Origins of Shaivism

[Guest guest]

In response to Nina's question about evidence discussing the origin

of non-Vaishnava religions:

 

The Padma Puraana states:

 

paarvatyuvaacha

taamasaanichashaastraaNisamaachakShvamamaanagha

sa.mproktaanichatairvviprairbhagavadbhaktivarjitaiH

teShaa.nnaamaanikramashaHsamaachakShvasureshvara || Pa Pur 6.236.1 ||

 

Paarvatii said:

O sinless one, tell me about the vicious texts which were composed by

the braahmanas bereft of devotion to the Lord. O lord of gods, tell

me their names in a sequence. (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.1)

 

rudra uvaacha

shruNuudevipravakShyaamitaamasaaniyathaakramam || Pa Pur 6.236.2 ||

 

teShaa.msmaraNamaatreNamohaHsyaajj~naaninaamapi

prathama.mhimayaivokta.mshaivaMpaashupataadikam || Pa Pur 6.236.3 ||

 

machchhattyaaveshitairvvipraiHproktaanichatataHshruNuu

kaNaadenatusa.mprokta.mshaastra.mvaishoShika.mmahat || Pa Pur 6.236.4

||

 

Rudra said:

O goddess, listen. I shall tell you about the vicious texts in a

sequence. By merely remembering them even the wise ones would be

deluded. First I myself proclaimed the Shaiva, Paasupata (texts) etc.

Hear about the ones which were proclaimed by the braahmanas into whom

my power had entered, after that: Kanaada proclaimed the great

Vasheshika text. (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.2-4)

 

gautamenatathaanyaaya.msaa.nkhya.mtukapilenavai

dhiShaNenatathaaprokta.nchaarvvaakamatigarhitam || Pa Pur 6.236.5 ||

 

daityaanaa.nnaashanaarthaayaviShNunaabuddharuupiNaa

bauddhashaastramasatprokta.nnagnaniilapaTaadikam || Pa Pur 6.236.6 ||

 

Similarly Gautama (proclaimed the doctrine of) Nyaaya, and Kapila

(proclaimed) Saamkhya. Dhishana (Brihaspati) in the same way

(proclaimed) the much censured Chaarvaaka (doctrine); Vishnu of the

form of Buddha proclaimed the false Buddhist doctrine and those of

the naked and wearing dark blue garments for the destruction of the

demons. (padma puraaNa 6.236.5-6)

 

 

****

 

Following this are the verses (already posted) in which Lord Shiva

predicts his coming as Shankaraachaarya.

 

A few notes on these verses (in this posting and the one just before

it).

 

1) The Sanskrit and translation are provided by secular scholars who

are not Vaishnavas. One need only read G.P. Bhatt's introduction to

his Padma Puraana translation to realize that he is not a Vaishnava.

Hence, there can be no accusation of bias regarding the presentation

of these verses.

 

2) It is clear from the verses that the doctrines of Shaivism,

Buddhism, Advaita, and other non-Vedaanta philosophies were

promulgated for the purpose of misleading those who have no devotion

to Vishnu. There is simply no other way to read them, at least,

certainly not in any way that is sympathetic to followers of those

doctrines.

 

3) Advaitins are likely to object to this evidence on the basis that

it does not come from shruti. However, this objection is

unacceptable. Even their own aachaaryas (including Shrii

Shankaraachaarya) have quoted from Puraanas when it suits them. They

cannot therefore reject Puraanas as evidence merely because they do

not like what they see.

 

4) Similarly, one will almost invariably encounter the arbitrary

objection that the verses are probably interpolation due to some

Vaishnava brahmin in the last two thousand years. However, the burden

of proof is on them who makes this accusation. This Padma Puraana

edition is a critical edition published by Venkateshwara Steam Press

and reprinted by Nag Publishers. It should be present in most if not

all Padma Puraana recensions. What is the evidence that it is

interpolated? The critics must provide solid evidence, rather than an

accusation based solely on the fact that the evidence is not

consistent with their sectarian interests.

 

5) Critics might also object that the scholars whose names were

mentioned would not have taught their doctrines if the Padma Puraana

verses existed at that time which condemned them. Thus, they would

conclude that the Padma Puraana verses must be a later interpolation.

However, this is not a very good argument. For one thing, it is

unusual to see a scholar who has personally read the whole length and

breadth of the extant Vedic literature in this age. For another

thing, we can't criticize the scripture because the scholarship of

one or more aachaaryas was not up to the standard. If we were to do

so, then why even quote scripture at all? We can't subordinate

scripture to the whims of individual teachers - scripture is the

topmost authority and can only be doubted if it is found that what is

thought to be scripture is not in fact so - i.e., if it could be

demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it was a man-made

compilation/interpolation.

 

6) Hence, this evidence is solid, coming as it does from a mainstream

text. But in spite of that, I would *not* use it up front when

preaching to members of other schools. Rather, you should first

establish the correctness of Vaishnavism using acceptable scriptural

texts. Then, when respect for the scholarly basis of Vaishnavism has

been earned, one might eventually get a question asking why these

other doctrines (like Advaita) have appeared, or some other similar

question based on that person's sympathy towards his chosen path.

That is when you can quote these verses, and explain that they these

other religions serve a particular purpose for particular classes of

men - those who are not devoted to Vishnu. But nevertheless, one must

progress from them or else one will get misled.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

"krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla@h...> wrote: "...

The Padma Puraana states:

 

paarvatyuvaacha

taamasaanichashaastraaNisamaachakShvamamaanagha

sa.mproktaanichatairvviprairbhagavadbhaktivarjitaiH

teShaa.nnaamaanikramashaHsamaachakShvasureshvara || Pa Pur 6.236.1 ||

 

Paarvatii said:

O sinless one, tell me about the vicious texts which were composed by

the braahmanas bereft of devotion to the Lord. O lord of gods, tell

me their names in a sequence. (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.1)

 

Rudra said:

O goddess, listen. I shall tell you about the vicious texts in a

sequence. By merely remembering them even the wise ones would be

deluded. First I myself proclaimed the Shaiva, Paasupata (texts)

etc......(padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.2-4)

.......

 

2) It is clear from the verses that the doctrines of Shaivism,

...... were promulgated for the purpose of misleading those who have

no devotion to Vishnu. There is simply no other way to read them, at

least, certainly not in any way that is sympathetic to followers of

those doctrines.

..........

 

6) Hence, this evidence is solid, coming as it does from a

mainstream text. .......these other religions serve a particular

purpose for particular classes of men - those who are not devoted to

Vishnu. But nevertheless, one must progress from them or else one

will get misled..."

----

 

shiva mentions the shaiva doctrine as one of the vicious texts bereft

of devotion to bhagavan perhaps because the shaiva doctrines are

mostly monistic & have sayujya mukti (& shanta rasa i think) as their

goal

 

interesting to note, ive heard that there are personalistic shaiva &

shakta schools like meykandar's, aghorashiva's, & shrikantha's, but

ive not really looked into it

 

as an aside, although the monistic shaiva schools have sayuja mukti

(& shanta rasa perhaps, i dont know about shanta rasa & its relation

to sayuja mukti) as their goal, they are not mayavad, they consider

the void as partial realization & certainly have respect for and

adore their para sivas lotus feet so i would guess they dont fall

back into maya like mayavadis do as per sb 10.2.32