4. The Shaiva school of thought

An interesting feature of Somadeva's treatment of Shaiva doctrines is the light thrown by it on the controversy between the Saivas and the Jainas on the subject of omniscience and creation. The first is claimed by the Saivas for Siva or Mahesvara, while it is reserved by the Jainas for their Arhat; and as for creation, attributed by the Saivas to Siva, it is altogether denied by the other seet. The roots of this controversy go to earlier times, and that it is older than the middle of the tenth century is certain. Vidyananda who belongs to the ninth century tries to refute S'amkara-mata, Saiva doctrine, in his Aptapariksa³, and rejects the claim of Mahesvara to be regarded as the creator of the universe and the omniscient author of a system teaching the way to salvation (moksa-marga ). It will be out of place to analyse his argument; but in dealing with this topic Vidyananda and Somadeva supplement each other and record valuble information on the 1 ' dvaitadvaitasrayah sakyah samkaranukrtagamah ' VI. 2. Vol, II, p. 276. 2 See preceding Chapter. 3 'sampratam samkaramatamasamkya dusayannaha ' etc.

subject. Vidyananda's views are partially referred to by Anantavirya in his commentary on Manikyanandi's Pariksamukhasutra (Pratyaksoddesa);' and it may be pointed out that most of our knowledge of the Saiva-Jaina controversy is derived from Jaina works. The background of the controversy between the Saivas and the Jainas mentioned above is provided by Kumarila's well-known attack on the conception of an Omniscient Being; and the questions involved are part of a larger issue which brought several schools of thought into the arena of philosophical controversy. Kumarila regarded omniscience as something impossible; and instead of positing an omniscient author of the Vedas, he maintained that they were eternal and not the composition of a personal author. Kumarila's views may be studied in Slokavartika (Codanasutra) and specially in the verses quoted from him by Santaraksita in the last section of Tattvasamgraha, many of them being not found in the extant Slokavartika. It is important to note that Kumarila in the course of his argument insisted on the absurdity of the Buddhist and Jaina notions that the Buddha and the Arhat respectively were Omniscient Beings. The Buddhist reply to this is elaborately given by Santaraksita in Tattvasamgraha; and the earliest Jaina reply to Kumarila is probably that of Akalamka (8 th century) in his Nyayaviniscaya (chap. 3). Kumarila, for example, had written in S'lokavartika (2. 141, 142): evam yaih kevalam jnanamindriyadyanapeksinah | suksmatitadivisayam jivasya parikalpitam || narte tadagamat sidhyenna ca tenagamo vina | drstanto'pi na tasyanyo nrsu kascit pravartate || Akalamka replied to this as follows in Nyayaviniscaya (vv. 412, 413): evam yat kevalajnanamanumanavijrmbhitam | narte tadagamat sidhyenna ca tena vinagamah || satyamarthabaladeva purusatisayo matah | prabhavah pauruseyo'sya prabandho'nadirisyate || Not only Akalamka but other Jaina scholars have tried to refute Kumarila's views, and this explains the large number of quotations from Kumarila found in later Jaina philosophical literature, e. g., in Vidyananda's Aptapariksa, Astasahasri and Tattvartha-sloka-vartika (under sutra 1. 29), Abhayadeva's commentary on Sammatitarka, Nyaya-kumuda-candra and other works. The bitterness of the Jainas against the Mimamsa school for attacking their fundamental doctrine of the Omniscient Being is shown in Siddharsi's Upamiti-bhava-prapanca-katha (chap. 4), which declares that the Mimamsa is not a philosophical system at all; and after enumerating six non-Jaina systems including the Mimamsa, Siddharsi excludes the latter from the field of speculative thought, although he finds room for the materialistic 1 'yacca mahesvarasya kkesadibhiraparamrstatvam niratisayatvamaisvaryadyupetatvam tat sarvamapi gaganabjasaurabhavyavarnanamiva nirvisayatva- dupeksamarhati | ' 29

Lokayata system.¹ There is no trace of any such bitterness against the Mimamsa in Somadeva's Yas'astilaka, as we find here the Saivas replacing the Mimamsakas as adversaries of Jaina doctrines.. 2.3 The controversy about omniscience was further complicated by the Naiyayikas entering the lists in defence of the doctrine. Like the Buddhists and the Jainas, they upheld the theory of omniscience as against the Mimamsakas; and we find, for instance, Jayanta quoting and criticising Kumarila's views in his Nyayamanjari (chap. 2) and establishing the theory that the adepts in Yoga possess the unhampered faculty of pure and universal knowledge. The Naiyayikas, however, declare God to be the omniscient creator of the universe and the author of the Vedas. Vatsyayana, indeed, attributes the authorship of the Vedas to 'trustworthy persons' (Aptah) in his Bhasya on Nyayasutras 2. 1. 68, and does not say that God is their author. Uddyotakara in his Nyayavartika calls the author of the Vedas a superior individual (Purusa-visessa), which might mean God, this being the designation applied to God in Yogasutras 1. 24. The later exponents of the Nyaya system, Jayanta, Vacaspati and Udayana, however, maintain that the omniscient God is the creator of the universe as well as the author of the Vedas. Jayanta, for example, says in his Nyayamanjari (chap. 4): karta ya eva jagatamakhilatmavrttikarmaprapanca paripakavicitratajnah | visvatmana tadupadesaparah pranitastenaiva vedaracana iti yuktametat || 3 The Mimamsa objections to the Nyaya conception of an omniscient Creator are fully stated in Mandana's Vidhiviveka (P. 210 ff.). A later writer Salikanatha, an authoritative exponent of the Prabhakara school of Mimamsa, tries to refute the theory of the omniscience of God in Prakaranapancika (chap. 7). He argues that it is the cycle of tradition (vrddha-parampara), without any beginning, that fixes the meaning of words and not the significance supposed to be attached to them by God at the beginning of creation. Further, the idea of personal authorship is not compatible with the authoritative character of the Veda which deals with supernormal things. Salikanatha probably belongs to the tenth century, but in this century the position of the Nyaya-vaisesika school was so strong that 1 arvakkalikametaddhi mimamsakapuram matam | tena darsanasamkhyayametallokairna ganyate || 2 tadevam ksinadosanam dhyanavahitacetasam | nirmalam sarvavisayam jnanam bhavati yoginam || 3 Cf. Handiqui: Naisadhacarita, Appendix I, p. 505. 4 'na vesvarasya sarvajnanamapi sidhyati jnanahetvabhavena jnanabhavaniscayat | tenanadireva vrddhaparampara sabdarthavagame heturma srstyadavisvarakrtah sanketah | evam purusasya dharmapratitim prati sabdamantarenopayabhavanna, pauruseyatve vedasya purvatmake vedarthe pramanyopapattirityapauruseyatvasrayanam | ' 5 G. N. Kaviraja; Introduction to Kusumanjalibodhani (Sarasvati Bhavana Texts).

dian hua 9. SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT 227 Mimamsa theories were not likely to wield any great influence. Be that as it may, having established the existence of an Omniscient Being, the Naiyayikas turn against the Buddhists and the Jainas, and deny that the Buddha or the Arhat can ever be called omniscient; and their attitude, on the whole, is one of hostility towards the non-Brahmanical systems. Vacaspati says in his Nyayavartika-tatparya-tika that Buddha and Rsabha are known to be the authors of the Buddhist and Jaina scriptures respectively; but as they are not the creators of the universe, like God, how can they be regarded as omniscient? In his commentary on the Yogasutra Bhasya also (1. 24, 25) he rejects the claims of the founders of systems like the Buddha, the Arhat, Kapila and others to be regarded as omniscient beings. Further, the Naiyayikas just mentioned give a new turn to the old Nyaya theory that the Vedas are authoritative, because they are the utterances of a trustworthy person (Apta); and argue therefrom that the Vedas are the utterances of a Trustworthy Being, because they are accepted by the majority of the people (mahajana), and what is not declared by a Trustworthy Being is not accepted by the majority of the people. This is exactly what Udayana says in the Kiranavali commentary on the Prasastapada Bhasya. Jayanta also says that it is possible to speak of anything as being declared by a Trustworthy Being (Apta) only when it is well-known among and accepted by the majority of the people. He explains Mahajana i. e. the great mass or the majority as those who follow the Varnasrama order prevalent in the Aryan country, that is, the Vedic order of society founded on the division of castes and the stages of life, and makes a distinction between Mahajana and Vrnda, the group or the minority, such as the Buddhists. The latter might claim their vrnda to be the mahajana in order to establish the authoritative character of their scriptures, but it is not possible to raise a minority (Vrnda) to the status of a majority (Mahajana), and the latter always avoids and never approves any scriptures that are opposed to the Vedas. Jayanta therefore concludes that scriptures other than the Vedas cannot be regarded as being composed by a trustworthy individual, because they lack support among the large mass of the people." 1 ' tatra sakyadyagamanam buddharsabhadayah pranetara iti sphutataramasti smaranam na tukalaksana isvarastesam kartteti | na caite sauddhodaniprabhrtayah tanubhuvanadinam karttaro yena sarvajna iti nisciyeran | ' 2 ' aptokta vedah mahajanaparigrhitatvat | yat punarnaptoktam na tat mahajanaparigrhitam | 3 'mahajanaprasiddhayanugrahe hi sati suvacamaptoktatvam bhavati nanyatha ' Nyayamanjari, Book IV. 4 'bauddhadayo buddhadinaptan svagamapramanyasiddhaye vadanti te mahajanamapi nijam tatsiddhaye vrndadikam vadeyureva kastatra pratikarah, ucyate, caturvarnya caturasramyam ca yadetadaryadesaprasiddham sa mahajane ucyate rupascaisa mahajano vedaprathamapravrttah caturvarnyacaturasramya- ata eva na nijo mahajana utthapayitum sakyate vrndakadih kim tvayameva caturvarnyadimahajanah sa caisa mahajano vedaviruddhamagamam pariharatyeva nanumodate ' Ibid. 5 'ata evamvidhaya mahajanaprasiddheragamantaresvadarsananna tesamaptapranitatvam | '

Similarly, Vacaspati in his Tatparyatika, makes a sharp distinction between the Vedas and the scriptures of the Buddhists, the Digambara Jainas and others, and observes that no scriptures other than the Vedas are accepted by the majority of the people and mentioned as being composed by God. The Vedas alone, composed by God as they are, maintain the entire social order and provide instruction in the means to attain the good and shun the evil. On the contrary, the teachings of the Buddha and others do not uphold the social order, nor are they accepted by the great mass of the people. Owing to this general reproach, they are followed only by a few barbarians, vilest among men and just like animals, and hence it is impossible to regard such teachings as being propounded by any trustworthy individual." It will be seen that the arguments of the Naiyayikas are not only directed against the non-Brahmanical systems as such but against the Jaina conception of the Arhat as the omniscient and trustworthy guide. They seem to put forward a rival Apta theory to discredit that of the Jainas, and thus reinforce the Saivas in their attack on the fundamental Jaina doctrine of the omniscient Arhat. It is difficult to determine the chronological relations of the Saivas and the Naiyayikas, but they might represent a parallel movement: Vacaspati and Jayanta belong to the ninth century and Udayana to the tenth, and we have seen that the Saiva-Jaina controversy recorded by Vidyananda and Somadeva falls in the same period. Further, as Haribhadra tells us in Saddarsanasamuccaya, the Naiyayikas were generally Saivas; and we know, in fact, that the leading Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers of the period of revival, Bhasarvajna, Jayanta, Udayana, and Vyomasiva were all Saivas. It is also noteworthy that the Naiyayikas often identify God (Isvara) with Siva or Mahesvara. Jayanta does so in Nyayamanjari (chap. 3); while Bhasarvajna says in Nyayasara that salvation is the outcome of the vision of Siva.3 The verse sarvajnata trptiranadibodhah......sadahurangani Mahesvarasya cited by the Saivas to illustrate the greatness of Siva is quoted by Udayana in Nyayakusumanjali (Book V) in support of the argument for the existence of God; and Udayana's own lines at the end of Book I devo'sau virataprapancaracanakallolakolahalah | saksat saksitaya manasyabhiratim balatu santo mama || 1 ' na canya agamo lokayatramudvahan mahajanaparigrhita isvarapranitataya smaryamano drsyate | veda eva sakalalokayatra- 'buddhadivakyani tu na mudvahanto hitahitapraptipariharopayamupadisanta isvarapranita ityavagacchamah | ........ lokayatra mudvahanti | na ca tatra laukikanamaviganam ' parigrahat naitesamaptoktatva sambhavah ' 2. 1. 68. ...tasmadviganat kaiscideva mlecchadibhirmanusyapasadaih pasuprayaih 2 ' ragadayah katham te syurnityanandatmake sive '; 'yasyecchayaiva bhuvanani samudbhavanti tisthanti yanti ca punarvilayam yugante | tasmai samastaphalabhoga nibandhanaya, nityaprabuddhamuditaya namah sivaya || ' etc. 3 'sivadarsananmoksa iti '.

may be compared with some of the doctrinal verses of the Saiv. school quoted in the preceding chapter. The identity of Siva with Isvara seems to have been an accepted fact; and as late as the twelfth century Vadideva Suri freely uses the term Siva and its equivalents in his detailed criticism of the Nyaya conception of God in Pramana-naya-tattvalokalamkara 2. 26. But in spite of the affinities between the Saivas and the Nyaya school, the former had an independent system with doctrines of their own; and while the Nyaya school maintained that God was the author of the Vedas, the Saivas attributed their Sastras to the omniscient Siva, and claimed that the Vedas, too, were created by him. It is noteworthy that the Isanasivagurudevapaddhati (Kriyapada, chap. I) quotes various Saiva texts to prove that Siva is not only the author of the Saiva Agamas but of the Vedas. The claim was not probably repugnant to the Naiyayikas who were, generally speaking, Saivas; and the interconnection of the two schools accounts for the fact that the Isanasivagurudevapaddhati (op. cit.) quotes a well-known verse Jayanta's Nyayamanjari, declaring Paramesvara (God) to be the author of the Vedas, in support of the Saiva claim that Siva was their author.

1 Eg., atra kirane - "pumsamanugrahartham tu paro'pyaparatam gatah | krtva mantratmakam deham vakti tantranyanekadha || " * * * svayambhuve - " punah svecchavataresu tantram pasupatam tatha | vakulam somatatram ca jagada paramesvarah || x x x tasmadatyantamaptena sivena srutayo'khilah | pranitah sarvakartreti pramanam jayate satam || " xxx tadyatha - "brahma bhutva jagat sarva sadevasuramanusam | yat srjatyambumadhyastham tasmai brahmatmane namah || " iti | etasmadapi vedanam vakta jneyo mahesvarah || 61 || 2 tatha ca nyaye - " vedasya purusah karta nahi yadrsatadrsah | kimtu trailokyanirmananipunah paramesvarah || " Nyayamanjari, Chap. III.