Non-dualism in Shaiva Siddhanta

The non-separable non-dualism of Shaiva Siddhanta rejects all the above relationships to indicate the relation between God and man. Vajravelu Mudaliar in his Commentary on Mapadiyam quotes Meikandar as saying: “The truly wise know the relation between God and the sentient and the insentient, not like that of eye and sun, the difference of two naturally exclusive entities, a this and that; nor like that of body and self, an identity in which there is only a that, nor an inseparable union like that of quality and substance in which there is a ‘this’ which is ‘that’, but that it is a relation which embraces all these three non-duality, like the relation of the self’s knowledge and the eye’s sight. So all things are His form; but you who have learnt the truth of advaita must worship Him there of all places where love grows”.^[1]

Non-duality thus understood includes the features of unity, difference and unity-indifference. It conceives the relation organically and implies a kind of dialectic of Godself relationship. As such Shaiva Siddhanta advocates non-separableness of the self and Brahman which causes changes while remaining unchangeable and unchanged– meaning that (i)they are in union (onrai), (ii) the latter remains acting together with the self (udanai and (iii) they remain as two different entities (verai).

Umapati Shivam gives a second set of analogies (i) the relationship between the body and the self (ii) the relationship between the eye (i.e., sight) and sunlight and (iii) the relationship between the active sense (i.e., eye) and the active self.^[2]

Umapati Shivam says that reality has many facets and the first set of analogies does not explain these facets harmoniously. So he gives the second set to remove the limitations. The relation between the body and the self is very intimate. The self identifies itself with the body without any reservation in such way that they are spoken of as they are one only. It is a case of union of two and not identity or unity as between gold and ornaments made of gold. Though the self identities itself with the body, it remains as self only in reality and the body remains as body. The relation between gold and ornaments is not there between the self and the body.

The example of sunlight and the eye brings out the sense of difference suggestive of transcendence. Transcendence is not opposition as between light and darkness. The sunlight is aiding the eye sight to grasp and understand the things according to the capability of the latter. The sunlight is revelatory but the eye sight is not revelatory. Hence there is a difference between the two but they are not opposing each other. One is the condition for the possibility of functioning of the other. Here we substitute transcendence in the second set for mere difference which is implied in the first set.

The third example suggests the intimate relation between God and individual self. This relation can be understood by the function of the ‘knowing power of the self’ in coordination with the ‘seeing power of the eye’. A word and the object meant by it are different. The word ‘water’ and the object identified by the word are different. But the word and its meaning are intimately related. Bhedabheda is illustrated by the example of a word and its meaning. When the close identity is revealed in the example of word and its meaning, the difference between them is also characterized. But the knowing power of the self and seeing power of the eye are functioning in such a way that their functions cannot be distinguished separately. Strictly speaking, though each is different from the other one, the intelligent power of the self and the seeing power of the eye are in coordination. There is no such element of coordination between a word and the object identified by it.

Umapati Shivam in his Tiruvarutpayan says, ‘as in the compound word tadalai, by combination of letters L+T=D and these two letters do not remain but coalesce: ‘So know thou, that in the supreme felicity, thou shalt be one with the Lord’.^[3] Here the words tal and talai form into tadalai . The letter‘d’ in the compound is neither one nor two. This is the kind of relation between God and the self. The letters ‘l’ and ‘ta’ do not lose their entity, but their union is represented by one letter. We can explain the word tadalai to understand the mystic union between Godhood and an individual self.(The words tal and talai mean the placing of God’s feet on our head to impart Shivajnana .) It is claimed that Meikandar, who came after the three celebrated commentators of the Brahmasutra ,understood the correct meaning of the term advaita. Tayumanvar praises Meikandar: “Oh! For the day when I can reach the feet of my Lord, who found the truth of pure advaita, which could not be comprehended by persons dwelling in untruths”.^[4]

The analogies of the first set suggest that God and the world (including man) do not undergo any change. Gold and gold ornaments are identical in arrtibutes, at all times. The other analogies i.e., light and darkness as well as word and meaning have the same defect. These analogies do not signify a change in man’s self-understanding, from a state of ignorance of the Divine Grace and the consequent alienation from God, to a state of knowledge about God where the self could distinguish the Supreme Being from the celestial beings and the consequent union overcoming alienation.

The aptness of the new set of analogies is also to be elaborated. Body-self analogy gives us the impression that the felt sense of oneness is the experience of the body neither by itself only nor by the self only. This analogy is intelligible from a third entity which is body-self (i.e., man). Similarly the analogy of eyesight is also clear only from the perspective of man in his ‘seeing’ faculty. In the same way the mutual presence of the ‘seeing’ eye and perceiving self is sensible for the reflective man who is different as such from both. Thus these analogies help us to interpret man’s relation with God in the medium of man’s experience.

The second set of analogies emphasizes the existential aspect and do not exclude any aspect of man’s experience. The ‘existing man’ who is subject to the many facets of experience involving memory and forgetfulness, knowledge and ignorance is given full recognition here. Body-self analogy is more appropriate than gold and ornaments made of gold, because the unity of the body and the self is felt vividly in our waking experience. Similarly the relation of eye sight and external light becomes important. When there is some defect in the eye, for example, the formation of cataract in the eye, 123 we cannot see even though there may be external light. When the obstruction is removed, one can see with the help of external light. Thus we realize the necessity of the eyesight. Meikandar says kannillarkanperekan akkazal. The usefulness of the eyesight is even clearer to us when we come to see after a period of interval during which we could not see because of a defect in the eye.^[5] In the third example also, the experience of the inseparable nature of the perceiving eye and the perceiving self becomes evident from the possibility of an experience in which their combination is not manifest.

The advaita of Shaiva Siddhanta is called Shuddhadvaita because it is neither Kevaladvaita nor Vishishtadvaita.^[6] Shaiva Siddhanta speaks of the advaita relation of the self and God as anadi i.e., beginningless.^[7] It emphasizes udanathal or togetherness.^[8] God is one with the self, different from it and is together with it. This is a unique concept of the immanence and transcendence of God. In the bound state, this union (advitiyam) is bheda advitiya , because the self does not know God. In the mukti or liberated state, it is abheda advitiyam , or shuddha advaita . If this difference in relation is not there, then there would be no significance in talking about release of the self from the bondages. Shaiva Siddhanta speaks of the dual nature of the self as sadashat , or being sat when it identifies with sat and asat when it identifies with asat .Tayumanavar expresses this: “Oh! For the day when I will be in advaita relation with God, as I am now in advaita relation with anava ”.^[9]

The individual self, according to Shaiva Siddhanta, attains mukti (the liberated state) when it keeps away the three malas—anava, karma and maya . It is emphasized that since anavais beginningless and non-destructible, its presence with the individual self cannot be disputed in spite of the fact that the presence of anavais not felt. In other words, the latter has no strength to act upon the individual self who remains totally absorbed in Godhood encompassing it with its noble attributes and qualities.

Umapati Shivam says that God is ever with the individual self both in kevala andin sakala states, but His presence is not felt by the individual self who behaves with 124 anava ,or it behaves as though it is anava itself . But the individual self in the liberated state behaves as though it is one with God, though indestructible anava remains in its weakest condition along with the individual self. Hence the liberated individual self is rid of all malas , and this state is known as ‘shuddha avastha ’.

There are three principles—knower, knowing power and the known in shuddha avastha of Shaiva Siddhanta.The individual self forgets itself and its knowledge in shuddha avastha . It remains immersed in the ‘known’ Shiva Himself. Umapati Shivam says that according to the advaita of Shaiva Siddhanta, God cannot be realized by meditation through mental faculties since Godhood is above mental faculties. If one can meditate without mental faculties, nothing will be conceivable and it shall lead to unconsciousness. If one thinks of God as inconceivable, nothing can be conceived of God. Hence he concludes that the Grace of God only shall enable the individual self to realize Him. The advaitic union of the freed self with God is comparable to that of the erstwhile advaitic union of the self with its original bond ‘anava ’.

Arul Nandi Shivam endorses the above view.^[10] He explains that neither the eye “seeing” a thing perceives the same on its own nor the inner senses do it. The relevant tattvas also neither know the thing themselves nor do they know the individual self within. In the same manner, the individual self, always oriented towards an object (pasha), does not approach Lord Shiva who always resides within. It means that pashajnana and pashu jnana illuminate other objects but do not self-illuminate. Hence self-illuminative Lord Shiva manifests Himself and becomes the means of knowing everything and everywhere.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vajravel Mudaliar.K,Shivajnana Mapadiyam, (Madurai, Madurai Kamaraj University, 1985),405.

[2]:

Udaluirkan arukkan arivoli pol
Pirivarum atthuvidham .—Sivaprakasam 7.

[3]:

Dhadalaibhol kudiyavai dhannigazha vetruinbak Kudalainiegamenak kol.—Tiruvarutpayan 74.

[4]:

Poikandar kana punithamenum atthuvidha
Meikanda nadhanadi mevunal ennalo .—Tayumanavar, Gurumarabin Vanakkam.

[5]:

S B–8.4.3.

[6]:

There is also another shuddhadvaita of Vallalbacarya (later part of the 15thcentury). Vallabha called his system shuddhadvaita as distinct from that of Shankara which Vallabha regarded impure because of the doctrine of maya . Vallabha holds, “Brahman and the self are real. The knower of Brahman is absorbed in Akshara Brahman and not in Purushottama . If knowledge is associated with devotion, the seeker is absorbed in Puruhsottama .
—Gangadaran, Shaiva Siddhantha 203, quoted from The BrahmaSutra Ed. S. Radhakrishnan.

[7]:

Pirivarum atthuvidham .—Sivaprakasam 7.
God is beginningless (anadi ) and the individual self is also beginningless (anadi ). Hence the relation is also anadi .

[8]:

Avaiye thane yai—Shivajnana-Bodam 2.
Shivajnana Munivar splits it as avaiyeyai ([...]), thaneyai ([...]),and avaiye thaneyai ([...]) and emphasises the togetherness aspect of God’s help.
Tirukkalittruppadiyar which dates earlier to Shivajnana bodam says ,
Iragi ange mudhal ondrai yingirandai
Maratha envagaiyai mattrivattrin verai
Udanai yirukkum uruvudaimai endrum
Kadanai yirukkinran kan .—Tirukkalitrupadiyar 86.

[9]:

Tayumanavar, Nirkunilai, Ennatkanni .28.

[10]:

Shivajnana-Siddhiyar-Supakkam 296 and 298.