Part 29 - Shiva as Para Brahman

Having thus discussed the attributes of Brahman and establishing them, Sripati proceeds to deal with the source of all knowledge relating to him. Commenting on 1. 1. 3, Sastra yonitvat (Because the Sastra forms the source-of the knowledge relating to Him), he initially remarks that texts like Asya mahato bhutasya nisvasitam etadrigvedo yajurvedassamavedah iti-These Rig, Yajur and Sama Vedas which are the result of the inhaling breath of that Great Being, form the subject-matter of this Sutra. In other words, Sastra is the source of all authority. For Sastras, such as the Rig Veda, etc., the source and cause is Siva. The Sruti text goes Sivo mameva pitarah iti, 242 I am the Father (cause) to whom Siva is referred. Therefore Nigama and Agama are paramount authorities, Shiva being the chief cause of creation, etc. Here the Srutis determine the applicability. Texts like the one quoted above prove Paramesvara to be the chief source (cause) for the 242 Rudrachamaka.

Vedas. Texts like Vacha virupa nityaya iti prove the eternity of the Vedas. The question whether we could appropriately say that Parashiva Brahman is the chief cause In the for Nigama and Agama is one open to discussion. Smritis it is said Anadinidhina nitya vagutsrishta svayambhuva Adau vedamayi divya yatah sarvah pravrittayah iti From that Svayambhu, came out that ever-existing and eternal speech, which was in the beginning the effulgent Vedas, wherefrom all took their origin. Here the Veda is stated to be eternal. This shows that the birth of Paramesvara is not true (apramanya). He had no birth of a Paurusheya character (i.e., He had no human origin). And, therefore, if it is said that the Vedas also are equally as eternal and unaffected by the three kinds of time (traikalikabadhyatvam), then we propound the following Siddhanta :-If it is said that the Vedas exist by themselves, it would be against the Sruti text Sivo mameva pitarah. And also in the fourth part of the Sama sakha, it is mentioned that they (the Vedas) are stated to have been possessed of angas, sarira, gotra, varna, etc. These denote that the former (portion) treats of the first creation and the latter generally treats of the (subsequent or succeeding) creations. Those (the former) form their characteristics denoting a cause showing a sign (of srishti). Texts like Atmana akasah sambhutah iti 243 state that the sky and the other elements were created by the order of Paramesvara as the sole cause. If so, how can the Vedas be called Svayambhutam, i.e., without origin (apaurusheya)? The Smritis enunciate a similar position in the text. Ashtadasanam etasam vidyanam Brahmavartmanam Adikarta Sivassakshat sulapaniriti srutih \\ Sudyojatena Rigvedam Vamadevena Yajusham Aghorena tatha Sama Purushenatvatharvanam || Isanena mukhenaiva kamikadyagamam tatha Janayamasa visvesah sarvasiddhi pradayakah|| Vimarsarupini saktih Sivasya paramatmanah Nigamagamarupa syat sarvatattvaprakasini 243 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 1.

Tasmat vedagamartheshu yah kuryat bhedabhavanam Sa sahasrakulam ghore narake patati dhruvam " iti. Therefore Paramesvara is the sole cause for bringing to light, in continuation, the former and latter parts of Nigama and Agama, by means of that Sakti that is inherent in him. And in him lies all the power of bringing to light every kind of knowledge. Therefore there is no contradiction between Sruti and Agamas with regard to whether Paramesvara is born or not born (janyatva and ajanyatva). 244 Further, Sruti texts like Nasannachasat Siva eva kevalah Nanyat kinchanamishat Neha nanasti kinchana Natutat dvitiyamasti | iti enunciate clearly that none other created the Veda and that it is eternal. If it is then asked how such statements ought to be reconciled, then we say that Sruti texts like Sarvam khalvidam Brahma Sarvo vai Rudrahiti, etc., distinctly hold out that Brahman is the sole Creator of charachara prapancha (the living and the lifeless world). If so, these contradict the other set of Sruti texts, according to which the world is stated to be unreal (mithyaparatvam). As to this, we say that that is wrong; because even prior to the time that creation became manifest, the world was existing in a very shortened (samkuchita) form (rupa) in the sakti of Mahesvara himself, therein containing all the elements of Nigama and Agama and others as if in the form of a seed ready to sprout up. Sakti and Paramesvara are never different, for it is said in the Sruti text:-Parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate svabhaviki jnanabalakriya cha 11 215 Moreover, if it is doubted, as to how Veda could be called Eternal, when it is simply a resonant sound implying sabda, buddhi and karma (words, knowledge and actions) and only lasting for a limited time in its three forms of 244 Some Srutis hold He was and some others that He was not born. Sripati's view is that He was not born. If that is so, there is really no contradiction in the Srutis on this point. 245 This is the last line in the Chchandogya text beginning withApani pado javano grihita and ending with svabhaviki jnanabalakriya cha which is all that is quoted by Sripati above.

existence, then we say there is no reason for any such doubt. We say this, on the basis of the maxim Karanasatyatve karyasya satyatvam, the cause being true, the effect also should be quite true. It is indisputable that Sakti in Paramesvara, which is the cause for all the Vedas, is Eternal, from which it follows that the effect (of that Sakti) also should likewise be Eternal. Lord Mahesvara's statement that Brahman is nitya-mukta buddha and suddha by svabhava and is manifest at any moment. and intimate with all is verily true. But that statement which people put forth attributing raga, dvesha and pasabaddha, qualities which are exhibited by Paurusheya, is untrue, because it is only a statement of the ignorant with evil thoughts. Therefore the Vedas are decidedly Moreover, the Vedas having determined to extol Paramesvara and none else, they keep constantly praising Paramesvara regarding his unending eternal propitious qualities and like so many poets continuously extol him without a break. eternal. Further, the smearing of the Bhasma (sacred ashes) is heard of in the Vedas. In the text of the Sveta- svataropanishad, Triyayusham Jamadagneh Kasyapasya triyayusham 1 Yaddevanam triyayusham | tanme astu triyayusham iti 126 the word triyayusha is interpreted to be tiryak pundra, a triple cross-wise or horizontal mark. In the Yajurveda, we read :-Manastoketi mantrena mantritam Bhasma dharayet | Urdhvapundram bhavet sama madhya pundram yajumshi cha Adhah pundram Richas sakshat tasmat pundram triyayusham || iti. Further, in the Bodhayana sakha the following occurs :Tani va etani rudrakshani yat trayo veda dharayanti tasmat deva dharayanti tasmat tani dharayan gachchan tishthan khadan svapan unmishan nimishan hasan sarvanyenamsi tarati Rudrobhutva Rudro bhavati iti. For what causes the Vedas put on like Rudra and become Rudra Himself, the Bhasma and Rudraksha, for the same reasons 246 Sveta. Upa.

the Devatas also wear them and so they are wearing them while going, while standing, while eating, while sleeping, while sitting, while meditating, while laughing-in all conditions. From this we see that Rudraksha dharanam is also prescribed (in the Smritis). Also, in the Rigveda text Ayam me hasto Bhagavan iti, 27 what I have in my hand is Thyself, O Lord, Ya te Rudrassiva tanuh aghora papakasini 248 || iti, etc. which state that the Vedapurusha wears the Sivalinga according to the Vedas. Further in various hymns of praise is seen the text Jagatam pataye namah 249 Namo hiranyabahave namah iti 250 and others. ↑ Therefore in weighing all the Srutis and Smritis, it is seen that in the atma Sakti of Paramesvara which is the embodiment of Paramesvara (Paramesvara atmah sakti), is observed to be the principal figure referred to in all the Vedas and the Agamas. Again, if the doubt is expressed how Mahesvara could be said to be the author of the Vedas, when Chaturmukha (the four-faced Brahma) is plainly said to be the sole author of the Rik, Yajus and Sama Vedas according to texts like Shaddota vai bhutva prajapatir idam sarvam asrijata Ruchi yajumshi samani iti, etc., then we contradict such a doubt and state that it is not so. For it is said in the Srutis that long prior to the creation of Hiranyagarbha, that Veda had its origin, according to the texts Yo bramhanam vidadhati purvam yo vai vedamscha prahinoti tasmai 251 | iti, etc., which state that long before Brahma was created, the creation of the Veda took place and then those Vedas were taught to Brahma after he came into existence. This decidedly proves that Hiranyagarbha got all the Veda tutored by Paramesvara and therefore Paramesvara is alone stated to be greater than all others. 247 Rigveda. 249 Maha-upanishad , XVIII. 13. 251 Sveta Upa., VI. 18, 248 Rudrachamaka. 250 Rudrachamaka.

Accordingly, Sruti texts like Yo devanam prathamam purastat Visvadhiko Rudro maharshih Hiranyagarbham pasyata jayamanam | Sa no devah subhaya smritya samyunaktu 252 iti, state that the supremacy of Paramesvara extends absolutely over the creation of Hiranyagarbha and chidachit prapancha. Moreover, the sages Upamanyu, Dadhichi, Gautama, Durvasa, Renuka, Daruka, Sankhakarsna, Gokarna and others also observe that the all-knowing power (sarvagnatva) consists in knowing decisively what all is contained in the Veda and the Vedanta. If it is questioned how such Sarvagnatva could be found only in Paramesvara and not with others, the reply is that we should not doubt it (i.c., such sarvagnatva in Him alone). Because such a power can also be obtained to a small extent (kinchit) by the good grace of Paramesvara through meditating on and worshipping Him. And therefore there is no contradiction (here). Comparing the brightness of the Sun with skylight, the light being the same, the intensity of it is seen to a large extent in the case of the Sun. In the same way, though every Sruti describes Paramesvara as the sole Kartru (Lord), he is also the Sole Being of supreme knowledge (Sarvadhika jnana upapadyate). Because one who knows everything in the Sastra is by far superior to the one who has merely just entered (on its study). Therefore, no one can be said to be Sarvagna or Sarvantaryami or or Sakalajagadvyapaka other than Paramesvara Himself, for these six qualities, such as Sarvagnatva 253 and others, cannot be a property owned by Him (Paramesvara) in common with others (i.e., nobody can show these qualities with Him). Further, if it may be asked, "Where is the need for this Sutra in application as the previous Sutra alone establishes for Paramesvara Jagadjanmadikaranatva, Sastrakaranatva, Sarvagnatva, etc.?" The answer to this 252 Mahopanishad, X. 19. 1. 258 These six qualities are:-Sarvagnatva, Sarvantaryamitva, Sakala jagadvyapakatva, Sarvadhikajnanatva, Sarvasastrapranetritva and Sarvavastvabhasakatva.

question is "It is not so." For in the previous Sutra, the subject relating to Paramasiva possessing the above powers was mentioned only by way of introduction subject to the proviso that it might later be discussed at length with a view to establishing the Brahmatva of Paramasiva. To remove the doubt (that pertaining to the Brahmatva of Paramasiva), this Sutra has been set down by Bhagavan Vyasa under the heading Sastrayonitvat. This means Sastram nigamagamatmakam yonih pramanam yasya tathatvat. He that is proved by the Sastras through the testimony of Nigama and Agama as entitled to Brahmatva, He is called Sastrayonih. Therefore, nothing can be said in the following Adhikaranas contradicting this Adhikarana regarding the Brahmatva of Paramasiva. That no other alternative meaning could be attached to this Sutra (Sastrayonitvat) is plain from what is suggested in this Sutra itself. No further Adhikarana is, therefore, necessary to explain this (point). (There is nothing further to be said on the topic discussed in this Adhikarana.) 254 If anybody raises the objection that it is not possible to know the Allpowerful Brahman as being Paramashiva alone through the Veda and Vedanta Sastras, without other proofs, then, we say, that texts like Tam tvau panishadam purusham pruchchami Navedavinmanute tam brihantam 255 | Naisha tarkena matirapaneya 250 Ritam satyam param Brahma purusham krishnapingalam Urdhvaretam Virupaksham Visvarupuya vai namah257 Pradhanakshetragnapatir gunesah samsara moksha sthitibandhahetuh 258 || Satyam jnanam anantam Brahma 259 iti, etc., state that Para Brahman is the sole subject treated of in these Sutras. And again a number of Sruti texts like Na chakshusha grihyate napi vacha Tam tvaupanishadam 254 Sripati suggests that this Sutra is self-contained and exhaustive to a degree. 255 Taitt. Bra., III. 12. 9. 256 257 Katha-upanishad , II. 9. Maha-upanishad , X. 11. 258 Sveta. Upa., VI. 16. 259 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 1. 23

purusham pruchchhami " etc., postulate without a shadow of doubt as to who Para Brahman is and how he is to be understood. The former goes to prove that Brahman cannot be understood through the Vedas, nor can he be realized by the sight nor through expression. But texts like Yan manasa na manute yenahur manomatam 280 | Yato vacho nivartante aprapya manasa saha Anandam Brahmano vidvan na bibheti kutaschaneti 201 and others prove again that the power of creation and the All-knowing Power is confined only to Him who can be understood by discussion of the Sastras. The Siddhanta is that none other than Brahman is the sole cause of the creation and He is established through the Upanishads and other Sastras and no others are so described. He who is so described is alone Para Brahman. 263 1 Texts like Navedavinmanute tam brihantam 262 Naisha tarkena matirapaneya \ iti,20³etc., state that there are no other sources from which Brahman can be determined or understood which are not contradictory. In the text Tam tvaupanishadam purusham pruchchhami iti, it is laid down clearly that the Upanishads alone describe Brahman in a manner which harmonizes with the Vedanta Sastra through Tarka and Vedanta, which are the sole materials for its proof. If it is postulated that Para Brahman can be known from other sources besides the Vedanta Sastra, then we say that it is not so. The Siddhanta then is that Brahman is only proved by the Upanishad Sastra as being (Jagajjanmadikarana) the Creator and chief cause of the Universe and He alone is the subject-matter of all the Vidas, Texts like Navedavinmanule tam brihantam | 284 Naina tarkena matirapaneya 1 iti, etc., etc., state that 260 Kena Upa., I. 6. 261 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 4. 262 Taitt. Bra., III. 12. 9. 263 Katha-upanishad , II. 9. 264 Taitt. Bra., III. 12. 9. 265 Katha-upanishad , II. 9. 265

Brahman cannot be understood by any other means. Also from the Upanishadic text Tam tvaupanishadam purusham pruchchhami iti, it is to be understood that Para Brahman is understood by the knowledge obtained from the Upanishads alone by the help of the Vedanta Sastra and Tarka (Logic). But nothing other than the Upanishads can lead one to know Brahman. Just as in bringing into existence a chariot, a pandal, a turret, a storeyed structure, the skill of different persons and agencies employed on them is shown, it cannot therefore be said that only one person was the author in producing so many different kinds of work. In the case of Brahman who is satyasankalpa and satyajnana, anantadisvarupa and dharmajnana, He can be said to be the sole creator of the two worlds (Jagadubhaya). And therefore the Vedas correctly hold without any doubt that he can be fully understood only by that source (Vedanta). The text Yato vacho nivartante iti, 260 and other like passages, which are observable in the Upanishads, describe all the more His infinite qualities in manifestation. Else, the text Brahmavidapnoti param | iti 267 and the like which enunciate the view that He who knows well Brahman can realize Brahman, will be contradicted. In the Smritis and in the Matsya and the Siva Puranas, it is stated that Siva is of a tamasa nature: Agneh sivasya mahatmyam tamaseshu prakalpyate Rajaseshu cha mahatmyam adhikam Brahmano viduh \\ Sattvikeshu cha kalpeshu mahatmyam adhikam Hareh Teshveva yogasamsiddhah gamishyanti param gatimiti. And therefore in the Matsya Purana, tamasatva is attributed to Siva Puranas. Similarly, in the Bhagavad-Gita in the verse beginning with Sattvat sanjayate jnanam and the one ending with Bandham moksham cha ya vetti buddhih sa Partha sattviki | iti.208 It is made clear that only those possessed of sattvika buddhi are eligible for mukti. Also in the 206 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 4. 207 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 1. 268 Bhagavad-Gita, XIV. 17; XVIII, 30.

Pancharatra Agama the statement is found:-Agneh Sivasya mahatmyam tamasam tamasam mohakarakam Tayorupasanadeva pratyavayo bhavet dhruvam || iti. It is established from this that Siva Puranas wherein Siva is chiefly described are tamasa (in character). 209 If it is asked how passages like these could be reconciled with the above proofs, wherein Siva is extolled, and how He can be called Para Brahman, agreeably to the teaching of the Vedanta, then the answer is, that there is no ground for any doubt of this nature. For there is no clear proof anywhere in the Sruti to the effect that Siva Puranas are of a tamasa character. And the invented (kalpita) statement of the Prachchanna Bauddhas cannot be admitted as a proof (of the alleged tamasa character of the Siva Puranas). Moreover, Vyasa being the author of the Puranas, is it the subject-matter treated therein (in the Puranas) of a tamasa nature or is it Vyasa, the author himself, being of a tamasa nature, found opportunity to impart a tamasa character to the Siva Puranas? It cannot be the first, because the Rig Veda and all other Vedantas declare Rudra as the chief subject and even if they are considered as of a tamasa nature, then the whole Vedanta becomes spurious (apramanya) and enters into the limits of the Bauddha agama.270 Nor can it be the second, in which case, even the Vishnu Purana, of which the author is Vyasa, is liable to be called one of a tamasa character. Nor can it be the third, for Vyasa could not have been the author of the same Vishnu Purana, which is said to be of a sattvika nature and also of Shiva Puranas which are said to be of a tamasa nature, for which there is no sufficient evidence. Vyasa is stated to be the author of all the Puranas which are stated to be the essence of all the Vedas and Vedanta. Then in the Matsya Purana it is seen that Matsyam kurmam tatha laingyam saivam 260 This is the Purvapaksha argument. 270 That is, it will deny Brahman altogether, denying as it does wholly the authenticity of the Srutis.

I 357 skandam tathaiva cha Agneyam cha shadetani tamasani nibodha me. Then, again, we we have texts like, Agneh sivasya mahatmyam tamasam mohakarakam iti; Yatra yatra Jagannatham Mukundam Vishnum avyayam Vadanti tani sastrani sattvikani matani vai Yatra yatra hyumanatham Sankaram Bhairavam Yamam Durgam Ganapatim kalam yani tani vadanti cha Tamasani munisreshtha phalani vividhani vai Pancha pujascha devamscha tatha devim Sarasvatim | Vadanti yani sastrani rajasani matani vai || iti. Such a There are other texts as well of a similar kind in the Matsya Purana, the Harita Smriti, the Pancharatra and other Agamas. All these declare that Siva Puranas are of a tamasa nature. If so, then the doubt arises, how could Shiva be entitled to Para Brahmatva, beyond being only one of the Trinity and entitled to the Rudra Dharma (of destruction) which is of a tamasa nature? statement should not be taken as evidence of tamasatva, because the Matsya Purana itself having already been stated to be of a tamasa character, the the statements appearing in such a Purana cannot be admitted as proof (for the tamasa nature of Siva Puranas). Again, in the Pancharatra and other Agamas, a contradictory statement is seen stating that Agni is of a rajasa character, as in texts like Bramhendra Surya Chandragni para rajasa sambhavah271 iti, etc. There is, therefore, a contradiction between the statements made in the Matsya Purana and the Pancharatra Agama. They both, therefore, become necessarily apramanya and cannot be held to be proofs (of the tamasa character of the Shiva Puranas). \ Further, texts such as, Brahmananam Agnir agre prathamo devatanam Yavajjivam agnihotram juhuyat! Archata prarchata Triyambakam yajamahe Antar ichchhanti tam jane Rudram paro manishaya gridhnanti jihvayasasam Yo vai svam devatam atiyajate | iti, etc., i 271 This contradicts the statement of the Matsya Purana that the Agneya Purana is of a tamasa character.

clearly state that Rudra and Agni should be chiefly worshipped, else one is to be considered sinful. Also the statements in Sruti text like Tvam devanam Brahmananam adhipatih; Vishnuh kshatriyanam adhipatih iti, etc., clearly explain that if one does not duly worship his own deity, then he will have to undergo naraka, for failing to do as prescribed. This proves that if the worship of Rudra and Agni is not carried out, it will end in the casting of oneself out of the four castes (varna chatushtaya). Therefore such invented statements, which contradict the Vedic principles, should not be agreed to by those who dispute with the aid of the Vedas. The Sutra text, Atta charachara grahanat 272 and Sruti texts like Yasya Brahma cha kshatram cha ubhe bhavata odanahiti, etc., clearly show that samhara (or destruction) is held to be the characteristic of Para Brahman. If that view is not accepted, then it will end in abrahmatva for Vishnu. Texts like Rudro va esha yadagni stasyaite tanuvau ghoranyasivanyeti Aghorebhyo' tha ghorebhyo iti, etc., declare that Isvara by His Aghora face creates and protects, being the chief agent and by that fearful form of his face, he destroys the creation, which proves that He alone is the chief cause of the three functions of Creation, Protection and Destruction and hence Para Brahmatva is His. Moreover texts 274 such as Ya te Rudra siva tanur aghora papakasini iti and others declare that Paramesvara showed his beautiful form comprising of suddha sattvika character under the Siva Sarira form, through prayers (offered by his devotees). Further, texts like Prapanchopasamam santam Sivam advaitam chaturtham manyante 1275 Umasahayam paramesvaram prabhum trilochanam nilakantham prasantam iti 272 Brahma-Sutras, I. 2. 9. 273 Rudrachamaka of the Yajurveda. 274 Rudrachamaka of the Yajurveda. 275 Kaivalya Upa.

and others state that Siva alone keeps his mildest form of sattvika, while the most cruel form of the tamasa character applies only to Kala Rudra. It is well known from the Veda Sastra that even Kala Rudra is of a higher order than Vishnu, because Kala Rudra belongs to Sivamsa. The Srutis also support the same view. 1 In texts like Parat parataram Brahma tatparat parato Harih Yatparat parato Isah tanme manah sivasankalpamastu 126 Ajamekam lohitasuklakrishnam | iti, etc., Paramesvara is described as having the triple qualities of the prakrita Sakti.277 And therefore if Narayana is held to possess the sattvaguna character of Brahman, the argument becomes fallacious, and aprakrita ParaBrahmatva 278 as described in all Veda Sastras will become disproved. According to the Jabalopanishad, the text Sukladhyana parayanaiti, lays down that one who is desirous of moksha (mumukshu) should meditate only upon the bright and pure Rudra (i.e., possessing the sukla form, i.e., white complexion). Again, in the Suta Samhita and the Suta Gita, the following text is found :Asti Rudrasya viprendra antah sattvam bahistamah Vishnorantas tamah sattvam bahirasti rajogunah || Antarbahischa viprendru asti tasya Prajapateh Rajasa tamasa krantau Brahma-Narayanau khalu || Also in the Siva Dharma Sastra, it is observed:Antah sattvagunopeto bahistamasasamyutah Suddha sattvika ityuktah Sankaro lokasankarah || Antastamasasamyukto bahih sattvagunanvitah Suddha tamasa ityukto Vishnussakshat Sriyah patih \iti. These texts prove that Isvara belongs to a higher order than Brahma and Vishnu. Further, from the following passage occurring in the Suta Samhita, Sivarahasya khannda :- 270 Maha-upanishad , XII. 2. 277 Brahmatva fully supported by the Vedas. 278 Brahmatva not supported by the Vedas.

Dasa Saiva puranani sattvikani vidur budhah Sraddheyani dvijavaraih tesham dharmastu tatra yat \\\ Sattvam suddham samadishtam sukha jnanas padam tu yat Vidyopadeshta yogibhyah suddhasphatikasannibhah || Na nidrati Sivah kvapi Brahmanadhipatih Sivah Bruvantyevam puranani Brahmananam kathah subhah || Dasa Saiva puranani himsa doshaparani cha Vaishnavani cha chatvari tamasani munisvarah" Kshatriyanam sruta dharmah teshu taddevata Harih ▪ Tamah krishnam udasinam kutakrityavisaradah || Nidralasya pramadadi panchadha syattu tamasah Nidralasyapramadadyah tadgunah parikirtitah Krishno Vishnuh smritah seshasayi bhakti vimohakah | Eteshu kshatriyanam cha dharma vipra udahritah || Brahme tu rajase vaisyadharmaih sarvatra sammate Duhkhaspadam raktavarnam chanchalam cha rajomatam | Gunatrayasamayuktam agneyam sauram eva cha Tasmat Saivani vipranam puranani hitani vai | iti, it is seen that only Siva Puranas are of an absolute sattvika character. Moreover, if it is argued that Siva Puranas are of ancient origin treating of matters going back to previous kalpas, 27" then, it should be held as being inconsistent. For it is said in the Matsya and other Puranas :Puranam kritam sarva sastranam prathamam Brahmana Anantaram tu vaktrebhyo Vedastasya vinirgatah || Puranam ekamevasit satakotipravistaram iti. 270 The argument may be thus amplified :-If Siva Puranas are of ancient origin and can be held to treat of matters going back even to previous kalpas and be held at the same time as not treating matter of the present kalpa and thus become inapplicable to the latter, then such an argument becomes inconsistent. The Siva Puranas cannot be both ancient and unauthoritative.

The Puranas, whose first author was Brahma, were latterly, about the end of the Dvapara Yuga, abridged by Vedavyasa into 4 lakhs of verses (from Satakoti verses). Similarly it is said in the Dharma Samhita :- Brahmam eva krite chadye puranam sruti sammatam Ashtadasavidham tasya kritam koti prabhedatahiti. And therefore the Siva Puranas cannot be held to be old or as belonging to kalpantara. Moreover, if it is held that according to the Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, etc., Puranas that Narayana, because by his avataras of Matsya, Kurma and Varaha, removed all the evil opponents on the face of the world and established righteousness and therefore that He alone should be reckoned as bearing a sattvika character and that He alone is entitled to that character, then we say that it is not so. Because in the Kurma Purana, in the chapter treating of Ekadasi, it is said: Ekadasyam tu madhyanhe maghamase Mahanatah Sarvalokahitorthaya visham bhunktva tatah Sivah " Sivayogena tadratrau sthitva chandraka ladharah \ Pariveshtita Vishnvadin drishtva tatpadasevakan || Uposhita mahabhaktan dvadasyam Nilalohitah \ Samudramathanodbhuta sudhapanarthamadarat Agnam chakre Mahadevah sarvaloka bhayapahah || iti. From which it is learnt that Paramesvara, with his unrivalled prowess did perform the kulakuta bhakshana and bring about the destruction of Andhakasura, Jalandharasura, Tripurasura, Vyaghrasura, Gajasura, Surapadmasura, and others and thereby relieved the whole world of evil perpetrators. Accordingly, it is said in the Puranas and Agamas that the Ekadasi Vrata should be strictly observed both by the Saivas and the Vaishnavas. It is also said in the Siva Dharma Sastra : Saiva Vaishnavayorgrahyam ekadasyam uposhanam\ Nandisa Vishnupramukha yato vratamathacharan || Sesham pradhanam Smartanam ekadasyam uposhanam Sayam pradhanam Saivanam Vedamargaikavartinam iti. And further in the Siddhantagama, it is said :-

Pradosha vyapini Saivi samyak ekadasi smrita Nanya saivaih parigrahya saiva sastraika sasanat \\ iti. Also it is said in the Viragama: Sarvesham Virasaivanam srauta smartanuvartinam i Pradosha vyapini grahya samyagekadasi Sive || Saivavratanam sarvesham sayampradhanyameva hi Anyathacharane devi pratyavayo mahan bhavet | iti. Moreover, even though the Padma and other Puranas proclaim the greatness of Vishnu, even in them the qualities of Siva are greatly extolled. Then why not those Puranas also be said to be possessed of tamasa character. \ In the Bhagavad-Gita, it is said 280:-Traigunyakatmaka Veda nistraigunyo bhavarjuna iti. Even the | Vedas are of a triple character (i.e., Sattva, Rajasa and Tamasa). Therefore the Srutis constantly describe the trinitarian character of God (murti-traya). And if it is said that therefore the triple character is what is to be understood from the Veda, then, we say it is not so. For it is said in the Srutis, Vacha virupa nityaya iti, from which it follows that though the Sruti is immortal, the character of the Vedas is likewise trinitarian. Moreover, Sruti texts like Sivam prasantam amritam Brahmayonimiti declare Siva as the most sattvika (parama sattvika) of the triple character discribed in the Vedas. And the other qualities apply to the different classes of duties of the sthula and sukshma characters confined in the trinity, as explained in the Sankhya and Yoga Sastras and by which Paramesvara should be meditated upon and worshipped. No other meaning should be attached. Further what is the meaning to be attached to tamasatva? Should we understand that it (tamasatva) indicates the origin of tamoguna (i.e., ignorance) or does it mean that it is co-related with the other two (sattva and rajas) gunas? Or does it mean that it is independent of the other two gunas? Or is it completely devoid of the other two gunas 280 In the current version of the Bhagavad-Gita, the verse runs "Traigunya vishaya veda" etc., see Bhagavad-Gita, II. 45. Elsewhere, Sripati adopts the latter reading; see text, p. 42. For the reading Traigunyakatmaka, see text, p. 41.

or trying to change the character of the other two gunas? Or does it really describe tamasa only as being the chief character, and as being above the other two? It cannot be the first; because Paramesvara, who is himself above all the triple qualities and from whom the Vedas exuded, would assume a transcient character (anityatva) and become subject to delusion and human weaknesses. And Vishnu and other Puranas which treat about chit and achit prapanchas and the triple qualities of Vishnu would also have to be treated as of a tamasa character. Tamasa cannot be attributed to one only among many of the same nature. Nor can it be the second, because all the qualities of God are of such a nature that Tamoguna cannot be seen prevailing as a prominent character. Nor can it be said that it is the third. In the Sruti text Yada tamastanna diva na ratrir nasan nachasat Siva eva kevalah iti, Shiva is proclaimed to be ever pure without even a speck of tamasa character about him. Nor can it be the fourth, because it is said in the Vishnu Purana: Ashtadasapurananam karta Satyavatisutah | Akhyanaischapyupakhyanaih gathabhih kalpasuddhibhih Puranasamhitam chakre puranarthavisaradahiti. Out of the 18 Puranas composed by Vyasa not one of them can be classed as belonging to tamasa character. Else if one is of a tamasa character, all must be of the same (tamasa) class, according to the maxim of equal justice (tulya nyayatvat). Nor can it be the fifth. If Rudra is by reason of his function of destruction, for which he is responsible, to be described as possessing a tamasa character, as declared in all the Sastras, then it is urged that it is not so. Because Vishnu will then be rendered devoid of the function of destruction which he is said to possess by reason of Isvaratva. 281 By the very act of destruction, Rudra cannot 281 Isvaratva denotes the three-fold function of creation, preservation and destruction (srishti, sthiti and laya). If the argument is that Siva is to be given the whole power of destruction, Vishnu. would lose it and his Isvaratva would be gone and he would be reduced to anisvaratva.

be called to possess a tamasa character. If it so happens, then there will be a gradation of character for which there is no proof. Even such proofs would be involved in tamasa character. The Vedic text Ya te Rudra siva tanuh282 prohibits the body of Shiva from containing even a particle of tamasa character. Again, according to the text, Traigunyavishaya vedah, Shiva cannot be held to perpetrate any action purely of a tumasa character against his sattvika dharma. Moreover, if tamasa character largely predominates in a particular kalpa, then, all works done in that kalpa, such as Brahma Puranas, etc., would have also to be invested with tamasa character, because in those Puranas also Siva and his character are greatly extolled. Such a suggestion is not seen throughout the Sastras, according to which even the present Kalpa of Brahma which is called Sveta Varaha Kalpa, should have been characterized as invested with tamasa character, for which no proof is forthcoming. This Kalpa which is called the 28 th one, is the one in which Vyasa as the author of all the Puranas, is to preside. It is said thus in the Vishnu Purana-Vaivasvatantare tasmin dvapareshu punah punah Veda vyasavyatitayam ashtavimSati sattama || iti. From this it follows that all the current Puranas were dedicated to Vyasa as their promulgator. It is further said therein Puranasamhitam chakre Puranarthavisaradah || iti. It follows that all the 18 Puranas have been in the order of their birth (utpattikrama) dedicated. And it is further said:-Etad vaishnavasamgnam vai Padmasya samanantaram | iti. Such are the works that were then existing. The Rama, Krishna and other Avataras have had their origin in the family of Raghu. The sacrifice offered by Daksha and its destruction (by Siva) is far remote from the present Kalpa. As regards the present Kalpa and the Puranas composed during its currency-i.e., the 18 Puranas done by Vedavyasa- these treat of both Saiva and Vaishnava Puranas. And 282 The text of the Rudrachamaka (Namaka Chamaka) continues thus: Ya te Rudra Siva tanuh aghora papakasini taya nastanva vasanta mayagirisanta ivakasih.

therefore it is of no consequence to argue about the tamasa character or otherwise of the respective Puranas in comparison with the ancient and antiquated ones of the previous Brahma Kalpa. Moreover, the act of making Puranas was ordained by Brahma in each Kalpa, denoting therein the respective events that took place in it. For example, in the Padma Kalpa, the story of Markandeya and Paramesvara has been narrated, showing how Paramesvara was graciously pleased with Markandiya and blessed him. Similarly, in the present Kalpa, the events regarding the avataras of Rama, Krishna, Varaha, etc., have been fully narrated, while those of Kalakuta Bhakshana and Dakshadhvara Dhvamsa and others have been merely referred to for the sake of comparison. All the Pauranikas agree in that statement and opine that it is of no consequence whatever to dwell upon the contradictory character of the events (of the different Kalpas) appearing in the Puranas. As each Kalpa is completed, a great distance of time intervenes between it and the preceding one. Then the question of determining how far the events are of a sattvika or tamasa character is not possible of solution after such a distance of time. Nor can it be the sixth. Rudra, though connected with the ghastly form of destruction, yet has a form which is capable of being reduced to a most attractive form by the meditator. Therefore tamasa character cannot be attributed to Paramesvara. So it is said in the Kaivalya Sruti text-Umasahayam Paramesvaram prabhum trilochanam nilakantham prasantam I Dhyatva munir gachchhati Bhuta-yonim samasta sakshim tamasah parastat "iti. From which it may be deduced that a certain person, Devadatta by name, though he may be tainted by tamoguna, is seen in public by his tamasa behaviour. That very person, meditating upon Paramesvara, will ultimately become quite free from his tamasa nature and become quite bright, by his wisdom, through the blessing of Paramesvara. Further in the text:-Sthirebhir angaih pururupa ugro babhruh suklebhih pipise hiranye iti, the word sukla denotes that Siva is completely made of sattva character,

Again, in the text Lohita sukla krishnam iti, Isvara is said to be made up of sukla or sattva character. Therefore in all these Puranas wherever Vishnu is extolled to be the greatest, there also Vishnu is represented as being of a tamasa character. Then how can Vishnu by his incarnations have destroyed the whole Yadava family, if he had not that tamasa character in him? And how can he have exhibited himself so as to cast delusion on the Daityas when he assumed the highly deceptive forms (mahamohakhya Purusharupa) of Buddha and Jina as narrated in the Puranas? It is said in the Vishnu Purana: Ityuktva Bhagavamstebhyo mahamoha sariratah Samutpadya dadau Vishnuh praha chedam surottamah Mayamoheyam akhilan daityamstan mohayishyati Tato vadhya bhavishyanti vedamarga bahishkrutah | iti. From which it follows that if Vishnu had not the tamasa character in him he could not have put on that mahamohakhya form which is that Mohini form of female beauty. 283 Moreover, Vishnu in order to finish that important task, exhibited all the tamasa nature in him and brought it about. Hence he too is possessed of tamasa character to a great extent, though he is not chiefly made up of it. In the same way Rudra, who has a large share of destruction to carry out, has a larger extent of tamasa character in him. But if it is asked "Can it not be said that he is possessed of tamasa character because of the work he does?", then the answer is, "It is not so ". Just as Vishnu assumed the form of man-lion in order to destroy the enemy, so, in the same manner he (Vishnu) also should be said to have consisted of tamasa character. As to Shiva, he cannot become subordinated to that predominating tamasa character like all the incarnations of Vishnu. If it were otherwise, the evidence afforded by the Vedic texts would become contradictory. Nor could it be the last. It assumes that whoever 283 This refers to the incident in the churning of the ocean, when Vishnu assumes the form of Mohini, the goddess of beauty, in order to distract the demons from the nectar which was being distributed. See Vishnu Purana,

destroys, he possesses a tamasa character. But then, should it not be said that he also has one to destroy him? If the answer is in the affirmative, then that agent should be greater than all else. Because he will be the one who destroys all-and independent (svatantra)-and one who has no second. And Rudra is possessed of such a nature and is therefore greater than all others, being destroyer of all others. No proof which contradicts this can be accepted. In determining points of this nature that which carries greater harmony and induces less contradiction should be accepted as sattvika proof. As the maxim Mruduh sarvatra badhyate iti (softness is always troublesome) says, nothing can be successfully overcome without tamasatva. In the text Visvadhiko Rudro maharshihiti, this above maxim is amply proved, and Isvara is shown to overcome everything by the grace of his tamasatva. Therefore sattvika (character) has ended in one form of vikalpa, contrariety. Moreover, if in any of the Sastras, wherever Vishnu is stated to be the greater, as in the Markandeya Purana, and therein Isvara's sattvika character is also extolled to the same degree, then such Puranas will have to be characterized as tainted by tamasatva. For example, in the Padma Purana, both in the former and latter parts (Purva and Uttara Khandas), tamasatva is more extolled in the cases of Hari and Hara. Hari is stated to be characterized by more of the sattvika spirit than Siva by his tamasa spirit. Even the Ramayana and the Bhagavata have to be placed in the category of tamasa Puranas, for it is said in the Bala Kanda of the Ramayana:-Tvam vai dharayitum vira nanyam pasyami sulinah iti. In the Yuddha Kanda it is said: Umapatih pasupatih sarvaloka namaskrutah iti. And in the Uttara Khanda, we read:-Etadastram balam ghoram mama va tryambakasya va. The travel to Kailasa and the destruction of Ravana and Indrajit was mostly due to the grace of Rudra in causing his power of destruction to be given to Rama for bringing about the end of Ravana. Even the description of this event should be said to obtain the character of

tamasa. Thus the tamasa character is to be found in Rama as well. And therefore if Siva Puranas are to be dubbed as of a tamasa character, then we enter into the precincts of the Bauddha religion which is beyond the pale of the Vedas. Therefore it is not useful to prolong this discussion. In the first Adhikarana of this work, it has been said, in respect of those who are deeply devoted to Shiva and who are secret devotees, that the word jijnasa covers both the phases of Bheda and Abheda in respect of jiva and Brahman."81 For the texts Brahmavit Brahnaiva bhavati Isam gnatva tatra ekibhavanti || (By knowing Brahman thoroughly becomes himself Brahman. By realizing Isa, becomes one with him) state that the worshipper and the worshipped are not different from each other and they become one. In the second Adhikarana, Brahman is described to be possessed of qualities by which the creation, preservation and destruction have been brought about so as to convey a difference between jiva and Isa. But while in the act of destruction, it is described to be just as the river joining the sea and becoming one with the ocean without any difference. In the third Adhikarana, Paramesvara, though he exhibits himself both in different and single forms, yet is known throughout the Vedanta Agamas as one single whole, without any division and that Brahman only is real as a proof thereof.