More on Saivasiddhanta

[Guest guest]

I do not think all sections of society contributed to the works of

saivasiddhanta. For, saivasiddhanta of the Sivajnanabodha branch (

which originated with and was based on this text) was mainly and

mostly propagated by religious heads who were world renouncers and

some of whom were mutt-heads. (Of course they did not wear the ochre

robe which practice was only recent) . Probably they were mendicants

but they were all initiated in the saivasiddhanta practices.

According to saivasiddhanta agamas only an initiated person can take

up the study of the Agamas. Further the texts belonging to the

Sivajnanabodha branch were composed by teachers (except

Arulnandisivam who is Sakalaagamapandita and probably belonged to

priestly community) who were not brahmins at all !

MaRaijnanasambandha the disciple of AruLnandi was a brahmin of

Parasara gotra and Saamaveda (see Umapati's Sivaprakaasam) and

Umaapati was traditionally held to be a priest of the Nataraja

Temple, Chidambaram. After him we don't hear of any brahmin in the

tradition upto 16th century when we have Sivaagrayogi of the

Suuryanaarkovil mutt which was originally established at Banaras

(Kashi) a few centuries before and shifted to Suuryanaarkovil only in

the 16th century. Then, again, this monastic lineage belongs to

Skandaparamparaa as opposed to the Nandi Paramparaa to which

Meykandaar belongs. (Saivasiddhanta is not a unified and uniform

tradition in Tamilnadu as it has its own sub-schools and sects with

different traditions which fact is blissfully overlooked due to

complete ignorance and shortsighted viewpoints by present day

saivasiddhantins-both lay and monastics !!) So it is not correct that

scholars of Sivaacaarya community contributed to the Sivajnanabodha

branch . In fact 14 texts of the Meykandasaatthiram and others that

follow in the course of so many centuries were not at all studied by

the Sivaacaaryas at all. The obvious reason lies elsewhere: The

saivasiddhaanta practised and professed by the present Sivaacaarya

community is entirely based on the Saiva Agamas giving full

importance to rituals, initiation (diikshaa), temple worship,etc. In

this field there is a staggering number of texts in Sanskrit composed

by many Sivaacaaryas, religious heads such as Trilocanasiva of the

13th-14th century, the head of the branch of the ancient Amardaka

matha situated at the holy place Tiruvenkadu, Sarvaatmasambhu, and a

host of others who did not seem in all probability to be monks but

Acaaryas of saiva mutts. The texts composed by them mostly deal with

important matters related to all the four padas of the Saiva Agamas-

Caryaa, Kriyaa, Yoga and Jnana. As I said earlier this tradition gave

full importance to rituals and initiation, etc. It also has scope for

obtaining worldly enjoyments through initiation (bubhukshu) as well

as final liberation (mumukshu) as is the case with the saivasiddhanta

agamas whereas the Sivajnanabodha tradition of Meykandaar toned down

to a large extent the scope and value of rituals in the tradition and

in its stead gave emphasis on Jnana and Yoga. And there is no place

here for initiation into the system for obtaining various

accomplishments (siddhis) which are derided and shunned.

These are some of the differences between the two traditions of

saivasiddhanta that prevails in Tamilnadu now.

More points in future mails!

 

T. Ganesan