaittalum

onriya mutthi abedhattu uraittalum

15 pazhthaam ittiram, pathiyaatu aaika ( matru) (1 - 15)

Meaning : If you ( Mayavadin) declare that the vedas are the Pramana for the statement that Brahman alone exists, true the sacred Vedas declare it, but you postulate both Jiva and Param, which is not sound. If it is construed that only the One-ness in abheda exists, then it is needless to talk of bheda and the petha ( bound) state. If you go only by the pramana, why talk of two and then try to negate the duality. If you argue that bheda, abheda bad bheda-abheda all refer to Brahman alone, then your dogma is involved in pramana virodha. If it is pointed out that there is no virodha by explaining that petha is bhedam and mukti is abhedam, then your doctrine incurs the fault of anaavastai. If the boary Veda text speaks only of the One and not tow, then the contradiction of your speaking of Jiva-param as two in petha state and Jiva-param as one in mukthi state will remain. Consider this defect dispassionately.

(Text) ezhuta mozhiyenum ippiramanam

yar urai tane ayinatel unatu

ekam anekam urum; iyambaamal

sabda rupam takatennil vaanattu

20 otholi urazhum enil varita utiyatu;

anriyum padamum paazhiyum anaittum

inrivor oliyai ezhuntitum atanukku

arivilatu uruvilatu ariyatu araiyatu

anriyum avvakai akantitam atu itu

25 enratu kurippathu evvakai; yavum

onrenum uraiyum mozhintanai anre:

arumarai Brahma urai enil atharku

dantam talu mutal navil pori ilatu :

ennil vor utarkan manniya alakai

30 araintatrenbatu yar col atu amala

tirampetrinre, ceitor peyaral

swaymbu enru ulaku iyambum enrari ini;

tarkizh talaivarai tan tozhuthu uraikkum

corkel puravalan eval amicharai

35 atiyem, matrem kuti muzhutaalmin enru

yethi iranjil kaapargal enranku ;

isan nam ceya pesinan anri

inayavai piravil kanavinum ilane ;

tannai tutikkum col nalantaanum

40 atturai arivaanarku araivatonriyum

tanakku tane nan nalam pakaraatu

asattukku uraiyataarku urai uyirkenil

urai pramanam Irai prameyam

ni pramata nin pramiti ena

45 naalvakai ulatu unatu Ekam nanranre

narpramanam nirpatonraittanru;

apprameyamum atan iyalbanre. (16 -47)

Meaning :-

(The validity of the Pramana is now examined) This Pramana, which is the unwritten Vedas, by whom was it spoken? If it is swayambu and apauresya, then Brahman will not be Ekan. Brahman and the Veda will make two as pramana and prameya. If you say that the pramana is sabdarupa and it has not swarupa unless uttered, or if you say that Vedas were heard like the sound, self-created in the akas, know that sound is created in the akas by vayu. Sound in the akas is not produced without concomitant cause. Further, sound which is not padam, kramam and artha is only a prakara of akas and will be non-intelligent. So, say not that the Veda is like the sound in Akas. But as an intelligent, it must have a creator. If the veda is a sareeri and not asareeri, it would be jada. If Brahman is akantita it would be difficult to infer its aspect which gives out anything congnised as sabda and artha. The position that the One is everything will have to be given up. On the other hand if you say that the Veda was uttered by Brahman, then Brahman being akantita has no parts like tongue, teeth etc. Is it then like a spirit which enters a person and makes him say many prophetic things, it is inconceivable, as if the Brahman uttered the Veda through devas or rishis, then the Veda is only a pasu-vakya and it will not have nir-malathva. It will not prove that the Veda is pure and authoritative. Understand the truth that because the niskala karta of its own free will assumed sakala state and gave out the Veda, the Veda is called by the wise as swayambu as its Author is swayambu. If the Veda was uttered by the Creator, why should the Creator be said to do obeisance to the lower deities? It is like he king’s instructions to his ministers to do certain duties. There is no need for the creator to do obeisance to anyone. If the Creator praises Himself, it is to make it known to the mature souls that He is to be worshipped. If the Creator utters His own glory, it must be for others to know. Otherwise, the Creator will not be singing His own glory for nothing. To whom then, is all this addressed? It is addressed to others. (Souls) the Veda is pramanam, the Creator is prameyam. Atman is pramata and the Atman’s intelligence is premiti. Thus the Veda as pramana does not stand alone, and Brahman is not apprameya as you would like to say. There is the danger of the premeyam also partaking of the nature of the pramanam. So the Veda is not swayambu. The Mayavadin’s stand is thus refutable.

(Text) Kannal cuvayil anniyam ilattal

inimai tonrattanmaittu enranai

50 arivirku uvamai asattam kaatti

piravittottinum peraturaate

tatpara virivu porpani takumenil

ceivorinri ceivinai inmayil

porpani yagai tanpani anre :

55 ceivar pola ceyapatu porul mutal

ceivor eyaa ceyyavum patume;

suddhi velliyil tontrittaayinum

sattulaketum tafa ; tarumenil

ulakam mityai enru oraatu uraittanal ;

60 nilavum nin marabu ninaintilaiyam kol ?

Vivaharattil ventutum ulagam

paramartattil pakaraam enil,

parathulatel ivaiyum paramartam ;

parathilatel ozhi mun pakar matram ;

65 atan mutal ituvena utavuka anriyum

vivekarikkumkal tikazh paramartam

nilai atu teriyin itu nee neeyel

teriyaatayin aktum teriyatu

uraiyar alavaiyum ozhintanai anre

70 alavai kaandal karutal urai ena

ulatavai moonrin mozhivazhi nuzhayin

min prameyam enbatu en am kol ? (48 - 72)

Meaning :-

( Here begins the refutation that Brahman is aprameya). You stated that like the sugar cane which does not know its sweetness inseparable from itself, the Brahman does not know its own bliss. Your udharana is vriddam ( nor apt) because you are comparing a non-intelligent thing to the Intelligent Brahman. Will the sweetness of the juice have any sense of union if it goes back to the sugarcane? The comparison is therefore not valid. Further, if you say that the diverse manifestations of Brahman is like those of the gold which takes on the forms of many an ornament, know this the defect. There is no action without a doer. The gold has not became ornaments without a doer. Thus there should be an agent for the Brahman extending as prapanca. If you say that Brahman is its own creator, there must be an upadhana cause, otherwise the creator and the created will be the same. The clay takes the form of the pots and pans made be the potter and not that of the potter. There must therefore by an upadhana for the prapanca separate from Brahman. It might be asked whether the upadhana itself could not be the prapanca, the answer is ‘no’. The upadhana is jada and so it cannot itself become the prapanca. There must be a creator. (Substantial cause). You might say that in the world we see certain things without a doer, (e.g) nacre is seen as silver without any cause. But the Intelligent Brahman cannot become the prapanca as a prapanca. If you say that in the presence of Brahman, the unreal prapanca is seen as real, your statement that the prapanca is mitya is ill-considered and illogical. If you say that the prapanca is in vivaharika and is non-existent in paramartika, then the prapanca having no other locus must partake of the nature of Brahman. If you say that the prapanca is mitya and is not a parinama of the Param ( Brahman), then your previous statement that the prapanca is based on Brahman must be given up ( If you now declare that the prapanca is a manifestation of Brahman, you must tell what then is the upadhana of the prapanca? You are reduced to the nigrahastanma ( tolvi in logic). Further, if you deeply consider, Brahman is nirmala and free from upadhis and is absolutely paramarthika. You should not forget that you are subject to maya upadhis and so you are separate. If you say that Brahman and the self are one but the latter alone is affected by upadhis and so is not Pure Intelligence, then the Brahman which is the self must also be affected by upadhis. You are unwittingly negating your sabda pramana ( the Veda) and landing yourself in viparita (wrong idea) Let me state the true position even according to your own pramana: Pramana (or alavai) are of three kinds - pratyaksha ( Kaandal), anumana ( karuthal) and agama ( urai). If the Brahman is known through these three, what is the position of your prameyam which you hold is beyond speech and thought?

(Text) Porpitir pitirntum ponneyaam nin

tarparam acittai tarumaru ennena

75 cilambi nultaru nalampol tonrum

enranai; atuvum tantozhil anriyum

onratan iyalbu ulagor iyalbu enrena

palam ilai pazham paathavam tarum, nir

tirai murai tivalai cila tarum ivaipol

80 tane palavaam ena nee catrinai;

sat asattaakavum sattinil asathin

kothulatakavum koorinar ilaral

vitthu ilai kani nani vizhu taltaruneri

sattalatu onru tan tara ventum

85 nel patar palalattirku upadanam en ;

karanam inri kariyam piravaa:

paaritai oru patam pannavum patume ;

antamil Brahman aviddhai karanam ena

tantanai; aviddhai taneiturutal?

90 tannilyalbennil, vanni tan vemmeyil

sattinatu iyalbum satte; asathehil

vaitta tan iyal benum vazhakkozhi; anriyum

irul pothi vilakkena varum ; iru vilakkil

karumai payanta perukoli takumenil,

95 tanniyalbu anren upadhi vasattal

manniye tanrimai than thanin maayatu ;

onran asuddan anraamanre ;

aankoru kaalathu onkiye thaayin

antamil aviddhoi vantu anaivatarku or

100 hetu ventum ; puyal iyalbenin vidu

otha venta : ozhintorinum urum

kalankamtu ara urum aviddahi tarkavithal

vilankiya Brahma vilayaattaayin

aviddai enbatonru anniyam tannil

105 utikkum enre mun uraiyum marantanai

nunnool kutambai muntuzhipol ut-

patu neri antanal viduneri ilatal

talaimaiyum arivum ilaten aviddhaiyai

vituthu etuttu aanarum vetraranre. (73 - 109)

Meaning :-

(The stand that acit can emanate from cit is now refuted). You said that Brahman and prapanca are like gold and ornaments therefrom. We have seen ornaments transmuted back into gold but we cannot conceive of prapanca becoming Brahman again. When asked before as to how Brahman which is cit gave forth the prapanca which is acit, you said it was like the spider giving forth the thread. But it is the nature of the spider to continuously give out the thread, but the prapanca, if at all, can emanate once but cannot do so continuously. Spider given out the thread but does not dissolve it up; but Brahman not only creates the universe but also involves according to it, scriptural authority. Further, it must be pointed out that the thread from the spider was one, where as the prapanca is variegated. Your analogies for this were that the tree gives leaves, flowers, fruits etc., and that water produces waves, ripples and bubbles. Your suggestion that sat could became asat and that sat could take the form of a multitude of asats has not been made by any one else ( even by the Jaina and the Bauddha). Then how else can the prapanca emanate, you can ask me? Listen, Just as the seed which is suksma (subtle) gives forth leaves, fruits etc, of the banyan tree which is sthula, (gross) so also the prapanca has an upadhana karana which is suksma and asai. You say ‘no’ to this, and point out the analogy of the straw and chaff in the paddy and suggest that another prapanca which is jada emanated from sat. Understand that paddy which is jada and suskma is the upadhana for straw and chaff. Karya will emanate from its own cause only and not from another. Cause and its products must be the same or of similar nature. We can make cloth from only cotton and not from clay. So jadam can emanate only from jadam and not from cit. You said that the indestructible Brahman is the cause of the destructible prapanca. Granted this, why should at all the prapanca emanate from Brahman? Do you say it is the nature of Brahman? Then the prapanca must also be of the nature of Brahman or if you still say that prapanca is jada only, then leave off your statement that the prapanca is a manifestation of the nature of Brahman. If you say that prapanca is of the nature of pure cit, where is Brahman? It is like saying that a luminous lamp gives out darkness ! If you say ‘not so’, but that the Brahman which is cit giving out the prapanca which is jada is like a bright lamp giving out black smoke, understand that the blackness is not natural to the lamp but to the upadhis of wick and oil and in nay case the black smoke does not go back into the brightness of the lamp. This Brahman which is pure cannot become anything which is impure. That being so why should it be associated with the maya upadhis. If it is suggested that the maya upadhis are associated in a certain condition only, there must be a hetu ( reason) for it as the upadhis are endless. If you say that no such hetu is necessary by pointing out that the pure and immaculate akas is shrouded by black clouds, then there is no point in talking about release from the upadhis if they come and go naturally like clouds. Because even those who are freed from the upadhis will again be affected by them for no reason. If you suggest that the upadhis are assumed by the Brahman as a lila by its own free will, then what is assumed is anya and must have an origin. You have forgotten this. This play which is maya sarira is outside the player, the Brahman. Just as the silk worm binds itself with the silken thread of the cocoon and dies within it, so also Brahman which assumes maya sarira as a lila will find itself imprisoned and Brahman will be devoid of its Absoluteness and Intelligence ! Then there must be an outside power to release it and uplift it ! If you say ‘ not so’ but it is like the bright copper which loses the verdigiris and becomes golden by the philosopher’s stone, you suggest that the Brahman will be rid of the upadhis by viveka jnanam. If that be so, to say that Brahman is absolute unchangeable and pure Intelligence is subject to qualification. You will have to concede that vidya you speak of is one which is associated with avidya, and is a separate entity. Then the Brahman is one among the pasa-bandhis like us. Hear me, you are doing injustice to your Brahman.

Thus the pramiti of the Mayavadin is refuted.

Commentary :-

Supra Lines 1 - 47 examine the epistemic stand of the Mayavadin as regards the Veda as pramana. The position that Veda is swayambu is refuted. Veda is not self created and if it was heard as a prakara of akas it would be non-intelligent, as sound must have padam, kramam and paazhi ( artha). If Brahman is the author, it cannot be directly cognized as sabda and artha as Brahman is akantita. If it was revealed through rishis or seers, then it is secondary, or sariri-vakya and so not free from malathuva. It will in essence be only a pasu-vakya. There will be defect in the pramana if it is not realised that niskala Brahman of its own free will becomes sakalikar and gave the Veda to be intuited. To say that Veda is swayambu is only gaurava ( upachara). Its Author alone is swayambu. Otherwise the prameyam will partake of the nature of pramanam. What the refuter aims at is that Veda as pramana can be challenged unless it is congnised that niskala Brahman becomes sakalikara. In the very first round of refutation, pramana is attacked as the premises of the Mayavadin in his interpretation of the Vedic text that Brahman is Ekan is faulty. Secondly, the refuter impliedly achieves his point the Brahman is niskala as well as sakala, the crucial difference in the doctrines of ‘Absolutism’ and ‘Theism’. Thirdly, it is driven home that the Veda is intuited by the Jiva itself but through the non-cosmic parigraha sakti of the Lord through vak etc. The seers and rishis are not mere transmitting agencies and so pramana has not stopped at some hoary past instead of being a continuing force, i.e. it is eternal. If anumana and pratyaksa are to have co-ordinate status with sabda, then, all the three must be inter related. The maiya theory of the Saiva school is based on all the three. The Saiva refutation of the Mayavadin’s stand on pramana impliedly achieves ontological ends besides cavilling at the epistemic defects.

Lines 48 - 73 contain a refutation of the Mayavadin’s stand on prameya vis-a-vis the prapanca. The prapanca can have no relation whatever with Brahman unless there is an upadhana. Parinama or mitya, whatever it is, must be brought about by a upadhana.Otherwise the Creator and Created, the Reality and Appearance, the Real and Empirical will be of the same nature and validity. It is by the dispensing with of upadhana that the Mayavadin is driven to the illogical anirvacana theory. It affects the postulate of Brahman itself. It is like throwing away the child with the bath tub.

Lines 73 - 109 refutes the Mayavadin’s stand that acit can emanate from cit to justify the stand that prapanca is based on Brahman without any relation to it. The Mayavadin’s usual analogies of spider and its thread and the paddy and its chaff are disposed of as illogical as they postulate that Jada can emanate from sat without any upadhana karana. The usual gadam padam contradiction is cited. The satkaryavada, viz, that kariya is implied in the karana in suksma is established. It is also established that there must be an upadhana for the jada prapanca. The analogy that darkness is co-existent in the brightness of the lamp is refuted as the darkness is the result of the wick and oil which are the upadhanas and darkness is of the nature of brightness. The Mayavadin’s suggestion is that the maya upadhis are imposed on Brahman just as the pure akas is enshrouded by clouds, without any hetu ; then there is no question of release from maya. The Mayavadin’s usual escapist argument that Brahman created the prapanca as a lila is countred by the argument that what is assumed must be anya and have an origin in time and a source. This will negate the Absoluteness of Brahman and will make it a pasabandhi. The Mayavadin’s cardinal theory of Brahman as Ekan is thus brought to jeopardy by not recognising the sat-karya-vada and the need for an upadhana karana for the prapanca.

These arguments of the refuter are very subtle and logical (taarkika) and in some respects more powerful than Vedanta Desika’s in his Satadushani Vada. The Mayavadin’s defects of pramata, viz, vidya removing maya, are effectively pointed out.

The author next goes on to refute the Mayavadin’s pramata.

MAAYAVADA NIRAKARANAM

(Text) Olikol taamiram kuligai petraanku atan

aviddayai viddhai tavirkum enru uraikkil

nithan arivan suddhan enru uraitta

vithakam ennee viddaiyum veren

emmanoril oruvan nin irai

115 amma caivan tavan ni anre !

Meaning :-

If you say that just as the bright copper when it touches the alchemist’s tone gives up the verdigiris and becomes golden, the Brahman will get rid of the association of the body and become pure when it gets viveka jnana, why then did you call the first principle which was impure as permanent (nityan), all knowing ( sarvagnan) and ublemished (nirmalan) and on what basis? Say then what you describe as that which is all-knowing and yet associated with avidya (ignorance) is a different principle. If you say, that is this, then that which you call the First Principle is one like us - a paasa bandhi. You declare others are wrong, but really you are wrong.

Thus the pramiti of the mayavidin is refuted.

(Text) Panmani pasu narpaathiram enavum

nanul pall nir narkadir enavum

utalaiyum unarvaiyum vuvamittanaiyel

tadamani saratodu tam kootalave

120 unarvunar vozhiyin ulagunarvurin nin

paalum pasuvum calum cala

kalampala anri chalampala ilatena

kaanuar anri chalampala ilatena

aatiyul nizhalpol koodhutal koorin

tan nitzhal kontu tarpanam calikkin

mannizhal kontu utal vantu akanritme

man aykkantamena utal pirama

sannidhi alavil calattitu maayin

akantitam sannadhi alatilatu evaiyum

130 natantita ventum kitantitap perave

kaanthattu irumbu kattunar peril ayam

cerntitum neekkum ceyal atarkilate ! (116 - 132)

Meaning :-

Further, you say although there may be many beads, the string that binds them is one, although the cows are many and different , the milk yielded by them is of the same colour, although the pots are different, the reflection of the sun in the water in them is of the same nature and although the well, sea, tank, pond and channel are many, the water in them is the same, so also although the bodies in creation are different, the Brahman that resides in them is the same. If that be so, the bright beads and the thread did not join together of their own accord. Just as some one outside made them join and they joined, you must have some one other than your Brahman to make him join the bodies. Further, if your Brahman was insentient and the bodies in the prapanca were sentiment, then your analogy of the cows and the milk will apply. Further, your arguments that the sun is not affected while the reflections in the pots are and that the pond, tank etc., are liable to change while water does not cahnge, have drishtantavirodha and so have no meaning. Your doctrine says that just like the image resides in the mirror, the Para-brahman resides in the bodies. If so, the image becomes pradhana and the mirror undergoes disturbance, and so it will follow that the prati-bimbha (reflection) of the Brahman becomes pradhana and the bodies join and separate from it. This is not valid as the facts are otherwise. The magnet does not change in its position, but in its presence the iron which otherwsie does not change, changes. So also while the Brahmna remains unchanged in it presence, the bodies are born and die. Because Parabrahman is akantita and not kantita there is no place where its presence is not felt. So, all beings have to be born and die in the presence of Brahman. To say that bodies are affected by Brahman and not the inanimate objects ( kadam and patam) is not correct. Although the iron and the magnet may be together, unless some agency places them so as to be near to each other, the iron is not attracted by the magnet. So you have to admit that there is another principle which unites your Brahman and the bodies. Futher, listen, the magnet has got the power of attraction of iron but not of freeing itself from it. As in the presence of Brahman bodies are born, your analogy of iron and magnet is dristanta - virodha and so has no force.

(Text) Kanaattuyar kayirraravena cila totuttanai

Kanavin payanum nanavin payanum

135 vinayin payan avai poyyena ventaa

utal maaratta katanatu karuthuka

utra putrum matratil kayirum

utalum kutamum jada mena ariti

arivu kayiru enru ariyatanre

140 achchamatu ataital kocehamai utaitte

innum akkanavil iruluru kayitril

pinnum nin Brahman brahmittitume

tunniya vinayil cemmalar palignena

taanaam takaimaiyaanal malar ena

145 oru payananri palapayan mareeyatu

iruvinai tarupayan ena nani ventil

aanta viddhaiyum aviddhaikotu aakaiyum

eentiru vinaiyum iyampinai parattai

kalvarai pinikkum kaavalar ena muyal

150 tolvinai tutakkil tonrutal cirayittu

iruvinai ootum arulurum emman

aruvinai utarkan avattaikal uraittani

aar urupavar param akantitam atankaatu

orvilatu utaljadam uruneri yaatenin

155 maniya karana maaraat tattil

panninam ennin ivaiyo paramo

mutaliya taayin ivai pirzhvaitaatu

ivaiyenil unatu mozhi pazhutalate ! (133 - 158)

Meaning :-

You said that your Brahman is not affected by experience of pain and pleasure like the one who saw frightful things in a dram and found them to be unreal when waking, and the one who mistook a rope in front of an ant-hill as snake in the dark and got but frightened, found it to be false when it dawned. When one is in dream state ( swapna) in his suksma body he enjoyed experiences and in wakened state ( jagrat) in his sthula body he enjoyed experiences - both are the wroking of prarabda experience ; so do not say that in the jagrat state it is real and in the swapna state unreal. It is superfluous for you to explain these. In jagrat one experiences with sthula body and in swapna with the suksma body. So understand that there is difference in the bodies. The person, the rope found in the dark in front of the ant-hill, and his body - these three are jada, as you well know. If Pure Knowledge (Brahman) cannot perceive rope as rope but gets puzzled, what to day of it? If this Brahman is frightened by the rope as snake, it cannot be called karta. There is also a further fallacy. Is it right that your Brahman should be frightened by the rope as snake in day light even after knowing that the grief in dream is unreal and the rope in the dark is not sanke ? Your Brahman is frightened again by dream by the rope seen as snake in day light ! Is it proper? So that which suffers like this in association with the body is not Brahman. Further, although the crystal in proximity with a red flower assumes the reddish hue without entering into the flower, the Brahman when enjoying karma assumes the experiences and is not affected by it. The crstal in the proximity of the red flower instead of being itself, becomes varied. If your argument is that because the fruits of karma are many, the Brahman also has to assume varied forms, then you postulate that Brahman has both viveka jnana to save as well as ignorance to combine variedly with the body as the fruits of karma are many. Then like the king who apprehends the thief who has committed many thefts and imprisons him and punishes him, you put your Brahman in the prison of bodies to take the consequences of good and bad karmas ! Our Lord is one who has mercy for all. You said that according to your creed, this rare body which is assumed according to the karmas has three avastas ( states). Who is it then that experiences the three avastas in the body? If it is Brahman, because it is paripuranan ( perfect) it cannot have the avastas of jagrat, svapna and susupti. Because this body is jada it cannot itself experience the three avastas. If you say that the avastas are the states when you are not affected by the functioning of antahkaranas, which are nevertheless permanent, then you give room for the doubt whether these antahkaranas or the Brahman is the real principle in the body. If you assert that Brahman is this principle then it should not be deserted by antahkaranas. The truth of the Vedas that Brahman is the principle is controverted. !

(Text) Utalpatu Brahman urumenil caralattu

160 itattakum uruviral nuthiyali erituyar

anguli taane aruntitil utarkann

tankiya arivu tanithuru manre

tarpana nizhalkann kutri paaintatral

narkanil tuyaram nanuka takaittenil

165 ninmozhi virodhamum katchi virodha

tanmaiyum urum avai tavarila aakaa

yamutai pativakai yavarum palakalai

collutal elitaritu attozhil purivena

pulliya pazhamozhi pudikkinai anre

170 akantitam ena ni pakarntamai tanakku

bandham ituvena tantamai karutil

vaanil natakkum kaalinai pidittu

paru vilankitta oruvan ni anre ! (159 - 173)

Meaning :-

If you say “not so” but that which undergoes the avastas is the Brahman in association with the body, then suppose you stretch out one finger through a window and the finger tip is stung by a wasp, if the pain caused is not experienced by the body by itself, then it is possible to construe that the pain is experienced by the Brahman separately. As the pain caused by the wasp at the tip of the finger is experienced throughout the body from foot to head, your statement that the intelligence in the body experienced the pain has no meaning. Further when one strikes with a stick the image of your eye in a mirror it is the mirror that is broken and the eye is not affected, so also the experience of pain and pleasure is only for the body and not for the Brahman, then your sastra which made you say that it is the consciousness which experiences make you now say that it is the body that experiences and not the intelligence and thus the sastra is contradicted. Further, what is seen actually is that is the intelligence that suffers ; so there is pralyaksha virodha also. You might say that what you established is only the reality of entities ( vastu pramana) and that as Tirukkural itself says, it is easy to postulate but to difficult to follow. It is irrelevant and you speak for yourself alone. If we examine what you at first said, viz, that Brahman is akantita and what you now say, viz., that Brahman is affected by maya-upadhis, you are like the person who tries to capture the wind which blows freely and tries to make it stationary by imprisoning it !

Thus the Mayavadin’s pramata is refuted. This is with reference to his concept of ‘petha’ or bound state of the soul.

(Text) Bandham akala muntu vivekam

175 van vali ena tanil tane tonrin

munpu ulataayin mayankaatu ilatenil

pinpulatakaatu ilatu ulatenil veli

malaratu tarum anal marakkann inraaki

taruvatu takumenil tane tonra

180 virakin utitta kanal takumayin

aviddhaiyin uditta viddhai ammarattu

uditta vivekam viddhai enru uraitta

ventazhal anaiya vivekamatu uditta

intana manaiyatu irayilanru arre

185 irpata pirippin meippatum evarraiyum

ituvanru ituvanru ena kazhilkaalai

atuve taane aayinatu enranai

viddhai munnar aviddhaiyum aviddhai mun

viddhaiyum nilla viyan oli irulena

190 irulala olikkum oliyala irutkum

orukaalathum orupayan ilataal

irantaiyum mukarum murantaru vizhiena

viddhaiyum aviddhaiyum uyittatutu onru ulate

taane taanam aanalpol payanen

195 tannil tannai tane kaanil

kannil kannai kaanavum patume

tannalamatanai tane nukarum

ennin munnalam eitha tirunthen

katti polene katarinai inbam vantu

200 ottitum vithai utaiyayatine. (174 - 201)

Meaning :-

(From here the Mayavadin’s concept of Mukthi is refuted). If you say that Brahman is affected by the maya upadhis and released from them just like the wind that emanates from space and clears up the cloud which obscured the sky and made it without blemish, and suggest thereby that viveka jnana emanates from Brahman itself, then if this viveka jnana was already in Brahman it will not disappear and leave Brahmin in confusion. If on the other hand, you say that this viveka jnana was already in Brahman it will not disappear and leave Brahman in confusion. If on the other hand, you say that this viveka jnana was not already in Brahman but came as intermediate in a certain state, then what is not already existing cannot manifest in any contingency. If you say that it did not exist before but exists now, it will be like saying that a flower was generated in the sky ( sky flower). If you say, ‘ not so’ but it is like the fire in wood which was not seen before but now manifests in a contingency and so also viveka jnana which was not seen before is now operating, remember that to make fire in a wood, it has to be rubbed with another stick and fire does not manifest of its own accord. So, another agent is necessary for your Brahman to attain the viveka janan. You are reduced to this position. ! If in the ‘petha’ state or ignorance, the jnana is like the fire causes in the wood, then the viddhai you call viveka jnana is like the fire in the wood, and the place where the viveka jnana emanated is the wood. So the statement that viveka jnana emanated from Brahman is tantmount to saying it emanated from maya aviddhai. This ends in dristanta -virodha and so does not prove your standpoint. Further, you suggest that just as when the straw, stick and timber composing a house are plucked away, then nothing remains as a hut and just as, if thread by thread is removed from a cloth, nothing remains as the cloth, so also if all the upadhis constituting the body is negatived ( neti), not as the Self one by one, then the void is the Sivan ( Brahman). But consider, aviddhai will not stand before viddhai and vice versa. Before Brahman which is knowledge (arivu), the prapanca of bodies which is nescience ( ariyaamai) will not exist. If you ask how, before the bright sun darkness will not stand and in darkness which shuts out the sun there is no brightness. Pure brightness without darkness and complete darkness without light have no use for each other. The bright eye which experiences both the darkness and the brightness by identifying itself with them stands separate. Similarly, understand that there is an intelligent entity which joining with pati understands the pati and joining with pasa understands the pasa, and not being either understands itself as pasu, a separate entity. If the Brahman ‘becomes’ the Brahman of what purpose is it. If the Brahman is said to see in itself its nature, it is like saying that the eye will know its nature in itself. Is it possible to say so? No. So your suggestion that Brahman will know itself? Has no meaning. If you still say that Brahman enjoys in itself, you suggest thereby that Brahman was not having that enjoyment previously. As to why Brahman did not enjoy itself, before the bound ( petha) state, you cried out that it is like the candy that does not enjoy its own sweetness. Understand that because you are a pasu in the bound state and when freed from the pasa ( bonds) by your joining the pati, you enjoy the bliss ( sukham) in the freed state ( inbam vantu ottitum vastuvai utaayai aayitine).

(Text) Tattvamasi ena vaitha muppatattirku

onre porul enru anre pakarvatu

ni puli aayinai enranku unaril

aavinai enratum aakum uvamaittal

205 nayayinam enal aayay enraal

ahame brahman aayinatu enraal

sakhame ariyattan verenre

unmayil chalamilam utal chalamurum

venmathi pola vilankitum enranai

210 achalanaaki chanchala chalattu

chalanam mevinam ena mathi kaana

ventum atuvanri kaanpavar pirarel

intu una deham en ceitatu iyambuka (202 - 213)

Meaning :-

(The discussion on now proceeds to the refutation of Mayavadin’s concept of mukti ) If you examine the meaning of tat tvamasi, the three words ( or three states which literally means - tat=that, tvam=you, asi=becomes, it does not connote that you remain as One. Then what does it connote? When you examine what one means when one says that you have become a tiger on seeing your valour, the expression “have become” is aagu uvamai ( comparison by becoming) a comparison which is spoken of by lakshana vidhi sutras. The person referred to does not at all become a tiger. Further, if you asked a person why he is weak and thin, and he answered that he is diseased, it does not mean that he has become the disease. When the Vedas say that aham has ‘become’ Brahman ( aham Bramasmi), it means that the aham it as different from Brahman.. When you say that you are moving, it implies the movement of the body. It is like this. If the moon is agitated in the water, it is not the moon that is agitated but the water in which it is reflected. You say that you are like the moon in mukti. It is true that the moon is undisturbed, and its reflection in a running river is disturbed ; but the moon does not know it. It is the observer that understand this. So what realises, that Brahman is not affected but only the body, is a different person. What does your Ekam thenm connote in Ekam Brahman? ( so the mukti experience is for the soul and not for Brahman).

Thus the Mayavadin’s concept of mukti implied by Aham Brahma is refuted.

(Text) Utal vita katattul patu veli polenil

215 vittu enpera utarpattu enpata matru

ikalara oruvan ivvakai teliya

akilamum muthi atantita ventum

arintor muthi ataintoraayin

pirantor uyirpala bhedat tanre ! (214 - 219)

Meaning :-

(The Mayavadin’s para mukti is now refuted). You say that in paramukti the soul in the body remains alone when the body is discarded and it is like the ether in a pot which when the pot is broken becomes one with the outer ether ( kata akas and para-akas). The air when enclosed in the pot did not suffer any pain and similarly did not derive any pleasure when the pot is broken. Then on your analogy, when Brahman is associated with the body it should have experienced no suffering and when it is freed from the body it should experience no pleasure. Further the soul ( intelligence) in the body suffers and enjoys when it leaves the body. So your analogy of kuda-akas and para-akas does not support you. Further, according to your sastra pramana when one realises that he is Brahman, his intelligence and all the souls should simultaneously obtain release. If you say that those who have Brahmana jnana attain mukthi and those who do not, do not attain mukti, then there is the distinction of those who have Brahma jnana and those who do not have it and thus separate from the Brahman, there must be ‘jivatmans’ of different kinds and stages. Understand this. ( Thus the Mayavadin’s concept of para-mukti is refuted).

(Text) kanma kaantam kaaranamaaka

nannum vivekam ennil aviddhaikku

etu kaaranam othinai illai

itarku kaaranam vitittal ventinre

araniyil utitta kanalavai kavarvena

225 viratattu utitta vivekamatu azhittal

varunti aayinum tirutiya veda

nitiyellam neethu botham onru

ariyar tamum ikazh avvazhi natattal

poriyo botha neriyo itu bhavam

230 nenkitu neritaru paankinai pazhittal

nanri konralanre anriyum

jnaala neetiyum naanmarai neetiyum

baalar unmattar pasasaril enavum

urankinon kaiy verum pakkenavum

235 taane taviraataamal puriyatu

ozintitin nirayathu azhuntutal titame

uyittoninri mukhi uraittal

pitho piraman cetto peruvatu

utalaiyum neeye satamena saarinai

240 vaivinum vazhtinum koyyinum kolittinum

vanankinum utaippinum pinankutal ceyya

piramathanmai peruvatu ekkaalam ?

Irikku naal cila ennil nool katari

tarukkam pes talaipari utru

245 kantor eenha pintamuntu alari

pal noi yakkai tan noi urrutal

vitavarum enru natu natu natunki

vittor deiva tottinru anriyum

yoone evarumaanen enralin

250 avvavar citari avvavvar vazhnaal

cevvitu nirayam certuvar atanal

maya vaada peya unakku

devaril oruvar untaka

mevarum narakam vituttalo arite ! (220 - 254)

Meaning :-

(The postulate that Brahma jnana cannot be attained by sadhana-cathustayas is now refuted. If you say that viveka jnana could be attained by the observance of yagas spoken of in the karma-kanda, you have not explained the cause for maya aviddhais affecting Brahman in certain contingencies and confusing it. Just as you postulate the gain of Viveka jnana by the observance of karma kanda, you must also postulate the reason for the blemish of the Brahman to result in the present avidya. If the firesticks are rubbed against the wood, the fire that is sparked by such action burns the stick also. By performing the karmas of the karma-kanda the viveka gained will destroy the karmas! Giving up deliberately the Sadachara ordained by the Vedas, not knowing what Brahma jnana is but pretending that they have attained such jnana and steeped in anachara and saying that sudacharas are not necessary is thus their fate or their lack of intelligence? What is it that makes them give up their karmas which help to escape the pain of births ? This is lack of gratitude ( which as Tiruvalluvar says gives no salvation to the ungrateful). Denying the viveka gained by vratas is ingratitude. Further, the acharas ordained by lokachara and the four Vedas are there. Like children who do not distinguish between good and bad, like the nut which slips in the hand of person falling asleep, you, because you do not have Brahma jnana, will not know when those acharas leave you of their won accord. But if one gives up deliberately, before they become unnecessary, at the end of life one will not escape the torments of hell. So, without attaining Brahma jnana by those acharas to proclaim oneself as mukthan ( one who has attained mukti) is sheer madness. One should attain Brahman in life itself and not after death. Why? You said that this body is jada ( or iner). Whether one is praised or dispraised, whether his limbs are cut, whether he is burnt, whether he is worshipped or despised, that which is not affected by pain or pleasure is Brahma jnana, then why is’t not hither to manisfested? Life is short ( of the hundred years, half is lost in sleep, of the balance, one is to learn the unnumberable sastras and dispute with all that encounters ( tarka vada) and lose one’s head.!) Devouring the praise of the multitude that you are a good adhyatmika, you presume to expound Brahma jnana !. Then this body, heir to many ills, gets its final illness and you get alarmed at the approaching death and there is no Divine Consciousness in you to say. ‘Be not afraid, I shall protect you’. Because you have been saying that you are Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Yama and all the rest, these deities will be angry and allow you to go to Hell. So, one who has sworn by mayavada will be punished even if there is one Deva left and all the rest are dead, and sent to Hell. ( Thus the Mayavada is refuted fully, step by step, from the view points of pramana, pramata, prameya and pramiti to the concept of mukti).

Translator’s Commentary :-

Lines 110 -115 contain the refutation of Mayavadin’s pramiti, and Lines 116 - 173 of his pramata. Lines 174-201 contain the refutation of his concept of mukti and lines 201 - 212 refute his interpretation of tat-tvam-asi and aham brahmasmi. Line 220 - 254 depart from the dialectical argument to a practical level and indicate the danger of wrong interpretation of aham brahmasmi leading to the neglect of acaras and the paths of theism leading to the Personal God who will give succour at the time of death after a life wasted in metre tarka - vada to maintain that the Jiva and Brahman are one.

I have earlier given a critical summary of Umapati Sivacarya’s refutation of pramana, prameyam and pramata in my comments on liine 1 - 109. We shall now proceed to do the same for lines 110 - 254 dealing with pramiti and interpretation of tat tvamasi and aham brahmasmi. The attack on pramti is based on the failure of the Mayavadin to explain the cause of avidya. The failure reduces the Brahman to the position of pasabandhi like the many jivas. The usual analogies of one thread running though many beads are the one sun reflected in many pots of water are shown to involve drishtanta virodha ( fallacy of analogy). So also is the analogy of the magnet and iron. These analogies are frequently used in the Mayavadin’s sankalpa. The incidence of avidya and release by viveka are made the pradhana, main postulates to explain the seen universe of manifold nature, by the Mayavadin. Brahman is a passive subject, or witness at the most. It is a secondary Brahman which supposedly undergoes these affections. It is not rationally explained by the Mayavadin as to what makes the embodied souls suffer pain and pleasure.

The refuter then goes beyond the metaphysical argument and reasons out his case on the psychological basis. What is it that undergoes the various experiences in the three states of jagrat svapana and susupti and recognises them. Are they the antahkaranas or the Brahman or the insentient body? If they are not the anrahkaranas and if the Brahman is ekam, then it is reduced to the position of a thief who is confined to many prisons for many thefts as the Jivan is embodied in innumerable bodies. The need to postulate souls as a separate padarta or entity is thus clinched. The Mayavadin’s defect of pramata is thus proved. If the world is an adhyasa, why should a finger put out of a window and stung by a wasp affect the whole body ? The internal contradictions in Mayavadin’s stand are thus exposed.

If avidya is the cause of the seeming duality and viveka jnana will rectify, then why asks the refuter, the viveka jnana has deserted the jiva and left it in confusion? If it is argued that viveka jnana was all the time there like fire in the wood, what is the other agency that has to make the fire manifest itself. The refuter by his argument leads to the conclusion that the jiva by joining with pati understands the pati and by joining with pasa understand the pasa, and being different form of mean, understands itself as pasu, a third entity and its whole endeavour is to unite with Pati and leave out the pasa, which really is mukti.

The refuter then negatives the Mayavadin’s interpretation of tat tvam asi and aham brahmasmi. When the Vedas say that jiva has become Brahman, they clearly connote the two are different and the significance of ‘becoming’ is only an ‘aagu uvamai’ or ‘lakshana vidhi’ and does not connote identity. When one says that a person has became a tiger or diseased, the person is not the same as tiger or the disease but only connotes his becoming. The mukti experience is not for the Brahma but for the jivan.

The refuter also refutes the Mayavadin’s concept of para mukti. The usual analogy of ether in the pot before the pot is broken and that after the pot is broken is cavilled against. If the drishtanta were to hold good there should be no distinction between the experience when it is free. The very postulate of the Mayavadin that those who have Brahma jnana attain mukti and those do not have it do not, postulates the existence of Jivatmans of different kinds and stages.

Finally, the refuter says that to assume that the Self is Brahman and to give up the acaras ( good conduct) is sheer madness. If one is really Brahman, then the acaras will themselves stop away like a nut from the hands of one who has fallen asleep. The refuter sounds a note of warning that when death approaches one who swore that he was Brahman would be found how helpless he was to escape it. This of course is not a meta physical argument, but metaphysics is deceptive unless it functions side by side with existential realities.

The arguments of the refuter are exceedingly subtle and logical and step by step they penetrate into the defects in the pramana, prameyam pramiti and pramata of the Mayavadin and also in his concepts of mukti.

The refutation comprehensive and Umapati Sivacarya excels here many other refutators.

3. IKYAVADIN’S SANKARPAM

Having refuted Mayavada, the author Umapapati Sivacharya proceeds to deal with Ikya-vada ( also called Isvara Ikyavada).

Ikyavadin’s Sankarpam

(Text) Ariternthu unaraap periyon uraitha

pathipasu vidhimurai kilakkil

Isan ekan ennili pasukkal

Paasam iruvakaip parisnathu ulagath

5 Thaayavan uiyirkku maayayin arutal

iruvinait thokaiyin uruvinaith tharumaal

karumugil adara iritharu kathirponru

Arivaam uyiril pririyaa thaeyum. (1 - 8)

Meaning :-

Even Vishnu who delved the earth declared that it was not possible to know the real form of the Supreme; so we can know the real nature of Pati, Pasu and Pasa as only revealed by Siva. Pati called Parameswara is One and there is none besides Him. Pasus which are called atmans are many entities. Pasam is twofold, viz. Maya and Karma. Siva who is like Mother to all beings out of His compassion gives the souls, out of Maya bodies according to their punya and paava. Just as when the black clouds touch the sun’s rays, the sun appears to have lost the rays, so also the Atman which is pure cit originally will be united with the Maya body and suffer bondage.

(Text) Eettum irupayan ottidum niyathikku

10 Orupozhdu irupayan nugarvura maruvudhal

Inmai yaadal munniya kaalai

Satti nipadham utrirai arulaal

Uruvukodu ulogu therivura maruvi

Maasuru toosu thaesura vilakkum

15 Thanmaiyin unarthum punmaigal neenghi

Neerum neerum saerum thagaimaiyin

Arivino darivu serivurap porunthi

Onraam enpathai ulagor

Nanraa muthi ena navitrrinarae. (9 - 19)

Meaning :-

The Creator ordains that the embodied soul experience in that condition constantly all the fruits of its past deeds, Punya, Paava. If in one birth the atman is fortunate by some Siva punya to neutralise the fruits of both good and bad deeds, then the atman gets the saktinipada or the stage where karma loses force. In that state the Creator assumes His own Grace as His manifestation and appears before all the world as Acharya ( or Guru), removes all the stains of the atman and purifies it and gives diksa and upadesa ( i.e., gives intutition of pati jnana). Then the atman sheds all its impurities, and just as water mingles with water and becomes one, so also the arivu (cit) of Siva joins witht he arivu (cit) of the atman and by this ikya (union) becomes One. This, the wise call is the real Mukthi.

Notes :-

This is the standpoint of the Isvara Ikyavadin. The refutations of Patanavadin follows later. ( Ikyavada is the philosophy of natural merger. Patanavada is the theory of natural state)

4. IKYAVADA NIRAKARANAM

(Text) Muthi enpathai evano suddha

Arivenil paasam seriyaa maavai

Uru iru vinaiyaal varum iru vinaiyum

Uruval anri maruvaa thivatrin

5 Munthiya thaetho vandhanai vatharkoar

Eathu vaendum thaanyial bennin

Veedutra avarinum kootak kootum

Eengivaai nirka neengaak karuvigal

Kondari variyak kandathu manri

10 Maruviya uruvu thayilperum kalai

Chiruporith tharukat karaiyanar chudikaith

Thootthik kaduvul thulaiyeyir turukak

Kothayal kidappinum kuvaitharu navamani

Orupal thuthaiyinum perugar vatthinoatu

15 Achhamum anukak kochchamai ennoa ! (1 - 15)

Meaning :-

You say that this union you have described is Mukthi. We shall deal with it later. If you say that the atman at the beginning was pure cit, there is not contingency for it to be operated by Paasa. This Maya sarira or body which is the result of his previous punya pava does not come without cause. When the punya pava mature, the maya sarira is assumed and by the trikaranas which it bestows, function. Thus the body is not assumed without cause of per accidents. So what is that pasa which has joined the atman first on the basis of maya or karma ? To explain why the pasa at one stage joined the atman, there must be a hethu to explain why originally there was a mala and why it joined it ? If you say there was no moola mala, and the paasa of its own accord joined the atman just as a white cloth which had no stain originally takes on strains without its seeking, know that even those who are freed from the operation of maya and karma and attain. Moksha may still be conjoined to maya and karma. You cannot controvert this. You know for a fact that these organs are given you to remove the mala sambanda which affected you from the beginning and yet you say there is no mala !. Further, if you say that there was no mala at the beginning and it joined the atman later, it is not acceptable. Listen. This body in sleep, what is its condition? If on one side there are snakes which are sensitive to the body and dangerous and with black neck and strength in its hood and hollow fangs filled with poison and on the other side are heaps of precious gems, you are not attracted by the gems or dismayed by the snakes in the sleep ! Why is this ignorance.?

(Text) Karuvi yavum pirivuru nilaiyael

Poripula naadhi kuraivara nirainthu

Kaatchiya thalikku mootchiyin munnark

Kodutthoar aazhi vidutthavar naadik

20 Kolvoark kaana tulgi mienduzhith

Thanthavark kandaang gandhamil athanai

Tharuga ennum perumathi pirangumathu

Arivi laamaiyen ranaiathu malamaak

Kuriko llalar araikuva ranrae (16 - 24)

Meaning :-

Because in sleep all the sense organs have ceased functioning, there will then be no desire or aversion to be sensed. When the mind and the senses are fully active and make intelligence full, the intelligence dwells completely in sat ( reality). Fancy a person to whom a ring was given a moment ago to be sold and the price to be brought, not finding any buyer, returning the ring to you as he would not like it to keep it longer. Fancy your asking a moment later of the person who returned the ring to give back the valuable ring ! What wisdom is this? If it is said that this confusion is due to one’s ignorance, understand that what you call ignorance is known as Anava by the wise who have postulated the three entities Pasu, Pasa and Pathi.

The foregoing refutes the Ikyavadin’s stand so far as the pedha ( bound) state of the soul is concerned. The refutation of the stand as regards mukthi state follows :

(Text) Arivir kkarivu cheriya vendinrae

unmaiyil irumaiyum oliyae eanil oru

thanmai yagamun satrina rilarae

munbu nanrudan onriya kalai

inbam eithuthar kilathuyir aathalin

30 neeyalai porudha maaya vathi

ayinai amaiyum arulnilai kaenmathi (25 - 31)

Meaning :-

Because atman is cit it does not need to join another cit. If you say that in mukthi just as water mingles with water, Pati and Pasu merge and shine together, no one has said before that Atman and Siva are of the same nature because, one is paripurana and the other is ekadesi, one is nirmalan and the other is maala sahajan, one is Pathi the other is Pasu. If you say that the Atman which was originally pure, in mukthi is freed from the impurities and enjoys the union with Siva, we have not known that, before the onset of the maya, vinai, the Atman was in union with Siva and enjoying bliss. Well, you have become the same as Mayavadin, who was disputing with you, in his stand that Atman and Brahman are like guda akasa and maha akasa and at death they mingle and become one !. What you say really confirms the Mayavadin’s stand ! Hearken now to what I say about Arul or Grace to overcome anava mala.

Translator’s Commentary :-

The Isvara Aikyavadin’s stand is proved to be practically the same as Mayavadin’s athough the two differ only about the plurality of souls. The Aikyavadin does not accept the anava mala as otherwise his stand that Atman becomes Brahman by union will fall to the ground. He is unable to explain the anava sambanda of the Atman. It is this anava which limits the Atman but it is the Maya that makes Atman a cit in the jagrat state. The refutation is subtle and interesting.

5. PAATAANAVAADHIN’S SANKARPAM

(Text) Moolamalatthar saalu maayai

Karumatthalavil tharumuru iraivan

serinthiru payanum nugarnthidum vuyirgal

iruluru malatthir paruvaror paduthalin

5 idai iru nokkum thadai pattoril

thuyarurum athanar cheyiruru thunpam

kothai maanthar uiththurun thuyilpol

kaatchi ennak kaanaath thuyara

10 maatchiyai muthi ena vaguth thanarae (1 - 10)

Meaning :-

(Here begins the exegetic of Paadaanavaadham). The atman has anava mala without a beginning. For the purpose of removing this mala, maya conjoins him. The Creator gives the atman a body suited to the past karmas. The souls bearing those bodies will enjoy the fruits of both pava and punya. Because of the concealing nature of anava mala which makes the soul enjoy the fruits of karma, it will obscure the intelligence of the soul even as the cataract of the eye prevents it from seeing things which it has seen before and makes it suffer as if it were born in blindness. On account of this obscuration, the soul will more and more have the sufferings of birth. This is petham ( or state of bondage). The souls in ignorance will leave off all avastas and as if immersed in atita state with no perception of any discriminate knowledge, they will remain without any experience of pain or pleasure and this the wise have called the state of mukti.

6. PAATANAVAADI NIRAKARANAM

(Text) Vakuthhurai perukath thokutthidu mutthi

nanru nanrirul onriya malattham

ulatthir kurupori ceripulan nugarthal

vilakkil thigazhum maenmaiya thanrae

5 karuvigal agalvuzhi maruviya thuyaramum

nanrenalaagum thunriya padalath

thidai thadaip patta sudarvizhi maanthar

patalam neenguthal kandanaa thalinae (1 - 8)

Meaning :-

(The Bhedevadin refutes). You have analysed the words variously and citing a few examples you have declared in the end that the kevala state in which aatman stands united to aanava mala is mukti. How wonderful, no one has said like that ! (derisive). In the sakala state the soul guided by the senses to which it is united experiences the abundant objects of existence. It is like the light which guiding the eye makes it see. You have stated the sakala state without defect. If the sense organs, which are like the light which guides the eye, leave the soul, the kevala state immersed in aanava mala can be well stated as we observed in the vase of sakala state. The eye which at one time was obstructed in its sight by cataract is able to get rid of the cataract by the application of medicine. Such a thing is possible. By this the pedha state is refuted.

(Text) Kaatchi ennak kaanaath thuyara

10 maatchiyai mutthi ena vakutthuraikkil

karanaa bhaavam maranam karumaram

aeinthavar mutthi saernthava ranrae

anaya gathikkor munaivarum vaendaa

tanitaru thuyaram enumitu thidamae

15 paataanatthir koodaa muthi ( 9 - 15)

Meaning :-

If you define and expatiate that this avasta ( state) where there is no empirical perception or experience of pain is mukti, then those who have lost the faculty of sense organs, those who are dead and those whoa re in womb ( i.e. those who have no sence perception) must all be deemed to be in mukti state. For attaining a mukti like this no teacher ( acharya) is needed !. This mukti where all senses are functionless and only the aanava mala ( ego) is left and the soul remains without consciousness cannot be called mukti. ( Thus the Paataanavadin’s concept of mukti is refuted).

Commentary :-

Paataanavaada is the school which postulates that mukti is the state where the soul remains like stone although conjoined with sahaja mala ( i.e aanava mala). The word paataana means stone. In a sense it may be called the theory of natural state. Because the aanava mala is conjoined even in mukti, the intelligence of the soul is conceived to merge in the Ego and not in Sivam. The paataana-vaadin postulates the soul and ego as guni and guna relation and so in inseparable. This school is the first and least acceptable of the six inner schools

( ahachchamayam) of Saivism, viz paataanavaada, Bhedavaada, Sivasamavaada, Sivasankrantavaada, Isvara-avikaravaada and Sivadvaita. Here Maaya is said to be sufficient to make aanava ineffective. It is accepted by this school ( as in Saiva Siddhanta) that the tanu karanas are given by the Creator according to the past karmas of the soul. While enjoying the fruits of the karmas in the body thus endowed the soul’s intelligence is concealed. It is like the loss of eye sight, which a person once had, by the concealing screen in cataract. The soul is thus in bound state ( pedha) on account of this obscuration. The Paatanavaadin’s concept of the sakala state may be acceptable but this concept of mukti as that in which the soul’s intelligence is in the go and the soul remains as a stone (unmoved by the ego intelligence or perception of any kind) is fallacious as such a state is no better that the state of a person who has lost the faculty of his sense, or a dead person or a life in womb when it had not developed the sense experience of its own. The paataanavaadin is dismayed that the experience of indriyaas in sakala avasta is the root of the pedha state ( bound state) and so he would conceive of mukti as a state where the intelligence of the soul which it experiences through the indriyaas is submerged in the ego. This senseless state is not mukti, and for it no teacher is necessary. Thus the refutation of the Paatanavaadin is simple and it is done by the Bhedavaadin who in turn will be refuted by the Sivasaamavadin ( in the chain as arranged by the author in the Sankarpa Nirakaranam).

7. BHEDHAVAADIN’S SANKARPAM

(Text) Eesnathu arulaal paasath thoguthi

serivuru sembir karaiyuru kalimbu

kuligai thaakka olipetr aangu

nitha suttha muttha raagta

5 Vaitthanar ulagil marai vallorae !

Meaning :-

( The Bhedavaadin’s Sankarpam beings) - Just as the verdigiris of the copper in the earth is removed by the contact of the alchemist’s drops and the copper is rendered like pure gold, so also the souls in maturity will, by the grace of the Creator, be dissociated from the confuction of aanava, maaya and karma, and they will become eternal and pure and attain mukti when they will become the enjoyer and the enjoyment without distinction. So have declared the wise of this world who have in them the truth of the Vedas.

8. BHEDHAVAADIN’S NIRAAKARANAM

(Text) Maraigal aagamath thuraigal matrevaiyum

naasamil pathipasu paasamen ruraiththal

ayarththor kuligaich chayathaal thamirak

kaalitha naasam paasath theiththal

5 kooda thannriyum kuligai seerunam

needaa dhazhittha nilainilai aathalin

Bhedavaadam oathuthal pizhaiyae

innum innuyir aemang kuligai

thannil anniyam tharuvathu thidamae

10 veedith thiranir kooda koodaa

Meaning :-

(The refutation by Sivasamavaadin begins ). From the four Vedas, the Agamas and the puranas and other sastras, which have come in the wake of Vedagamas, have all declared that Pati, Pasu and paasa are all eternal entities. Forgetting that you have compared the power of the alchemist’s drops to remove the verdigiris of copper to the Divine Grace destroying paasa, which is sastra-virodha. So it is meaningless to say that paasam will disappear. Further, not only your statement that paasam will disappear is wrong but also that the alchemist’s drops mutate the copper and transmute it into gold is not applicable to that for which you have invoked this analogy ( dattaantam as opposed to dristaantam ) because you declared that pasu ( solu) does not disappear but remains as the receiver and receipent and thus your bhedhavaada ( that soul does not disappear in mukti) i.e., not be abheda, is brought to discredit. There is a further fault. That is, the copper does not become the alchemist ‘s drops and does not also retain its own nature but becomes gold which is different. Then it would follow that the soul should not become of the primary nature of Siva who purified it should lose its own nature and become something different fundamentally. So, you do not escape this blemish in your argument. Moksha, is not attained in the way you have suggested like copper and the alchemist’s drops.

Commentary :-

The Bhedhavaadin postulates that the soul on attaining the pure consciousness automatically leaves off the malaas, aanava, maaya and karma and this state is mukti. The analogy is that the copper leaves off its verdigiris immediately it is touched by the alchemist’s acid. Just as a man’s shadow which was long and increasing disappears under his feet at mid-moon so also the soul’s intelligence, which was guided by the indriyaas, at maturity returns to him unsupported by the indriyaas so also the soul when it loses the three malas becomes the enjoyer and enjoyment without distinction. Just as the copper melted in a crucible, loses the verdigiris completely when the alchemist’s acid is added, so also the soul in the pedha state ( embodied state) is purified by the experience of pain and pleasure when the Lord’s grace acts as the alchemist’s mercury to make it leave off the dross and get transformed. This exposition of Bhedavaadin is only plausible, says the Sivasamavaadin, because when the copper is transformed into gold, copper is not lost but only the verdigiris. The copper did not become the alchemist’s acid but became a different thing. So in mukthi the soul cannot become the enjoyer and the enjoyment, without losing itself. So the Sivasamavaadin does not accept the Bhedavaadin’s thesis. The aim of the Sivasamavaadin is to prove that the soul partakes of the nature of God in mukthi like the worm transforming into the beetle. The soul is adi-muktha while Siva is anaadimuktha. In mukthi, the soul attains the powers of Siva. The bheda of bhedavaadin is confronted by the samavaada of the Sivasamavaada.

9. SIVASAMAVAADHIN’S SANKARPAM

(Text) Paasamum pasuvum isanum enrim

moonvagai unarvum tham muthanmaiyavaaip

paasa iympulan thaesura unarththap

pasuth thani gnanom pusiththidu manrae

5 inaiya gnanam pirivura eriyaach

chenthazhal thagumneri artham il vuyirum

arivai onrum ariyaa thanrae

ivvaarozhugum aenai vuyirkku

munnoan thanuthu muthi oli gnanam

10 ariyaap pachchaich chirupuzhuk kavarntha

vandena vuyiraik kondidum vuyir athu

thannai noakkith thanathu vaaki

aivagaith thozhilum meivagai unarvum

piriyaa vaaru petruth

thiriyaap periyoar thiratchi saernthidumae (1-15)

Meaning :-

(Sivasamavaadin expounds his tenets). The three eternal entities paasa, pasu, and pati have without beginning the three kinds of intelligence called paasa-gnana, pasu-gnana and pathi-gnnana. The pasu gnana helps to purify the knowledge obtained through the five indriyaas which is pasa jnana and to know the truth. Where these two kinds of knowledge ( paasa and Paasa-jnana) are not there, the soul will be like a red ember which is not glowing with flame. Though being intelligence it will have not discrimination. This is pedham

In mukthi the soul which is thus in kevala and sakala states will be seized by the intelligence of Siva ( Sivajnana), which is the highest of the three jnanas ( munru muthal) just as the green worm which lives with no knowledge of any kind is taken by the bee. Just as the worm which was thinking of this bee becomes the bee itself, the Jiva which was meditating on Siva takes the form of Siva. ( Note - ‘form’ is not ‘shape’, but connotes nature) and just as the wrom on transformation does all the actions that the bee was doing and mingles with the rest of the kind, the Atman will get Siva’s power of panca kritya and sarvanjatva ( five acts of creation etc, and power to know everything) inseparably from it and join souls who have already attained such power and knowledge.

Commentary :-

The Sivasamavaadin does not subscribe to the analogy of the Bhedavaadin of copper being transformed into gold because the atman neither changes like the copper at the touch of mercury drops not itself disappear but in between became like gold. The atman is supposed to become Sivasvarupa without losing itself. This insistence on bheda does not appeal to the Sivasamavaadin who postulates that the atman on the attainment of patti-gnana is endowed with all the pwoers of Pati just as the worm transforms itself into bee and acts exactly like a bee.

Sivasamavaadam is variously described as Sankranta sivasamvaadam, Utpatti Sivasamavaadam, Avesa sivasamavaadam, Rupa Sivasamavaadam and Arupa Sivasamavaadam, but in essence it is of the two latter categories. All the three jnannas, paasa, pasu and pati are beginning less. The first only illumines the sense experience. The second gives the enjoyment of the fruits of such experience. When these two are transcended, the atman is like a fire without glow and will not have cognitive knowledge. So in mukthi the atman which is granted pati jnana assumes all the pwoers of Pati. The green worm which is taken by the hornet thinks itself to be a honest and is transformed accordingly. Similarly the Atman acquires all the attributes of Siva.

This doctrine is acceptable so far as it postulates that the pati-jnana alone would make mukthi possible but whetherthe soul and God are in equal footing is the question. The Sivasamavaada may be acceptable to the extent the atman is adimuktha and not anaadimuktha like Siva because the atman needs Sivajnana to inform him that it is aadimuktha. The intuition of the self is got by Pati-jnana and there is nothing above the self. It is Brahman itself. But, for its panca kritya it would need the power of maya which is self-created in the case of Brahman and not so in the case of the jivan in mukthi. Jiva’s power of panca kritya is only potential. Thus Saint Gnanasambandar himself declares the supreme power and grace of Siva behind his life’s miracles.

10. SIVA SAMAVAADHIN’S NIRAKARANAM

(Text) Saerntha mummai vaintha gnannamum

orukaalanrith therivura nirkil

onnporul kaanum panbinuk korukaal

paruthiyum mathiyum eritharu vilakkum

5 vaendalinrae kaanthagu kaalai

onronru aaka ninrari vurumenil

anniyam ariyaa manvuyir poripulam

thaano ariyaa thalaivark kulaginai

aaana arivaal ariyavaen tinrae

10 kozhunthazhal thagumaenil azhunthidum avaththhaiyil

tiriyaath thalaivatr teriyaath thanmaivanthu

aeithal aakaa. ................... ( 1 - 12)

Meaning :-

The three jnanas of pati, pasu and paasa or the three entities will function individually, but they have to function simultaneously to be absolute. If the eye wants to see the particular thing, it will be evident that either the sunlight or the moonlight or the lamp light will be enough but there is no need for all the three to function for the eye to see. So what you ( Sivasamavaadin) says that all the three jnanas ( Pasa, pasu and pati) should unite together for the Atman to know is meaningless, If you say, ‘ no’ and explain that they function individually to bring in knowledge variously, understand that the objects of experience are different from the unchanging Atman, Pasu jnana cannot know all. As pati jnana is an all knowing intelligence by itself without beginning, the Creator has no need to know anything new discriminatively. If you say that when the indriyas are not functioning and the atman is obscured by the anavamala it is like an ember which is without flames, it would imply that the atman in mukthi does not know the Lord which is inseparable and is always with Him. This condition is not of any help to the atman. ( This is the refutation of Sivasamavaadin’s concept of pedha state).

(Text) ................. ....... Meiyyuru poruttu

munnark keedam thannena eduttha

vaettuvan iyalbu koottal peraathae

15 vanderum pedaavut kondathu thanakku

mandhira vaatham thanthathum ilathae

edutthidum athanaal adutthathen rarayil

karumayirk kutti irusiraip paravai

aayina theduttha thayarsatr irilarae

20 piravip paedhath thuraiyivai kidakka

aeyum itthiran aayum kaalai

yoagath thaguthi yaagath thagumae

jnanaminmai enroathuva dhevan enil

vuyirum unarvum payiluthha linri

25 vaettuvan uruvam menpuzhu unarvu

koottuthalal uruk koodutha laanum

muthiyil iraiyir patrutha linrith

thanuru anaindha pin athan unarvu

maarudha laanum oorudaith thanrae (12-29)

Meaning :-

Your analogy of the green work which was in ignorance becoming the bee when taken up by the bee to make it after its form is not valid for the state in which the soul is in union with Siva as one in mukthi. It cannot be said that just like Siva imparting mantra upadesa to the atman to give it His own form, the bee takes the worm to its bore and imparts any mantra to transform it. So your analogy of the worm becoming bee is a meaningless one for the mukthi state. If you say no, the seizing of the worm by the bee is like the upadesa for the worm to become the bee, and further, the black caterpillar that builds a web from its saliva and stays there for a time before it flies away with wings had no mother to teach it and nobody says it had one such, the worm becoming bee and the caterpillar becoming a winged moth, being thus transformed in accordance with their evolution, cannot be an analogy for mukthi. So leave off these analogies. Further the analogy of the worm becoming thus a bee fro the atman attaining Sivaswarupa may on examination be acceptable in yoga but will not be helpful in jnana. Why we say that it will not hold good in jnana is that your saying that mukthi is the joining of Atman with Siva oresupposes that Atman and Siva are different and so your statement is at fault. Further, as the worm’s thought connects it with the bee, the analogy creates for you a body in mukthi and so implies that in mukthi you take a form to unite with Siva but will remain separate, and also it implies that after the worm had taken the form of the bee the equating of the bee with us, is not perfect as after the worm has become the bee it has no recollection that it was a worm before ! ( On the other hand that atman will have that recollection for the enjoyment of mukthi). So, the mukthi that you talk of cannot be said to be mukthi obtained as a result of jnana. ( Thus Siva samavaadin;s assumption that in mukthi of atman is in conjunction with a body for panca kritya a refuted).

(Text) Isnatu iyalbu arul eithu uyir iyatral

pesutal tavarena perumarai ariya

aintozhil uiyirum thanthital thakumo

aavaten munnaal navalar peruman

pantoru mutalai unta maintainai

35 varavazhaithanan enraai pizhaippila tathum

thantita vendum enranaranre

innavai kitakka munnavan thanmai

eithinar ella ceitium ceivar

irunperi eiti tharumceyal thakavenil

40 porulnilai kitakka oru dittanta

pere aayil ceerak katuviya

punal oru putaiver kanal takumaayinum

veroru porulai neerak kilate

neruppenum itanin uruttani kaattuka

45 ankiyum onril thanki ninrallatu

tanthozhil nadatta thenrari ininee

irumpanal ceithi tharunparisu ulatho

atuvenor alakai potitarum kaalai

atan ceyal anaithum ivanceyal aamaal

50 avanivan aakil ivanavan ceitikku

en avai ennil pinnuru ceyalum

atan ceyalanri ivan ceyalaakil

ivanceyal peyin tanceyal aaki

iruntava ena therintita ventum

55 theriyaatayil puriyil kattunkanal

erintna tennum itutakum anriyum

avanivan aakil ivanavan ceithi

enru ceyvan ? onriya matattai ! (30 - 58)

Meaning :-

When the Supreme Vedas say that it is blasphemous to say that Atmas which have received God’s grace would be able to perform the pancha krityas ( five acts of creation , sustenance, destruction, obscuration and grace) it is too much to say that the Atman which is an atom will be able to perform the pancha krityas performed by the Mahat of mahats, Siva. You might ask that in times of yore the king among the learned, Nambi Aarorran brought back to life in Tiruppukkoliyur one of the two Brahman boys who went to a tank by bathe and was devoured by a crocodile. You cannot be blamed for raising this point. But Nambi Aarooran only prayed to the Lord to bring the boy to life and did not himself call the boy to life, His hymn (Tirupppaattu) which brought back the boy from the crocodile’s mouth bears witness -

Lord who dwellest in the mind of those

who chant with joy the praises sung by the great

Thou who wearst the snake as the girdle

around thy waist, One who art beginning and the end

Dwelling in Pukkoliyur Avinasi surrounded

deep by copses and gardens

Ask Kaalan ( Yama) to give back the boy

devoured by the crocodile in the water !

Note that Nambi Aaroorar petitioned to the Lord to bring back the boy and he did not himself call him back to life. So you are not right in saying that Atman which has received Divine Grace can do the pancha krityaas. You might say that this is only an interpretation and that those who have received Divine Grace can do all the give acts of srishti, stiti, samharam, titrobhavam and anugraham just as iron when in union with fire can do all the things that fire can do as if it is done by itself. Well, knowing the exalted and concrete example of Sundaramurthi Nayanar who received the Divine Grace you yet ignore it and talk of the possibility of Pancha kritya by the analogy of iron and fire. Listen, the ferociously flowing water although it may unite with fire nearby, the heated water, will not unlike the red hot iron burn and turn to ashes even a straw. If you say because fire in combination with water did not burn straw but it would if it stood alone, tell me whether the element fire can function by itself. Understand that even fire unless it pervades something else cannot act alone. Fire will function only in combination with wood or iron and cannot do so by itself. Fire will function in combination with iron but iron has no ability to do the work of fire. So, your statement that souls which have received Divine Grace can do pancha krityas does not hold good. If you say, “Why do you dispute that the soul cannot do pancha kritya. Take the case of a spirit which possesses a person. Don’t you see all the actions of the spirit as the actions of the person possessed, “ I ask that if Sivan did his actions as this atman, why did this atman take upon itself the actions of that Sivan? If you say that the atman has the ability to do those actions, I ask if the spirit leaves off the possessed man, are the actions of the person afterwards those of the spirit or of the person? If those actions are his, then the actions during the period the spirit possessed him are logically of the spirit. Understand this. If it is not discerned that the actions are of the spirit, just like the fire which while in contact with the straw did its work, Sivan who was in the Atman did His work and the atman could not have done Sivan’s work. That Sivan will not die at any time while the atman will cease to function at any moment. How and when can the atman accomplish the work of Sivan? Pity your madness, answer if you can. ( This is the refutation of the Sivasamavaadin’s stand that atman can do pancha kritya).

(Text) Yellam arital cellaatu uyirkal

citrarivenum ichchol thavar aakum

enpatan alakai thanpatam adaintor

konta varu kantanam ennil

Moonkai anta utrur onkiya gunan kuri

Ceivathen innum bavvam mutrum azhintinum

65 Naazhi kollatu aazhiyul alaipunal

Atanal karutu mutal ulataaka

Ventum anre eentini amaiyum

Yellam enum ichhhollal pattum porul

Anaithum takkat tanipparathuttravarku

70 Evvakai unarvu ceivathen ceppuka. (59-70)

Meaning :-

You said that the atman besides able to do pacha kritya in mukthi also attains knowledge of everything (Sarvajnatva)... The atman will not have the power to know everything. But if you say because he has attained Grace he will have also the knowledge of everything. Then what the Vedagama puranas declare that the atman has only limited or partial knowledge ( Kinchitjnan) must be faulty. What say you to this? If you say that we have seen those possessed by spirit get the power for themselves to foretell like the spirit what is to happen in the future. Even if the spirit which has all powers possesses a person who is blind and dumb that person is not seen to utter anything with the tongue not able to see any with his eyes. So it is not as if the possessed person gets all the powers of the spirit. If a vessel ( naazhi) even if it goes fathoms deep into the sea, it cannot get all the water into it. That being so, could the soul get in the place of its limited knowledge, all the knowledge of Pati ? So leave off your saying that the atman which has Grace will know everything. So the powers attributable to the word Sarvatva will not apply to even those who have realised the Supreme. Siva the One without equal. Further it cannot be said that it is old disability, because the atman has merged from the pettha state and become mukthan. So consider and say what the nature of the knowledge and what the work of those who have become muktas are ?

(Text) Onrin onraam onratu ulakil

Ninrapothu uyir neraam anre

Muthi utra natravar avaiyitai

Cervar enranai sartharu muthi

75 Saloak kiyamo sayuch chiyamenil

Banda mutra kanthal kazhitta

Arivinotu arivu piriya petri

Ventum enpatarku eentivar ivvaru

Iruppar enpatharku oruttan ventum

80 Annalatu arulin nanni irupinum

Jeevanmuttar enru othinar akanru

Neenkiyum uruvam neenka tayin

Onkiya muthi aavaten uraikka

Setiyudal anuka kutilai kotukkumenru

85 Otinai niye paethai pakattual

Olir sinai muchi talir enum itu takum

Iccha roopam nachchinar ennin

Mummalat tetem inmaya tanre

Ithuvalar muthi pathamena iyambuvar

90 Eenkivai nirka. (71 -90)

Meaning :-

If in mukthi the atman and Siva are one, one of them will be negated. Without attaining paramukthi but remaining as jivan muktan joined to a body, the atman that remains thus will be equal to Siva. This is meaningless. Further you said that those who have received Divine Grace will join the company of those great men of tavam who have already attained the state of mukthi. Did you suggest that this attainment referred to by you is Saloka mukthi ? If you say, ‘No’ know that what I meant is Saayujya mukthi appropriate to Jnana. The anavamala which is joined to the body and which has to be given up conceals the limited intelligence which when mingling with the higher knowledge, both become of one nature. So when you say that they will join the company of the great men who have attained here Paramukthi, they must have a body for the purpose. And further, those who by the Divine Grace of the Creator have instead of attaining paramukthi remain in this body, will not be affected by the body nevertheless. The wise say that they are jivamuktas. If in spite of what the wise have said, you say, tell us if the link of the body is not snapped, what then remains of the paramukthi ? So it is not correct. That mukthi will not be possible, you said, with this body the product of asudha maya, and that to do the suddha maya karya they will remain with the body. O, you Ignorant ! Your saying that when the three malas are removed, there will be body when para mukthi is attained is like saying that out of the mortar in which paddy was pounded for three generations there will come out a beautiful paddy plant with tender offshoots ! Further, if you say that out of their own volition the body was taken and given up, understand that if one received a body it cannot be except out of his karma. Therefore in mukthi none of the three malas, anava, maya and karma is destroyed. The mukthi in the body is called by the wise as Salokya and other padhamukthis which are the precursor for Sayuija mukthi. So you can stop your untenable pedha mukthi and listen intelligently to what we say.

The Sankrantavadin then begins his statement.

Commentary :-

The Sankrantavada Saiva postulates that in the presence of the Atman, which is changeless, the indriyas which are asat will reveal Siva which is Sat When anava is left off, Saktinipada operates and then the Creator’s grace is obtained. When the fire in the wood burns the fibers and then finally the wood itself becomes the fire. Thus the Atman loses its original nature and becomes the form of Grace, and as one with grace it attains mukthi. The greatest objection of the Siddhantin to Sivasamavada is that the atman in mukthi cannot perform the five acts, Panchakritya, like Siva himself.

To substantiate his position the Sivasamavadin cites various analogies which the Siddhantin refutes one by one taking the Sankrantavadin as the opponent of the Sivasamavadin. The analogies are (1) the green worm becoming the hornet

(2) the caterpillar becoming the winged butterfly

(4) the man possessed by the spirit doing the acts of the spirit itself, and furthermore

(5) the incident of St. Sundaramurthi bringing back to life a boy swallowed by a crocodile in a pond.

3. The green worm is taken by the hornet to the nest not to transform it but to be eaten by its young ones which are like worms before they transform into hornets. The transformation of the green worm is not by any miracle or mantra of the hornet. The mere seizing of the worm by the hornet is no such miracle.

3. The transformation of a caterpillar into a winged moth is physical transformation ( Uruvu maatram) and it cannot be said to be the transformation of the nature of the species. At best it is evolution.(Achuchu maatram). It cannot be called a higher state to be taken as analogy for mukti. It must be noted that here the refuter concedes that the analogy may hold good for yoga but not for gnana. Further the Samavadin’s analogy implies that the higher stage is conjoined to a body. So the evolution of body or mind is not mukthi but only the intelligence of the soul merging in the higher intelligence of Siva.

4. The iron on transformation does not do the work of fire. It is the fire itself that does the work. For example heated water cannot burn even the lightest straw but it can extinguish fire. Each substance does only the work of its nature and not its opposite. The element of fire cannot do its work except when joined to another element but the work is unique to itself. So to imagine that the powers of the mukthan are his own is fallacious.

5. The man possessed by a spirit does not know what he was doing when he was under the influence of the spirit and so he infers that what he did was actually the work of the spirit. The others know fully well that he was not doing anything by his own powers.

6. The interpretation of the miracle in the life of Sundaramurthi Nayanar by the Sivasamavaadin is entirely wrong as attested by the hymn of the Saint himself. The saint has only prayed to Siva to command the God of Death to let the crocodile give back the boy it swallowed. The saint invoked the grace of Siva and did not arrogate any power for himself.

The capping argument is that the power that is capable of performing the five acts. Pancha kritya, must be above and superior to all powers and that it is of Siva alone, because the Jiva is subject to birth and death over which it has no power.

Another base of refutation is that the Atman is not Sarvajnan ( All-knowing) like Siva. Even Siva abiding in the atman when bestowing His Grace will not make the atman all-knowing. Atman is no doubt cit, but i has limitations except when Siva acts through him.

The final refutation is in regard to the equality of Atman with Siva in Paramukthi. If the Atman and Siva are one, then one of the two must be non-existent. The embodied Jivan muktha can never be equal to Siva. Even after discarding the body, the atman gets only Salokya mukthi, and joins the company of similar souls which have attained that state. If the atman retains the body it can only be called a jivanmukta and not a paramuktha. If it is argued that the body in that state is not of asudha maya ( corporeal) but of Suddha maya ( non-corporeal) even then the maya-sareeri cannot be Siva. The neem tree will be better every where even in the newest left at the top. If it is argued that the atman by its own will assumed the Saloka rupa, then it can be said to have attained only Pada mukthi and not paramukti. Thus the Siva Samavada is refuted on all fronts.

Madhava Sivagnanaswami the author of Sivagnana Maapadiyam has also explained the refutation of Sivasamavada in his writings. These writings are of course later than the present work Sankarpa Nirakaranam. Sivagnanaswami says that in mukthi that atman can only enjoy the bliss of Sivatva but not anything else. Otherwise, if the plurality of souls is admitted, the plurality of souls qualifying for Sivasamatva will result in aneka-isvara-vada. In mukthi the atman is not affected by the pancha kritya of Siva although involved in them, but by itself it is not a Swatantran for any of those actions. When the king intimates his son who had fallen among hunters that he is his son, it only implies that both are of the same nature, but the king alone exercises all the powers.

The atman, like a lamp which is inseparably united with its brightness stands not as an object. It has no intelligence to distinguish as ‘this’ or ‘that’. As the Creator is a ‘nirvikari’ not undergoing any modification, he does not need to know anything. The Atman which exists ever lastingly, like the magnet which stands unmoved, while the ‘prana’ which resides in it activates the body. Like a well-formed sheaf in which the several parts like seed coat, car head, feather and glaze (tavil, katri, chandravalai and puni) are special characteristics, the five senses have separate enjoyments of existence. The give indriyas, body, mouth, eye, nose and ear, enjoy existence through manas, budhi and ahankara - the inner indriyas ( instruments). If the antahkaranas do not function, the five indriyas will not enjoy the give senses, touch taste, etc. This is the Sakala state. If the prana leaves, the body will become inactive. This is the Kevala state. In the presence of the atman, prana helps the exhaustion of the fruits of prarabda. This is Peddha state.

Now about Mukti, while one is suffering the enjoyment of the fruits of prarabda, the anava matures and make the sat attain the state of equanimity in the enjoyment of good and bad results (iruvinaioppu) and qualifies for the fall of grace ( saktini pada) and the grace ( Thiruvarul) of the Creator will be seen by him to abide in him like the mirror which reflects one’s face only if it is seen. When the Grace abides in Atman, it will lose its nature of bondage and shine in the form of Grace, just like a wood when burnt with fire becomes of the nature of fire and like the grass and straw that dissolve in the salt pan that becomes one with salt. Thus the Atman loses its ‘Pasutva’ ( bondage) and attains ‘Sivatva’, and because of it the pasukaranas lose their original nature and are transformed into Sivakarana and Atman’s intelligence does not stand separate but becomes merged in Arul (Grace). Then this Atman has no divisiveness like ‘I’ or ‘mine’.

Sivasankrantavada has subtle distinction from Sivasamavada. The word ‘sankranta’ means going from one to another. The Sivasankrantavadin says that in mukti the soul becomes one with God and is not his servant. His position is that in the presence of the soul in mukti, the instincts will know Siva because the instincts become ‘sat’. Just as when dirt goes off the mirror, the face is seen of its own accord, so also God’s grace will be attained by the process of ‘sankrama’. The Siddhanti’s refutation is that the instincts have only limited perception and pasa jnana can never partake of Pati-jnana except by the grace of God. An analogy usually cited is that of a maiden of sixteen on maturity who may have all the attributes for marital pleasure but she cannot have it by herself except in company with a Pathi !

The standpoint of Sankrantavadin is that as the body functions in the presence of prana, in the presence of God the soul’s antahkaranas function. Just as when the mirror which is cleaned of dirt reflects the face of one who looks into it, so also in mukti state the atman’s karanas will pass from pasu karanas and transform into Pathi karanas and will automatically know God by itself. God, according to this Veda, need not will to show Himself as Guru, just as the magnet does not do anything, while the iron coming near it moves to it.

In the bound state, just as the five indriyas cannot experience anything except in conjunction with the operation of the antahkaranas, the malas cannot do anything in the presence of the atman except in conjuction with prana. So in the peddha state when on account of the conjoining with life, the malas are helped to mature. Without this process, there is no annihilation of anava mala.

In the mukti state, the Sivasankrantavadin’s stand is that the soul does not gain equality with God ( as in Sivasamavada) losing its erst-while servitude nor God need act to impart any knowledge to the soul as Guru as in Siddhanta Vada. All that the soul need do is to use this life to burn out the malas and will conciously to look into the mirror of God and be engulfed in its brightness, when its own intelligence will become God’s. The very achievement of Sankranta or conjunction is the final bliss. This distinction of Sankrantavada from Sivasamavada or Siddhanta is thin and sometimes confusing.

You have well propounded your concept of the goodness of mukti. Let us examine it. If as you say, that the atman like the brightness of a lamp jumps across darkness, tell us why bright atman gave room for darkness of ajnana before. If it be the case that the Atman was in darkness due to its non-intelligence, how is it justified that you postulate non-intelligence to the Atman which you declared was bright like a lamp? You yourself think this over. If you say that the transformation in the presence of God is like the actions of the body by prana in the presence of the atman, you have belittled yourself by having forgotten your previous analogy of the iron acting in the presence of the magnet. Further, admitted that the body acts by prana, we have not seen the body acting in sleep state although prana is all the time there. So it is clear that it is atman that activates and not prana. If you say that atman which is changeless cannot actuate and that manas, buddhi, ahankara and chittam ( the antahkaranas) the pervading pranavayu ; the eye, tongue, ear, nose, skin ( the indriyas) ; and sabda, sparsa rupa, rasa and gandha ( the vishayas) are all not affected by atman like jada then your analogy that ear head in the sheaf is the cause of the various parts of paddy is wrong ( drishtanta virodha). It has no meaning. Know that the atman is like the seed, the antahkarana is like the broom, indriya-vishayas are like the water and the body is like the sheaf. Further, you said that the experience of sabda, sparisa etc. reside in the five indriyas. If the five indriyas experience the five vishayas, they must experience all the five together ( but it is not so). Why do, when one functions, the other four do not do the same? What is the defect? If you say that it is like the tree which puts forth leaves at one time, flowers at another time and ripe fruits at other times, we know that although the leaves and flowers are one and of the same branch, we have not seen one indriya enjoying the experience of another. Apart from this fault, there is another flaw in your saying that each indriya experiences separately. Consider, although our two ears form one indriya, if two noises are made simultaneously, the ears understand only one and not both although the ears are two. So, the functions of the indriyas are not for themselves but for the atman and similarly the functions of the antankaranas and the body are not for them but for the Atman. So it is to be known that Atman is vikari and not avikari. ( This is the refutation of Sankarantavadin’s postulate on pedda ( bound) state of Atman.

( The postulate on mukti state is now refuted). When explaining your concept of mukti you stated that like the brightness which is reflected back to the face when looked into a mirror, the grace of the Creator will also be reflected back in the soul. The mirror has the virtue of taking whatever falls on it and wholly devours it, but you are not capable of it. You cited the analogy of fire in the wood for the grace that conjoins the atman. But the fire consumes the wood and leaves it and so the analogy is not appropriate. The grass and straw in the salt pan give up their nature and take up the nature of salt. You do not have the like quality of giving and taking. Further, you said that the instruments of the body born of asuddha maya become of the nature of Siva. But you said that our of your esteem for this body. Sivaswarupa is nirmala but this body is maya rupa and so tainted. So what you say is not correct. You suggested that these instruments of maya, though from the beginning were the cause of birth and grief, will be rid of them by the fall of grace and would become arul swarupa. If you say this even arut-swarupa will become one of the impure products of maya. The instruments of maya can only know sabda, sparisa, rupa, rasa and gandha. Tiruvarul is unreachable by these and manas and vak. If you have an answer for this, please give. Saints of yore who have received Divine grace have said that it is beyond all the karanas.

You might ask without the indriyas the intelligence of the jivan cannot function, what then is the means of cognising Tiruvarul? Well, now can the enjoyment of the union of a man and women be explained to a ennuch, who cannot know it? It is just like that. You have deemed the enjoyment of senses under maya as the highest bliss. This is meaningless. You said taht intelligence and atman when they join become one. In our experience it is possible for one principle to be lost and make another stand as one, but not for two principles to be lost or for the two to become one ( one has necessarily to go).So it is not possible for Arul and Atman to join and become one. So give up your interpretation and hear intelligently the truth. I shall state it. (Isvara-avikaravadin proceeds to expound his postulate)

The refutation of Sivasankaranta-vadin is by Isvaraavikara-vadin. The latter’s postulate is that it is not necessary for siva to grant spiritual eye to the soul and then reveal Himself and so the phenomenon of sankaranta is not essential. The Isvara avikaravadin says that like the shade given by a tree, God remains immutable and just as a way-farer goes to the tree for its shade, so also the atman getz the spiritual eye and reaches Siva when it became fit. The fundamental difference between Sankranta and Avikara does not end here. The Sankarantavadin believes that without the indriyas and anthahkaranas it would be impossible to cognise Grace. This makes the position of Sankarantavadin vulnerable. As the karanas experience not for the Atman which is affected by the experiences, Atman becomes a vikari. Even the experience of God’s grace is within the fold of maya karya, an impure product. But all saints, anubhutimans have said the God’s grace is beyond the experience of karanas. By the fall of arul sakthi the intelligence and atman cannot become one as the two principles cannot become one without one losing itself. So the Atman is not a vikari either in peddha or mukti states. Sankarantavadin’s standpoint makes the atman a vikari. This is cancelled by Isvara-avikara-vadin. ( It however must be observed that the distinction is not very clear).

(Isvara avikaravadin states his doctrine) :- The atman in body with nine openings is sentiment just as a lamp inside a pot with holes. As for example, the eye can only see forms and not perceive sound, touch, smell or taste. The atman has only the experience of the senses of the respective indriyas. This is the bound state or pedham.

By Atman’s experience the fruits of karma, the anava mala gets matured. Just as one who wants to search for an object in a dark room takes a light in front of him and thus places his hand on the object, so also the atman to overcome the darkness of ajnana due to anavamula gets, through Siva’s grace, the light of jnana steadfastly. Like the shadow in the water which reflects truly the shape of one impartially, God is impartial. Like the shade of a tree and cool water that offer successor to those that reach them, the Creator is just to the atman and to whoever abides in Him and always shows His grace redeeming all evil. Just like those who trudged in the hot noon and suffered the blistering heat in the sole, seeks the cool shade of the feet of the Lord and relieves itself of the pain of birth and death.

Iswara-avikaravadins believe that atman by itself has perception through the senses, and at the maturation of malas, it enjoys freedom like one who has reached the shade of a tree. By implication they believe that they have command over the senses to make the appropriate use of them and that Creator’s help is not necessary for it. Siva is nlrvikari and so his Grace is obtained automatically at the proper time just as the shade giving tree does not have to do anything to give the shade to those who reach it. The Isvara avikaravadin’s doctrine is peculiar one and is skin to Sivasamavada, It believes that in the pedha state it has command by itself to make the appropriate use of the senses, and in the mukti state he is like one who has been able to lay his hold on an object in a dark room by his own light of knowledge. Its point is that if atman has to know by the help of God, it should be regarded as acetana. So also God’s special grace is not necessary for mukti as it is impartial to all. This school apparently believes in atman being its own architect in pedha and mukta states as it has free will, except in its subjection to the law of karma for the enjoyment of fruit of karma. God is absolute or avikara in relation to atman accordiing to this school.

Atman is not to be seen and yet you say that it is cit. If it is so, it has no need for indriyas for its existence. Can it be suggested that because Atman perceives through the senses, it not cit? If you say not so, only because the Atman in association with indriyas is able to perceive, it is called cit, consider this. Do you expect a man who has eyes would not use them but feel objects by his hands and know them ? Well, you argue that such and such indriyas are used for such and such senses with discrimination, it is knowledge. This reduces itself to the absurdity that atman is not inherently intelligent. If the atman knows through the senses only, its is like jada which cannot know anything. Is the intelligence of the atman only its powers over the indriyas to use them appropriately for sight, smell etc.? Then the atman must have powers to enjoy the senses which it likes and discard that what it does not. Do you say that atman is not cit because it has not this freedom? You may say that there are proofs for using any senses for accomplishing what one wants. Once when Manmata wanted to spoil the yoga of our Lord Siva by using his flower darts at Him, his body was burnt to ashes when Siva opened his eyes on Him. Manmata was not burnt by straw and fire placed on him. Similarly, Brahma’s head was plucked away with the Lord’s nail of the hand and not by a saw. You may say : Don’t cite the case of our Creator when we are discussing about atmans but speak about them. The Buddhist antogonist who opposed Sambandacharanaaya in debate had his head toppled down with the words of St. Tirugnanasambandar of Seerkali, not by a saw but by his utterance. By this don’t argue that atman has powers to use any of its indriyas in any manner it likes. Well, Saint Sambandar did that by the Divine Will. Just as when we say that a person was felled by a sharp spear, it is not the spear that willed it, but the person wielding the spear. So, as the atman has to function through the organs and senses, atman cannot be said to be pure cit. ( This is the refuntation of Isvara avikaravadin’s arguments about the nature of the atman in thePedha state).

You said that just like taking a lamp in hand in a dark room to get at an object so also God will help one to sustain the light of knowledge to dispel ignorance. If you examine the nature of the 30 tattvas they will be jada. If you examine the nature of atman without the tattvas you will infer it to be Kuriya ( non-sentiment). If you say that the atman conjointly with the tattvas will get the grace of God to show the way to attain Him, it is like many blind men jointly trying to exploit the right road to a city to reach it without mistake. You said that God is like water and shade, which are impartial, to give Grace to all mature souls who reach Him. The shade giving tree is not jada at one time and cetena at another, but is always jada and so does not invite anyone suffering from the hot sun and thirsty to come and rest under its shade. Even if some one felled it and cast it on the ground the tree does not complain that someone has done that unkind act. If some one gets his sole blistered by the heated sand and is in search of water or shade, the tree does not appear before him and offer to give relief to him. It is inappropriate to God to be avikara ( changelessness) like water and shade. This concept of mukti of yours which not only attributes to God passivity, without yourself being able to give up pasa of suffering is blameworthy. Listen, I shall tell you the way of grace of the Lord.

The refutation of Isvara-avikaravada is like this. If atman is pure cetana it should know by itself, and will not need the senses. A man with perfect vision does not grope with his hands to get at anything. Nor can it be argued that atman is able to use the organs and senses appropriately without using the one for another. Of course, there are cases in history of realized souls doing acts without the help of organs like the follower of Saint Tirugnanasambandar toppling the head of Buddhanandi in disputation without any implements. But it is God’s will that worked through Sambandar. The atman’s intelligence is not blame-worthy, simply because it has to act with sense. Inter-acted by God, atman’s intelligence is plenary.

Isvara avikaravadin’s contention that even for mukti the atman is able to tread the path of light, because of the unvarying help of God is not valid. Because it implies that the help of God is available one and not for another. To compare God’s grace like the shade of a tree or the pond is in correct. It is the one who needs shade or water that should go to them. So it is not as if one can attain God’s grace without getting rid of his bonds. Although the sun’s rays are common, the eyes see different objects differently. So, although God is avikari, ( absolute), the operation of His grace is manifold, to suit the needs of the souls.

So the inevitable conclusion is that neither atman is pure cetana nor Isvara avikari. The intelligence of the atman is conditioned by the bonds and the Grace of the Isvara is manifold whether in pedda or mukta stage. God’s absoluteness has relativity to the Atman’s approximation to pure cetana by shedding its bonds. This is the view of Nimitta karana parinamavadin to refute Isvara avikaravadin.

All the worlds that are menifested as prapanca are Sivaswarupa. Understand what is seen is the part of Sakti and all that is not seen is the part of Siva. Between these to , there is nothing that is Acetana ( i.e., unknowing). The Self who is not seen, when it experiences both, will know both as Whole. When the Self experiences a thing which is finite, its intelligence does not distinguish between itself and the thing experienced and remains as unpartite. Although ‘goldness’ is common to both the gold and the ornament made out of it, yet a differentiation is made. Such a difference is conceivable between the intelligence and the prapanca which it perceives in a way. It might be asked that while the inherent quality ( carat or maatru) of good gold and the ornament made of it is the same, how the intelligenceof the atman and the prapanca could be compared with them. The distinction between the applicability and inapplicability of the example, the very idea of it, affects only those who do not pierce into the truth. To those who have pierced into truth, all will appear as one. The distinction would only imply that intelligence is not unitive. Do not infer from the suggestion, viz., that some do not see as one, that the Atman, which you call as one, though many, is different from Siva. Siva is one. There are some who posit plurality and say Siva, Atman and Prapanca are separate entities. It is not the truth. The eye sees only at the command of the intelligence. If the seeing faculty is eye’s own, how is it that it does not see the objects in the dark. Even both eyes cannot dispel darkness when even a fire-fly makes it possible to see. The inference is therefore clear that the eye is an instrument of perception and the perception itself that is made possible by sun’s rays of light are both the play of Sakti and its powers beyond the comprehension of mind !

To counter the Isvara avikara vada, which postulates that Isvara does not undergo any change, the Nimitta karana parinamavadin is anxious to prove that Isvara himself is both the material and efficient cause of all.

(The Author proceeds to cite the sayings of saints in support that everything is the play of Siva and the powers under His Governance). The Scriptures declare that the seven worlds and the ten quarters of the universe are the manifestation of the One as Many :-

The One by its own free will makes the raw fruit ripe and the ripe fruit sweet and by its own free will constantly enjoys it :-

The One is the knower, that which makes known, the knowledge by which knower knows and that which is known and which makes knowledge to know “This is the truth” all these are the attributes of the Only One :-

To quote all the divine utterances of God men would become too long. So understand that the Giver, that which is given, and that which is received are all implied in One. Understand that the Sat is one, it is Cit, and the Saktan or enjoyer is Cit. True, it would not be easy to abolish duality and attain unitive knowledge, but so long as that is not attained the Self is in bound state. ( Petham).

The Nimitta karana parinamavadin seeks the aid of our Scriptures to prove that Brahman itself becomes the many but the evidence is not irrefutable. In Saiva Siddhanta, no doubt, Siva is spoken of as ashta-murthi but they are the manifestations of His Sakti but he Himself does not undergo any change. Some Monistic scholars support the view of nimitta karana parinamavada. Sivadvaita school is identified with the Parinamavada which is opposed to the Vivartavada of the Sankara school. It distinguishes itself as apurva - parinama.

It is wrong to conceive of Brahman as One principle and of Atman as another independent. Only if the concept of Atman as an entity is given up will Sayujya mukti be meaningful. Till this consciousness is attained, one should proceed according to his intelligence truthfully, all the time identifying his body and mind with Siva till the obscuring anava is removed and the antahkaranas which were functioning disparately become quiescent in turiyatita. This is the Kevala state. When this turiyatita state is established firmly, by the grace of the Lord, the anavamala will be given up and the intelligence of the atman alone will function with the antakkaranas. This is Sakala state. Finally when in the Jagrat state, all the thirty six tattvas are functioning but the antahkaranas become quiescent. That is turiyatitam or Suddha state. When this state is established it is Sivagati.

The Nimittakaran parinamavadin sails close to the Sankhya in that all that is manifested are considered transformations ( parinama) of the First principle. But he rejects the theory of illusion (Vivarta) of mayavadin. The Siddhanta Saiva does not accept the theroy of parinama ( Transformation), but subscibes to a theory of vritti (extension) of the First Principle through its Sakti ( energy), but still holds that the sakti itself isnot affected by this extension. The Saiva Siddhanta distinguishes between sentient and non-sentient entities and attributes parinama to Maya and vritti to Mamaya and establishes the unity of existence by propounding abhinna theory and sakti-saktiman theory. The Nimitta karana parinamavadin lays store by certain statements in the Scriptures in which it is stated that the Lord Himself is in everything. This does not imply that the Lord undergoes transformation.

Here begins Saiva’s refutation of nimitta kaarana parinamavadin’s argument. (Saiva-vada is said to refer to a closely related view of Saiva Siddhanta.)

If what you have so well stated is examined, it is not without fault. If you say that the words that are seen as prapanca are the manifestation of Siva, Siva, who is Visvaadita should be deemed the First Cause. However if you say that he is not the first cause, I put it to you to accept the position that He is the nimitta kaarana, (efficient cause) but you go further and suggest that Siva, who is Visvaadita is the efficient, material and instrumental cause, all of them. The clay which is the material cause, the wheel which is the instrumental cause and the potter who is the efficient cause for a pot are different. While that is so, is it possible for all the three causes to be the same ? Tell me if any, such thing is possible in this world’. Nimitta kaarana is Siva, Sahakari karana is Cit-sakti and Upadhana karana is collectively bindu, mohini and maan ( Bindu-Suddha Maya : Mohini-Asuddha Maya and Maan-Prakriti Maya). Further, tell me for my sake if the pentad acts of ths Creator are for others, or for Himself or merely purposeless. If you can’t say, hear and I shall tell you.

If the Creator’s action is purposeless, it would be like mad unknowingly doing striking things without purpose ; then the wise would conclude that the Creator is bereft of all knowledge and supremacy. So, it is not tenable to say that creation is purposeless. If it is said that Creator has created for His own sake, then also it would be meaningless as said above. Why, it may be asked. It is like hits. As there is nothing else which has the Creator’s all-knowingness and supremacy, it is not necessary for the Creator to desire to create a prapanca which appears and disappears like lightning. So it is faulty to say that creation is for the creator. If it is said that the Creator’s work is for others, the Saiva-vadin will not accept that there are some entities other than the Creator, that there need be anything for their objective enjoyment, that there need be some substrate for the indriyas to arise and that the substrate should be the basis for the Creator to create the prapanca. That being so, can u now admit that your Siddhanta is Ava-Siddhanta ( illogical conclusion).? Further, you suggest that the prapanca arises from Sivam but Sivam which is Cit cannot give rise to acit out of itself. If you say, look, there is no description of acit for prapanca, and that everything is the manifestation of cit, why do the Sastras declare that prapanca is jada? Further, even the Lokayata admits that the dehatiprapanca which is a combination of the bhutas is like a bubble in the water and transient. That being so, it is not valid for you to say that the prapanca is cit-svarupa.

The Saiva-vadin is contradicting the Nimitta-karana Parinamavadin’s ( i.e. Visistavadvatin, etc.) stand that the prapanca is a manifestation ( prahara) of Brahman itself.

(Saiva-vadin now asserts Atman as entity and refutes nimitta-karana-parsnamavadin’s concept that there is nothing besides the Creator). The Bauddhas and Jainas who do not desist from unclean deeds and other sects, all agree that there is a sentient principle residing in this body. There is no one like you who disagrees and says that there is no Atman. Even the outer religions ( like Bauddha and Jaina) do not violate pratyaksa pramana like you. There is no other proof for your statement either. You are open to adduce, if there is any. Further, if you say, “I do not know if the body is a sentient entity’. tell me why pots, clothing etc., which are also like the body and pervaded by the sentience are inert? If you say that the intelligence that resides in this body, though coming in contact with all other forms does not have the same impact as in the body, which has life, you suggest that the higher intelligence does not reside in lifeless things as it does in our body and therefore this body must have life other than the Creator. If you say that I am indulging in this argument taking advantage of an analogy you cited, the comparison and that which is compared are never one like gold and the gold coloured konrai flower, although both are compared. Well, if you say that Pati is the only Reality and pasus are not, tell me why, when that Pati is immanent everywhere with excess or defect, the body alone is in a different position from other inanimate things ? What is the special quality of this body ? This body is also composed of bhutas and so why this differentiation with other bhutas. What is the hetu or reason. If you say that the difference is due to the karma, it lacks intelligence or reason as in madman’s talk.

The Saiva-vadin is proving that the soul is a separate entity and that the postulate that the Creator pervades everything both sentient and non-sentient, does not negate the reality of the Soul as otherwise the non-sentient should act in the same way as the sentient.

One who has to do karma cannot be called the Creator. So it is not Siva who does the karma of the individuals. Nor does the body which is jada will, without reason, voluntarily seek to enjoy the fruits of karma. If it is suggested that Siva’s togetherness makes the soul to eat the fruits of karma, it implies that Siva who is beyond speech and though takes a body suited for the karma, leaves it when the prarabda karma is exhausted, enjoys the results of good and evil, submits itself to jagrat and other avastas and transcends them, and then descends to jagrat and ascends in order to be aware of the enjoyment of pain and pleasure. Verily, all these cannot be attributed to any Supreme Being. He being sarvajna ( all-knowing) has no need to go through the avastas. Pasam being jada ( insentient) has no need to go through the avastas. These are the only two possible alternatives, but yet different sastras in the world speak in various other ways. Apart from the prapanca which illuminates them, there is a third which is the eye which stands between and sees both. Similarly besides the entities of Pati and Pasa, there is a third which is Pasu and you cannot but accept this. The pasu when it is in conjunction with Pasa, its intelligence identifies itself with the latter. Understand that this is the miracle of the mayasakti. Just like different ornaments made of gold is gold only and not a different substance, the mystical arupa which is niskala and the sakala ( ichcha, jnana, kriya manifestation , wheel arising from niskala) are both of the nature of Siva. So say the wise. Contrary to this if you say that Siva who is arupa (formless) becomes the prapanca which has forms, then the prapanca which is maya will create the Creator who is the material cause also of maya. You don’t realise this. What a pity ‘.

The Saiva- vadin now proves that the embodied soul is different from Saiva as otherwise Siva will be concerned to undergo the avastas. The analogy of gold and gold ornaments applies only to the manifestations of Siva which are not entangled in maya like the individual soul.

Further, the concept that there is nothing that is bad and nothing that is good, will sail close to Lokayata. The Saiva-vadin does not subscribe to this. If Gnanis are not affected by anything, there is no sect which does not say that drink, killing anger, adultery, theft are bad and must be avoided. If there is any sastra which says that Gnanis will not be affected by these, for whose ear have they said that the drinking of soma and sura are tolerated ? Further, if one aks whether it is permissible or not for a Brahman to love a pulaya woman, you might say that it is only man-made restriction for a Brahmin not to be intimate with a pulaya woman and that no one can say that there will be no enjoyment in their union. Even if you upset or reject the Caste differences, such as Brahman and Chandala which is age long, remember that a bull (rishaba) does not like to cross a she-buffalo. So Gnanis too are not supra-ethical and they have no freedom to do anything as they please. If you say that the image in the precious eye and the light of the sun are the sport of Siva who is sat, you must explain the hetu and phala for it. You will be obliged to say that Siva subjected himself to the blemish of becoming a image. Acknowledging that Siva is Visvadita, it is irrational to say that Siva does all this. If there is no Atman, what is the meaning in Dharmasastras saying that a man is good or bad, that an act is punyam or paavam and that the king will punish those who do paavam? Further, the scriptural text says that the Creator has the nature of becoming the seven worlds (“Ulakezhena tisai pattene taan oruttanume palavaaki ninraval” - 8 Tiruttonokkam 5). If it is suggested that pots, pans and bowls are all part of the efficient potter himself, those pots etc., do not also have the efficiency of the potter. If you import the grammatical rule the ‘aayinan’ can also imply ‘aakkinan’ the scriptural text that Siva become the sky, the earth etc, cannot connote that Siva becomes all those but that He only created them. (Thus the grammatical rule will work bothways). So the scared word ‘tame’ becoming ‘ tamaai’ ( the elongated ‘a’) connotes only that Siva alone can be the efficient cause. Jivas do not die nor do they become Siva the First principle; Jivas do not have a locus of action without Siva ; jivas are not alien to Siva. That is what the sacred word connotes. The scriptural passage ( kaeyaaki pazhamaaki pazhattull ninra irathangal nugarvaarum taneyaki-Appar 6.94.5) affirms that Siva is the cause of the unripe fruit, the ripe fruit, the sweetness in it and the enjoyer of the sweetness ; and that Siva as the efficient and first cause for all these. The sacred text that Siva has in his Being all these implies that He is the embodiment of everything, viz., He knows all without doubt, He it is that makes those who know anything ( i.e knower). He it is that stands as the knowledge for those who know, and He it is that stands as the known for those who know,. A thing given, a thing received, the giver of a thing, the receiver of a thing - if all these are the same, it is bliss indeed. The enjoyer who wants to enjoy a thing does not always attain it. If the enjoyer, the enjoyed and the enjoyment are all one, should it not be possible for one to enjoy anything at will? We don’t see this in actually. So, if all is one there won’t be the pain of hell ! One would not like to suffer from colic or other diseases but nevertheless if they are caused in the body, one will not escape suffering from them at all. So, your notion that the enjoyer, enjoyment etc, are all one is not true. You might say that there is no Atman to be afflicted by them but that Siva governs everything. The predicament of not getting a thing desired, of getting afflictions not desired, of suffering from both, is all incidental only to the jivan and not for the Creator who is above speech and thought. Your nation that Sakti and Sivan experience everything is so absurd that it should occur at all to any one !. This is the objection. If the experience is for Sakthi and Sivan, they either do not know the Prapanca or knowing it, do not discriminate, but take everything indifferently without objection. The experience remains for the jivan only. Thus the Saiva-vadin refutes the Nimitta karana parimana vadin’s concept of jivan’s state in petha ( bond) state.

Note :The Saiva-vadin proves that without the concept of Atman as separate entity there will neither be knowledge nor experience because the Creator’s efficiency as efficient cause is not for Himself. The concept of parinama will result in the Creator being subjected to pain and please. The prapanca is the locus for jivas to experience. If this is not so, there is no bond state for the Jiva at all.

(Saiva-vadin now proceeds to refute Nimittakarana parinamavadin’s concept of mukti) You said that the separate entitiveness “I” and “Thou” (tvam and tat) are faulty and that the highest concept is “I” and “Thou” become one in sayujya. As you say that “I” and “Thou” good and bad and the certainty of “I” becoming “Siva” are all one, there is nothing which needs sadhana in your doctrine. Further, your equating Yoga-marga with Sayujya marga is exactly the way that those who seek to establish the tripadarta nischaya ( three entities pati, pasu and pasa) adopt. Further, till mukti is attained, all men will certainly be enjoyed to samsara ( death and rebirth). Your saying that men need only realise the unreality of his present state to be the real, this is not spoken of in any of the different paths to mukti in the Agama. If you say that realising the unreality of samsara is itself mukti, there is no need ( for the scriptures) to say that mukti is difficult to achieve. What you say seems to suggest that mukti is so easy of achievement for any one. In that case treading any path that one’s own knowledge ( jivabodha) dictates as the highest instead of the good way chalked out by the Acharyas (teachers) should result in the bliss of mukti, but does it ? This is the line of Lokayata who believes that the prapancha of the deha which is not permanent is real. This is not the truth perceived by the Saiva vadin. If you choose the way of proceeding to paint a picture without a wall, why, do the sastras say that tanu, karana, bhuvana and bhoga are for you? Think and tell me ! The truth is because Siva is viswadita ( above the universe), He does not need the instruments of tanu, karana, bhuvana and bhoga. They are needed by the Atman only. So you are driven to say hopelessly that all these instruments are in merely the air ( i.e purposeless) as there is no Atman. You take the position that knowledge which is conceived by us as the grace of the Creator can be got without any contingency ( ekadesa). This is like a person who takes a lamp to a blindman in a dark room and giving it to the latter asks him to see him and believes that the blind man has seen him ! This is comparable to your notion that Creator gives knowledge to Atman which has no intelligence, because you say it is not an entity. The Creator which gives knowledge through His grace to Atman which has no intelligence is also reduced to a non-intelligent Being like your Atman ! Further, no Gnani would want to see the dehaadi-prapanca by the instruments ( of tanu, karana, etc.) which are jada. That being so, you said that the intelligence which knows the dehadi prapanca through the instruments is Siva himself. Even the Mayavadin who says that Parabrahmam knows everything, as the indriyas by themselves cannot experience objects, is not brought to this pass as you are !

The Saiva vadin seeks to prove that the instrument of tanu, karana, bhuvanam and bhoga are only for the Atman and not for Brahman, till sayujya is attained. So, Nimittakarana parinamavadin’s not sustaining the entitiveness of Atman falls.

The mayavadin spoke of fourteen karuvis ( instruments) and four avastas ( conditions). You went further and spoke of twenty-two karuvis and were making 36 in all and also one more avasta, and of three malas and of atman and creator, in agreement with the Saivas. To what can be compared your conclusion that everything is Siva only ? It is like the evil person who without restraint looks upon mother, wife, servant, sister-in-law and sister only as females. What you hold is thus faulty. You have no cognisance of the powerlessness of the Self. The One Lord though pervading everything remains unaffected, by the eternal pasas (bonds) which encompass all souls. Let us examine your unrealistic view that atman has no knowledge and that God alone knows everything. By the same indriyas which you despise as dangerous you imagine, that you get knowledge. Your delusion about mukti state is eight times as that of your bound state. You are not to be blamed but your theory of knowledge which is at the bottom of all false premises. Let me state the real position, hearken.

The Siva-vadin refutes the Nimitha karana parinamavadin, tenets that prapancha is a manifestation of Brahman, that the atman is not a separate entity as the Creator, nimithakarana is not for Himself but for the atman and that the instruments of knowledge are not for the Brahman but for the atman. He goes on to show that the Nimithakarana parinama vadin’s position that what he supposes is knowledge of reality is not valid as he bases his theory on what he deduced by argument through his pasainana only as he does not accept pati-inana granted by God’s grace. Thus the Saiva-vadin attacks both the ontological and epistemological bases of the Nimitha karana parinama vadin.

Saiva - vadin now propounds his doctrine (after refuting the Nimitha karana parinamavadin)

The atman is cit without beginning and it is knowledge and the knower. In Kevala state it is in darkness and does not know. It is merged in its anava ( ego). In this state the Creator helps the atman by conjoining it with Kalas ( instruments of sense and knowledge). They are thirty one from ‘Kala’ downwards. Like the light for the eyes these kalas help the atman. By conjoining with the instruments of the senses and knowledge the atman experiences the results of its parabda karma (the innate impulses stored from previous births). In the process of working punya and pava ( good and bad predictions) the atman gathers further experiences ( agamya). As a result of these, the atman gets recurring births according to its total experience. This is Sakla state. By these births for a long time and by its Siva punya, its anavamala gets matured and it becomes fit for the onset of the Higher Grace ( Saktinipata). This is the phenomenon of the cycle of births in the bound state ( Petha- nilai)

At the appropriate time the Lord takes the form of His Grace and grants the soul wisdom to follow the paths of carya, kriya and yoga according to his fitness to reach his destiny. When carya, kriya and yoga fructify the kevala and sakala states are transcended and God grants him the inalienable knowledge which is always with him. The atman now gets the consciousness of real knowledge and realises himself as the jnatru, the knowledge as jnana and the giver of the jnana as jneya not as objective, but as subjective in the interminingling of the atman with Siva. The two become one Reality. Here there is no distinction between gainer and the gainee. This is Sivagati or what is called Siva sayujya. This is the Mukti state according to the Saiva-vadin.

Saiva Vada is very near Saiva Siddhantha except for the fact that Saiva - vada considers that in mukti the differentiation between the knower and the known is effaced and both become one reality. If this were so there would be no bliss in mukti. There is no loss of personality in the state of union but the personality is merged in the universal. Saiva-vada definitely parts way from nimitha karana parinamavada that Creator by his own will manifests as the universe and that the manifestor and the manifested are one. The Siddhantha Saiva contradicts even this Saivavadin, because Saiva-vada (or Suddha Saiva, does not deal with the more subtle truths as propounded by the Saiva-Sidhantin. Siddhantha is not a vada but a conclusion. It is not called a doctrine, but the end of ends.

The Sidhantin now states his refutation. You (Saiva-vadin-) just spoke about mukti. Let us consider it later. To begin with you said that the Atman is cit without beginning. It cannot be. Can the atman know without the indriyas and their objects and claim perception without their help? If you say that the atman knows when conjoined with indriyas etc. and does not know anything when not so conjoined, by taking the analogy that when betel leaves, nuts and lime are chewed together, the red colour appears, you subscribe to the view of kshana-bhanga. You imply that kshana-bhanga theorists that knowledge arises in the conjunction of the indriyas and then vanishes. Further, you make the atman, which you say is cit without beginning, lose knowledge when not in conjunction with the indriyas which is a contradiction and this will not be accepted by the learned. Further, to your statement that atman is cit, you say that anava is by nature unknowing and that Creator is the great light of knowledge and that the 31 tattvas are like the light, how in the kevala state when the atman is not conjoined to indriyas at all, the Creator, who is light, causes the tattvas to affect him ? Whether the atman knows in conjunction with the instruments of knowledge or remains with experience in kevala state when it is not conjoined by the sense, the picutre of mukti that arises is faulty. Thus ( the Saivavadin’s concept of petha state is refuted).

(The Siddhantin proceeds now to refute the Saivavadin’s concepts of mukti). Now tell me which comes first - the maturation of mala or saktinipata referred to by you ? Which is the cause and which is the effect? If you say that saktinipata is the result of malaparipaga, tell me when does it happen? Is it after a long lapse of time when a particular time for mukti is appointed? Is it in the long succession of birth, when a particular birth is reached ? Is it when punya and pava are balanced and you do not waver but stand still like the needle of a balance? Or is it when the jiva realises that this birth is a source of sorrow? Or is it when the merciful Lord wills that the time is ripe to save him? Tell us in which condition saktinipata comes about? If you say that the learned consider that malaparipaga is attained when punya and pava are balanced, as karma is aruva, it is not possible to equate punya and pava as in a balance; punya and pava do not separate themselves out of an action. So, explain how to regard punya and pava as balanced in a scale. Further, you said that the Acharya’s manifestation is the manifestation of Grace. Let us examine this. If you refer to the Creator, He has an indestructible and unchanging form. So he will not enter a mortal form. If you say, ‘No, only to save the souls he will ‘do so’, it must be agreed that who ever enters the body, which is a product of maya, must be deemed to be one of the souls and not the Supreme. Now let us examine your premise that jnana is reached by the paths of carya, kriya and yoga. Saint Gnanasambanda the boy saint of Sirkazhi, did not pursue any of the paths. Brought up as if he was a prince and one who remained a prince among youth, Saint Sudaramoorthy ( some consider that his refers to the Prince Cheraman Perumal Nayanar) did not do so either ; nor Saint Tirunavukkarasar who embraced the powerful Jaina faith but later came out and proclaimed the True faith. None of them practised these paths formally but attained jnana, the highest gain. If you say that the faultless carya, kriya and yoga alone are not the mans to Jnana, then why do you advocate it to others? Do you suggest that the divine sastras have said so for others exceping yourself ? Now let us take your further argument. You said that the Light of Arul (Grace) will flow when the instruments of knowledge and anava which are the source of nescience are dislinked. How is it that the atman in kevala state which is not linked to the instruments of knowledge and pursues good action. If we can’t get God’s grace in either of the tow states, (kevala and sakala) then in what state shall we get it ? The jnana that you conceive of must be that arising out of the four connections tanu, karana, bhuvana and bhoga which are the products of maya. If this is the jnana which is everlasting, there will be no jnana in the three worlds. But yet you say these are the jnanavans. It will belie the saying that jnana is difficult to find in the three worlds (jnanam trilokya durlabham). It will then mean that monasteries, the services of the monasteries, the liturgies, their cermonies, and their insignias alone will have to be taken as evidence of their jnana. It is too difficult to distinguish jnana and one must be blessed if he could do so. That will not be easy. Further, you spoke of Self, jnana and the Lord as three entities. The learned speak comprehensively of Siva and Sivajnana, Pasu and pasu jnana and pasa and pasa jnana. If the three entities ( pati, pasu and pasa) have three kinds of intelligence and they are true, how is it explained that pasu jnana and pasa jnana disappear. Further, you said that Atman and Siva unite to become one. If you say that these are two in petha state and one in mukti state, it becomes the abedha siddhantha of the Mayavadins. First you spoke of six, viz., pati, pasu and pasa and pati jnana ; then you spoke of three jnatru, jnanam and jneyam, then you gave up jnana and accepted only Pati and Pasu ( Brahman and Atman) ; then you postulated the merger of pasu in pati, and spoke of One as the Supreme gain. If one considers all this, do you suggest it is like St. Manickavasagar’s idea of God as the One in which all the souls merge to atomic, Godhood by losing its egoism by degrees? Having conceded Pasu and Pati as entities, they cannot be identically one in merger. It is incorrect ( ontologically), and further there will be no bliss in this union or purpose in it. It will imply that there is no entity to receive mukti ( and so all talk about mukti would be meaningless). If you ask me, then what my position is, i.e., what my Siddhanta is ? And if you make up your mind to know, you must cease to be like the cattle on the river bank which vacillate in deciding which bank has more green grass and hasten nither and thither restlessly. You must find out yourself through the living help of a teacher the truth in th text Sivaprakasam in exalted Tamil, written elaborately on the basis of illumination got out of tapas. The nature of Divine Grace (Tiruvarul) which holds the key will be thus revealed and all your doubts will be dispelled !

(It has to be noted that the Payiram ( preface) to this work spoke of six Saiva systems (takuti meviya mooviru samayam), but in this section actually eight systems have been discussed. Bhedhavadin and although Paatanavadin, Samavadin, are similar in their concept of the Petha state ( bound state) their concepts of mukti state are different. These three taken as one and avikaravadin, aikyavadin, sankrantavadin, parinamavadin, saivavadin taken individually, all total only six basically)

The Siddhantin’s refutation of Saiva-vadin is based on profound epistemological arguments. The Saivavadin, to establish that in mukti there is only one reality, postulates that atman is cit in all the three states, kevala, sakala and suddha. If the atman is cit from the beginning the Saivadin does not explain how the indriyas help the atman in the sakala state. The argument that by the conjunction of the instruments of knowledge consciousness arises in the like red colour when betel, nut and lime mix which only supports the ksahna-bhanga theory of the Baudhas. The argument that the atman is Light ( Consciousness) like the Creator, that anava is un-knowing and that the tattvas help the soul as light is not valid. In Kevala state although the atman is in conjunction with the instruments and there is no operation of the tattavas, it is blind like the foetus in the womb of darkness. The limitation of the atman in the petha state is thus not explained by the Saivavadin. As regards the mukti state, how it comes about is not explained by the Saivavadin. There is confusion whether saktinipada precedes malaparipaga or the reverse and in any case the stage at which the atman becomes one with Siva is not well conceived metaphysically or as a religious tenet, i.e., whether after a succession of births, as an evolutionary mukti or when good and evil are treated alike and balanced as a conscious sadhana, or when the atman gets rid of th world of births and death as illusion, or when a loving God enters the Atman at the proper time out of His love. The Siddhantin ridicules the absurd theory of balancing punya and pava to escape the cycle of births. Although punya and pava may be categorised as opposites, the effects do not seperately manifest themselves to cancel each other. As regards the doctrine that God enters the Atman to become one, reduces God to the level of one of the innumerable souls. If two become one, one or the other must disappear. If both Atman and the Lord are identical, the one-ness reduces the Lord to the same status as the Atman.

As regards the gain of mukti, the Saivavadin’s view that it is stage when the indriyas and anava which are the source of nescierce are dinlinked is cavilled at. Because in kevala (monadic) state the atman is not in association with indriyas but yet it is devoid of consciousness. So the Saivavadin fails to explain the sublation of nescience. Saivavadin contributes to the postulates that the petha and mukta states are different and yet to one-ness as the locus of both the states. This is no better than the abheda vada of the Mayavadin. The Saivavadin parts company with the Ekatmavadin but sails close to Mavavada and so falls between two stools. Having accepted the tri-padarta nischaya, it is illogical for the Saiva-vadin to contribute to identity without difference and ignore that mukti is the result of Jnana, the middle term of Jnatru and Jneyam. This jnana is that which is conferred and received although the triple cord of Jnatru, Jnana and Jneya is dissolved. The oneness in union is not unity but union without difference, a mystic merger.

The Siddhantin likens the Saivavadin to cattle on the river bank which is perplexed whether the grass on this side or the other side is the greener. The Saivavadin is really Siddhantin basically but with a predilection to contribute to Mayavada epistemology which leads him to ontological contradiction when coming to the postulate of mukti. Saivavadin through swearing by tripadarta nischaya converts himself into an ekanma-vadin.

The Siddhantin does not in this work expound his sankalpa ( proposition) but refers the Saivavadin and through him all in the chian of all those refuted the mayavadin, aikyavadin, bhedavadin, sivasamavadin, sankarantavadin, isvaraavikaravadin, Nimittakarana parinamavadin to the Text Sivaprakasam which was result of Divine illumination and holds the key to solve all the doubts in every other foregoing systems Sivaprakasam, written by the author of Sankarpa Nirakaranam Sri Umapathi Sivacharya himself, is the crest-jewel of all the system.