Prior to Schomerus, see G U Pope, who tried to present Tamizh Siddhānta through a Pretamata lens in his translation of the great Śaiva hymn, “Tiruvācakam”. Such efforts became possible due to Tamizh Śaiva texts being cut off from its root, the Sam̐skṛta Āgama textual tradition.
Like it or not, it’s predominantly & sadly “Mleccha-led” research that has completely overturned the myth of Siddhānta’s tamizh origin (the position taken by likes of Pope, Schomerus & others) & has established, once & for all, the pan- Bhāratīya & SE-Asian presence of Siddhānta.
This has served to undermine the use of Siddhānta as a “prefiguration” of Xtianity at least in Western Academic circles, where the sheer competitiveness-fueled rigour will shut off any such output.
However, the damage done in Bhārata, where most Bhāratīyas have little to zero idea of how to evaluate what they read, continues to accrue & shape discourse. Add to this the successful co-opting of some Ādhīnams by the Draviḍianists.
Even Ādhīnams, which are not co-opted to the same extent by the Draviḍianista, & which may affirm the deep & obvious link between Siddhānta & the larger Hindu Dharma & the Veda, may not betray much knowledge of the Siddhānta’s “Northern” origins.
Therefore, on the ground, much work remains to be done to redeem the Siddhānta from the mud it is stuck in, even as the Kiraṇāgama calls upon Dīkṣitas to ever save cows trapped in mud. 🙂
To that end, a few pointers follow:
1. As far as Ādiśaivas, Mahāśaivas & others who have their heads & hearts in the right place, the Siddhānta cannot afford to be seen as a “Tamizh-only” phenomenon.
2. Such Śaivas need to focus their energies on the propagation of Skt Siddhānta works in English & other Bhāratīya bhāṣa-s. This means that Ādiśaivas, Mahāśaivas & others have to step up with Sam̐skṛta scholarship & generate output in other Bhāratīya languages.
Examples of Siddhānta works from the original school, independent of the “Tamizh tradition”: x.com/ghorangirasa/s…
3. For whatever reason Sāmānya-Granthas (mainstream texts of the larger Hindudharma, such as Veda, Itihāsas, Purāṇas, Smṛtis, etc) were relatively ignored, Ādiśaivas & Mahāśaivas cannot afford to do that today & need to furnish interpretations of the same in a Siddhānta light.
4. There is no scriptural (or even historical) foundation for the present set-up where Ādiśaivas are restricted to temple worship (parārtha-arcana & a watered-down version at that) have to be beholden to any institution which post-dates them.++
4. Cont’d: Ādiśaivas have their own Ācāryatvam & sovereignty & must work towards a future where they can interact with said institutions as equals & not as clients in a patron-client relationship. The role of Mahāśaivas in helping Ādiśaivas here will be critical & indispensable.
5. As much as ppl may dislike this, Ādiśaivas suffer from a perception problem & their Ācāryatvam remains undervalued. To a great extent, the neglect of Vidyāpādas & Yogapādas (Tattvajñāna & Sādhana) plus a watered-down Kriyāpāda have resulted in this.
6. This may not be limited to Ādiśaivas but it remains critical for them.
Nobody will take you seriously if you can’t substantiate the legitimacy, & explain the meaning, of the smallest steps of the rituals you do.
7. To a great extent, the current quality of pedagogy (not everywhere) is to blame & the low quality of pedagogy is driven by the need for Arcakas’ children to join the divine vocation as young as possible.
8. While a complete rectification for this deep-rooted problem (that goes back centuries to institutional disenfranchisement of Ādiśaivas, rendering them dependents & making proper scholarship unaffordable) will take a long time, one can start small.
9. By starting small, I mean that a small, selected group of Ādiśaiva children can be put through a more robust & complete curriculum/syllabus, one that is privately sponsored by like-minded Mahāśaivas & other well-wishers.
9. Cont’d: There should be a healthy combination of both Śāstra & modern education, with the boy’s family’s needs taken care of so that nobody is in a rush to join a temple to become an Arcaka at 18/19 or even 22. The idea is to prepare them to be fully worthy of Ācāryatvam.
10. To become an Arcaka requires basic Dīkṣās, marriage & Ācāryābhiṣeka but rushing the Dīkṣās & Ācāryābhiṣeka (just because it is a practice, albeit non-scriptural) does very little good. In fact, it has tangibly harmed Ādiśaivas’ interests.
Dīkṣā absolutely requires a ripeness of मल/mala (spiritual maturity) & there are signs to infer this. It cannot be compromised & if it is, there will be consequences for Ādiśaivas, Śaivam & Dharma as a whole.
Ācāryābhiṣeka is a testament to a high level of competency, intellectual & spiritual accomplishments. This too should not be compromised. Quality priesthoods could once be nurtured because of an excellent system of royal patronage.
11. With such patronage long gone, the duty falls on Dhārmikas (but especially on Mahāśaivas & Adīkṣita Māheśvara Brāhmaṇas) to provide support to Ādiśaivas & the larger cause of reclaiming the Siddhānta.
12. In line with the above, Ādiśaivas, along with Mahāśaivas, need to take up teaching of Āgamas, in different ways for Dīkṣitas & Adīkṣitas. And for this, a solid grasp of Sāmānya-Śāstras listed above as well as all 4 pādas of the Āgamas are absolutely compulsory.
13. There are zero substitutes for Tattvajñāna & Sādhana. Following this, Śaivas need to pay attention to problems & issues, which have been given scant attention in Dharma (the place of “Aśāstriya devatas”, non-Hindu religions, etc) & offer rich, Siddhānta narratives for them.
@Saiva_Siddantam Ādiśaivas have lost their hold on the world of Śāstras for a couple of centuries & this has immensely affected their standing & self-confidence. This situation will not improve without a drastic change in environment for them or without help from the “Śāstrīya ecosystem”.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Religion needs common worship & ritual but a competing concern is that young gens across the world increasingly have a “standardised” sense of what they want from a religion & find it important to obtain a “profound/sophisticated” basis for popular rituals, lore/myths, etc.+++
A case in point is the situation of folkish Daoism in Sim̐hapurī (Daoism has a remarkably sophisticated cosmology, metaphysics & ritual but the way it is articulated & experienced in SG is what matters) vs that of Buddhism.++
Among all non-Abrahamic religions, in a very materialistic & increasingly “godless” generation of Chinese youth, Daoism as it is currently practiced - Stands zero chance of survival unless it attempts something drastic.
A common misconception many Hindus have about the Siddhānta, including many Śaiva-s but also others, is that the Siddhānta is centered on the supremacy of a "particular deity". Yes, Siddhānta upholds Śiva-paratvam but how to understand this?
In the Siddhánta, every Ātmā (sentient) is Cidghana (a pure mass of consciousness) whose inseparable Cicchakti consists of knowledge & power. These two are obscured by mala for all sentients except one, who is eternally unlimited & pure & beyond name & form.
It is the case that the names & forms associated with that one, for the purposes of visualization & worship, happen to be the names & bodies actually possessed by deities we will call Śaiva or Raudra.
A lot of people have asked this question on various forums: "Why are there navagrahas only in Śiva temples governed by siddhānta-āgama-s?"
The answer hit me a while ago when I realized that the navagrahas worshiped by Śaiva-s are not the ones we know in this Brahmāṇḍa (which consists of this entire material universe, svarga, naraka-s, asura, rākṣasa, yakṣa, gandharva worlds, etc), which is in Pṛthivī-tattva.
From Pṛthivī-tattva (lowest of 36 tattva-s) to Puruṣa-tattva is the Aśuddhādhvan ("impure" pathway of the cosmos made of Aśuddhamāyā.
Above Aśuddhamāyā is the Śuddhādhvan (the pure pathway), which consists of Śuddhavidyā, Īśvara, Sadāśiva, Śakti and Śiva-tattvas.
In this thread, we have looked at a number of incidents from the Mahābhārata. We take 2 of them & see how Sañjaya describes or narrates them. What are the 2 incidents?
1. The battle between Arjuna & Śrīkaṇṭharudra in the form of a Kirata; and
2. The final battle between Arjuna & Karṇa, where Aśvasena manages to break Arjuna’s kirīṭa.
What does this have to do with the Śaiva view? The subject matter is Jñāna gained through Pati-Śāstra & Pati-mata (the scriptures & religion approved by Paramaśiva for our highest good) versus Jñāna gained through Paśu-Śāstra & Paśu-mata (scriptures & religions given by Paśus).
Interestingly, in Āgama sources, as I just recalled after writing this tweet 👇🏾, the 4 yugas are seen as characteristics of the Buddhi. Can we make something of this? See next tweet. ++
One may advance a view that the yuga-based narratives in Itihāsapurāṇas are those of events which have occurred in non-physical Buddhitattva in a non-physical way, with some similarities to events as they have physically transpired on earth in what we call, “historical time”.
This may also explain why we can have contradictory accounts of key Itihāsa events & yet hold them all to be simultaneously true & divine accounts. It is because events in the Buddhi, unlike earth, is not limited to a single “stage of action” at any one point in time.
On a separate note, the historically characteristic indifference of Mūla-Śaiva-Siddhāntīs (Followers of Sadyojyotis, the 2 Bhaṭṭas, Aghoraśiva, etc) towards “historical occurrence” is a good thing & Sampradāyas heavily invested in it will find it increasingly challenging.
Personality cults, events or historical claims being at the theological center (your theology becomes dependent on these) is a detriment in the long term.
If contemporary Mūla-Śaiva-Siddhānta-Ācāryas can avoid succumbing to the dominant urge to make these the lynchpins of their theology & focus purely on the Siddhānta (doctrine) & Sādhana, they will come up with something truly remarkable, a genuine counter to modern bābāisms.