Raja Raja The Great

Author(s): Anantacharya Indological Research Institute
Publisher: Anantacharya Indological Research Institute
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269195/1

Page #1

RĀJA RĀJA - THE GREAT
(Seminar Proceedings)
REPRINTS
Ananthacharya Indological Research Institute
G. D. Somani Memorial Building, Cuffe Parade, Bombay-400 005.
1987

Page #2


Page #3

113
was in answer to Sankara's denial of the authority of the Agamas. On this basiş Yāmuna justified the temple worship and rituals (Cf Agamaprāmnya).
2. Rejection of Sankara's doctrine of Advaita (monism) and expounding the doctrine of qualified monism (Visishțādvaita)
3. Rejection of Sankara’s concept of Nirguna-Brahman and description of the Lord as the embodiment of all auspicious qualities (Sarvakalyāna-guna Sampannaḥ).
4. Glorification Šri or Lakshmi as the embodiment of mercy and grace (Chatuśloki) and as complementary to the Lord.
5. Preaching of the Bhakti and prapatti-mārga as the only effective means of salvation (Stotraratna).
6. Glorification of the Tamil saints Āļvārs and their sacred hymns as revelations worthy of equal veneration. In one of the
verses in the Stotraratna, he describes Nammālvār as his father, · mother, consort, child, wealth and in short, everything. • Thus, Yāmua, following his preceptor Nāthamuni was profoundly influenced by the inspired Tamil hymns of Nammālvār and other Aļvārs and his works are replete with their teachings and ideas. Actually, some of the stanzas seem to be Sanskrit renderings of the Tamil hymns. All these ideas and precepts mentioned above inspired Rāmānuja and helped in the crystalli. şation of his philosophy. The galaxy of achāryas who followed Rāmānuja continued this tradition and expanded the Divyaprabandhas in the light of Rāmānuja's tenets. Thus, we can say that Rājarāja's period witnessed a very important and formative period in the history of Sri. Vaishnavism thanks to Yāmunāchārya's exposition. This was a prelude to a period which witnessed a new form of religion centering round the temple and the idol (arcā form) within it, reticent to the vedic orthodoxy and accepting the Āgama as also valid and authoritative, veperating Tamil saints Āļvārs and their inspired hymns as divine revelations preaching the path of devotionalism (Bhakti) and surrender which could be practised irrespective of caste status.

Page #4

Aghorasivacarya and the Dvaita School of
Saivism in Chola Period PIERRE - SYLVAIN FILLIOZAT
The importance of Saivism, i.e. not only monuments, cult and bhakti but also the philosophical doctrine of Saivasiddhanta, in Tamilnadu in Coļa period, is well-established through inscriptions. Inscriptions are indeed the best documentary source and they allow us to approach the most authentic reality in the past. But there are other documents which can be taken into consideration. Our purpose here is to present two documents of a different nature and to examine their validity and interest. .
They are two short Sanskrit texts. One is aiready known and published. It is an account which Aghoraśivācārya has himself given of religious, intellectual and even familial lineage. It is a chapter of his magnum opus, Kriyākramadyotikā, and is entitled "gotrasamtatih" (55 verses). It comes at the end of the section on mahotsavavidhi. The second document is less known because to our knowledge it is available in only one unpublished manuscript preserved in Tiruvadudurai Math, a transcript of which is in the collection of the French Institute of Pondicherry. It contains a story about the same Aghoraśivācārya and establishment of a saiva matha in Cidambaram : it is entitled "Aghoraśivācāryacaritam”.
The first text contains in the beginning an exposition of the theoretical organization of Saiva lineages, what is common to all lineages in the first 23 verses and then the particular lineage of the author, Aghoraśiva, as an example of an application of the theory. To summarize briefly the theory there are four gotras and 16 gocaras or kula, 4 gotra munis and 36 bhrātys, 4 sthānas, 15 (?) mathas and four vykşas. There is a regular correspondence between one gotra, 4 kulas, 1 muni, 9 bhrātys etc.
Then Aghoraśiva gives his own lineage. The first part is mythical. It starts from supreme Siva. From Siva residing in non-agitated kundali-sakti comes the Siva-kula which is supported by Gāyatri-sakti and which descends in Durvasas. The dwelling

Page #5

115
of rşiś who received the grace of this sage, is Āmardaka embellished by a kadamba tree. The mythical origin is thus: Šivagotra, Bharadvāji-muni, his ninth brother (bhrāty) Durvāsas, Prājāpatya-gocara, Amardakamatha, kadamba tree. Amardaka is non-mythical. Aghoraśiva says himself: "sthānam atrābhavad bhūmau bhārate mokṣasādhanam (it was a place on this earth, in Bhārata (khanda), a means to achieve liberation)". Then he gives his own guru-samtati on the human and historical level. It starts with Vyāpakaśiva, chief of Āmardaka, and hailing from Lāța. For all gurus in the line Aghoraśiva gives indications on their origin and place of residence, occasionally a few historical facts. We will see that the line covers all parts of India. The line is :
Vyäpakaśiva, residing in Āmardaka. Disciple, Sarveśapanțita from Gauţa, residing in Nilalāța (?). Disciple, Uttungaśiva from Lāța; resided in kalyāņa; author of . a paddhari; his younger brother was guru of King Bhoja
"who determined the meaning of all agamas", and who is probably the author of Tattvaprakasika and earlier than King Bhoja of Dhārā, as he is very early in the long lineage coming before Aghoraśiva in the middle of 12th century and this line may have covered more than a century which is the
distance between Aghoraśiva and King Bhoja of Dahra. Disciple, Somaśiva, of Lăța (?) Disciple Pūrņaśivācārya, honoured by a King of Vārāṇasi. Disciple, Āryottungaśiva of Āryadeśa. Disciple, Vidyeśānasiva of Āryadeśa. Disciple, Vidyāntaśiva of Codadeśa, guru of the King of :: Vārāṇasi. Disciple, Brahmaśiva of Lāța. Disciple, Mūrtisiva residing in Vijayapura. Som, Sarvātmadeśika residing in Mäyäpuri. Disciple, Srikanthaśivadeśika from Gauða. By his desire to wo see the Lord of citsabā in Cidambaram he came to Coladeśa
-

Page #6

116
and Cosa Kings, Vikrama and others, appointed him as their guru. If Vikrama Cola is referred to here, Srikanthaśiva
came to Tamilnadu in the beginning of 12th century. Disciple, Dhyanaśiva from Gauda, “skilled in commenting the
28 tantras ; honoured by a Cola King. Disciple or son, HỊdayasamkara; the relation between this guru
and the previous one is expressed by the imprecise words "tasmăd babhùya”; therefore we have no certainty about his origin; it appears that he was settled in Tamilnadu; he is the elder son of the paternal uncle of Aghoraśiva's grandfather.
The next guru which is mentioned is Parameśvara, His relation with the previous one is problematic. It is expressed by the verse : "mātulo 'smatpitus tasya kanisthah parameśvarah" If "tasya” refers to HỊdayaśamkara mentioned in the previous verse, Parameśvara appears to be a younger brother of Hşdayasamkara and the maternal uncle of Aghoraśiva's father. It implies that Aghoraśiva's grandfather had married a sister of Parameśvara, i.e. a cousin in the same gotra, If "tasya" qualifies only "asmatpituh", Parameśvara has no connection with Hrdayaśamkara, has another gotra, and is the younger brother of the mother of Aghoraśiva's father. Paramešvara is told to have received ācāryābhişeka from Dhyānaśiva and to have resided in Kanci. Aghoraśiva has a special reverence for him and for Hrdayasamkara He eulogizes them in longer verses, vasantatilkā and sārdūlavikridita. He probably received dikşi from Paramesvara as he qualifies him as madbandhavicchedaka. He had himself the name Parameśvara, Aghoraśiva being his dikșa name.
At the end Aghoraśiva introduces his own Kriyakramad yotikā by saying that he has composed it after the model of his spiritual ancestors, of Uttungapaddhati, Siddhäntasarāvali and the teachings of Sarvātmaśiva. The final verses give the date of composition in saka era, 1080/1158 A.D. and describes the paddhati as composed in 3500 granthus at the order of his guru.
The second document to be presented here is entitled "Grimad aghoraśivācāryacaritam”but it also claims to be an extract of a larger text of puranic nature “cidambarasāre brahmānandaśamkarayatiśvarasamyāde". Therefore no composer is acknow

Page #7

117
ledged for it. It is not found in the different mahātmyas and legendary accounts of Cidambaram. Nor is a Cihdmbarasāra known to us. And we may suspect that it is in fact an independent text asserting its subordination to the literature devoted to the glorification of the holy place. It is very short. What we have consists in 31 anustubh verses We suspect that there is a lacuna in the unique manuscript, as we shall see below.
It narrates the following story. A teacher explains to his disciples the story of a matha situated outside the temple of Cidambaram, to the South-East of it. There were in Cidambaram Trisahasra brahmins who followed the cult of Națesa and won fame for their generosity in giving food to all. Durvāsas, the irascible sage, wants to test it. He goes to Tilvaranya when everybody is asleep. He approaches the linga worshipped by Seșa and asks three times for bhikṣā. No woman comes to give him food, because of sleep. He gets angry and begins to say some derogatory sentences about Tilvaraṇya. At that moment Nrttaganapati thinks of his mother...
Here there must be a lacuna in the manuscript, because without continuity, we come to a scene in which Durvāsas receives the desired bhikṣā, recognizes Gauri and worships her. It implies that in the gap Gauri had appeared for some reason determined by Ganapati. Then it is told that Gauri addresses Durvāsas, asking him to instal in this place his disciple, as a naişthikabrahmacārin, with the name Aghoraśiva, so that he will give dik şā to śūdra devotees. At the behest of Gauri Durvāsas builds a residence and with the necessary preparations performs the pattabhişeka of Aghoraśiva. Then he brings his disciple in the citsabha, accomplishes different worships of the god in front of Trisahasra brahmins. Then he returns to the house, instals a linga and asks Aghoraśiva to worship it and, after studying the dgamas, to establish the rule of linga mūrtis and sakti worship, the rules of different dikşās for twice-borns and for sūdras. Aghoraśiva obeỳs the order of his guru and composes the Kriyakramadyotikā.
An important detail is the mention of the date of the abhişeka. The details of the date are given is : śrimukha year, śuklapakşa, pusyanakṣatra, 5th tithi, vaisakha month, Thursday. In Swami

Page #8

118
kannu Pillai's Ephemeris we find all these details, with the exception of the nakşatra, occurring on Thursday 10th April 153. We have seen that the date of composition of the paddhati is 1158.
Now we may examine the historical validity of these two documents. It is clear that they contain a large part of myth. But when Aghoraśiva gives himself the history of his family and his religious lineage at a not-too-far-away distance in the past, we have no reasons to doubt the historicity of the tradition he records. There is no impossibility or inadequacy in his account. The other text has certainly taken more distance from reality. But still we find in it some interesting historical information, by interpreting the myth as a mythical transposition of some reality. There is in Cidambaram still now, a matha which claims to have been established by Aghoraśiva. This text has certainly been composed there. When we compare its contents with the gotrasamtati of Aghoraśiva, we see that the guru of acāryābhiseka who is actually Paramešvara, has been transposed into the mythical sage Durvāsas. And Durvāsas has been selected, because he is the original sage of the mythical lineage. The installation of the matha may be accepted as a historical fact. Its date fits well with the date of composition of the paddhati. The present matha which claims to have been established by Aghoraśiva is connected with a temple of Ananteśvara. This reminds us of the "Linga worshipped by Sesa" near which the story of Durvāsas and the establishment of the matha are located in the text.
We have thus enough corroborations to accept these two texts as documents for history. And we may infer some historical value of the line of gurus given by Aghoraśiva, a few of these names, such as King Bhoja being known by their works or by other sources. An interesting point which can be drawn from Aghoraśiva's gotrasamtati is that the Saivasiddhānta movement spread all over India. The Amardaka-matha was not the only one. The Golaki-matha has had in the same and later periods a great number of ramifications from Central India upto the South The presence and activities of these mathas in Tamilnadu is one of the great contributions of this land to the overall Saiva movement.

Page #9

119
The name of Saivasiddhānta is primarily attached to the group of 28 āgamas beginning with Kāmika. The basic āgamas are mainly manuals of religious practice. Their main purpose is to describe the activities of devotees, i. e. their private rituals or temple rituals. The doctrine contained in vidyāpādas is the formulation of the basic principles, the theory of creation, the six adhyans etc. which have an application in rituals. It is presented at length only in a few āgamas or upāgams. Because of their practical destination agamas do not contain much of philosophical matter. And the activities in the temple can be conducted without adoption of particular ontological views.
The important development of philosophical speculation in Saivasiddhānta is found in a later stage of the literature. It appears to be the contribution of saivācāryas residing in mathas. Philosophical matter is presented mostly in commentaries on āgamas and in short treatises or prakaraṇas generally written in a very refined and polished literary form. The best part of it seems to have been written in Kaśmir in 10th and 11th century. The prominent figure in Kashmirian Saivasiddhanta is Bhatta Rämakantha, a great sõstrin and polemist. He has defended with great dialectical power his dualistic and realistic doctrine against the idealistic views of Buddhists. The contribution of Tamilnadu to the same movement is equally important and it occurred through the person of Aghoraśivācārya.
We cannot speak of Saivasidhānta as a unitary doctrine. There are basic principles common to all authors. But there are also many differing fundamental ontological views, so that every author has to be examined with care. Aghoraśiva has written several commentaries on prakaranas of Sadyojyoti and Rāmakantha, and an important sub-commentary on Mygendrāgama's vidyāpāda, to mention only those works of his which are available to us. His style is very clear and his thought very well systematized. Sometimes he is really forcing the interpretation of an original text he claims to explain. These passages are particularly interesting for the historian, because in such cases the originality of the commentator appears more clearly. To show the originality of Aghoraśiva we have to compare his conceptions with those of his predecessors. I may give as an example his conception of fattvas or fundamental entities of creation.

Page #10

120
In āgamas there is no established number of tativas It varies from āgama to āgama Rautavāgama's vidyāpada gives several times a list of 30 lattvas. It enumerates 28 material tattvas, the well-known 24 of Sāmkhya school and, above that, rāga, vidyā, kalā and the basic māyā. Two more tastvas are spiritual entities, Siva and Puruşa Rauravāgama knows also several spiritual entities such as Mantreśvaras, Mantras, Rudras headed by Virabhadra, etc. He introduces them as emanating from Siva, Siva being their material cause (upādānakāraṇa). Thus in Rauravagama the difference between matter and Siva is clearly marked. But nothing is told nor can be directly inferned about the relation of Puruşa and Siva
Sadyojyoti an early ācārya (before Somānanda of 9th cent.), has written a Tattvasamgraha which is an exposition of the contents of Rauravāgama on the subject of tativas. He gives the same number and list. He presents a more definite ontological position. He upholds a view according to which there is complete difference between matter and Siva. Siva is made of cit which is kriya and jñana, Cit is that by which a being is animate and has knowledge. Matter or māyā is acit and it is an eternal entity, having the same deree of reality as cit entities. Sadyojyoti is the first ācārya to assert with clarity this realism and dualism.
Chronologically we find next the Tattvaprakāśika of King Bhoja on the same subject. This text gives a list of 36 tattvas, adding kāla and niyati in the material sphere and a few spiritual entities, Śakti, Sadāśiva, Is vara and Suddhavidyā at the top of the scale. Bhoja accepts the dualism of cit and acit, but he admits in the scale of tattvas spiritual entities above the material ones.
Aghoraśiva has commented on these two Prakaraņas. In spite of the difference between the two, in spite of their unequal number of tattvas, he interprets them as presenting the same conception. In addition to this he makes an important modification in the doctrine. He conceives the scale of tattvas as comprising only acit or material entities. His dualism is extreme. The cit principle Siva is only an efficient cause (karty). It cannot be a material cause (upādānakāraṇa) and cannot have any contact with matter. Therefore it cannot have any place in the scale of

Page #11

121
creation. In a realistic view where the matter principle is an eternal entity, creation is not the making of new entities, it is only a process of transformation Now Aghora has to comment a text which places pure spiritual entities in the scale of tattvas of creation He interprets that the name Šiva denotes bindu or mahama ya, a duplicate of måyå in the pure sphere at the top of the scale, that the name Sakti denotes nada, the primordial sound conceived as matter and first evolute of mahamäyä, etc.
Bhoja defines sivatartva as : ..“ vyāpakam ekam nityam akhilasya tattvajātasya /
jñānakriyāsvabhāvam śivatattvam jagadur ācaryāḥ || “Teachers have told that Sivatativa is all-pervasive, unique, eternal, cause of all the class of tattvas and having the nature of knowledge and action." :
Aghoraśiva reads the words of this definition as referring to the pure material entity bindu. The words vyapaka, etc. can be applied to this material entity. But "jñánakriyasvabhāvam" in its obvious sense of bahuvrihi compound "whose nature is knowledge and action” cannot be applied to matter. Therefore Aghoraśiva takes it as an upapadasamasa of a kydanta,-bhava with two upapadas, one signifying the object (karman) jñanakriya-, the other signifying the location (adhikaraña) sva-: "jñānakriye svasmin sthite ātmanām bhāvayatiti (it makes the knowledge and action of souls to be placed in itself)". It means that matter allows the powers of knowledge and action of souls to stand in itself. The separation of cit and acit is thus preserved. * Aghoraśiva is a sāstrin. He uses etymology for the purpose of asserting his dualistic conception. He uses logic to establish on rational grounds all his concepts. He has not devoted much of his talent to polemics with rival schools. His main contribution is the sytematizing and establishment of an extreme form dualism with the instrument of Sanskrit sastras. The main trend of ancient Saivasiddhānta is dualistic. But I have not seen in any other author such an extreme and systematic form exposition. This conception of tattvas as pure material entities, even at the top of the scale, does not appear in other authors. Saiyasiddhānta is an original and independent system with

Page #12

122
dualistic and realistic inclinations directly opposed to the general monistic and idealistic trends of other systems And in Saivasiddhanta Aghorasiva stands as an extremist drawing the dualistic and realistic tendency to its farthest' consequences.
To conclude a word has to be told on the influence of Aghorasiva. His influence has been maintained upto our days in the field of rituals, by his Paddhati which is still remembered and used by priests in temples of Tamilnadu. Many manuscripts of his Kriyakramadyotika, complete or in the form of extracts, are found only in South India, especially in Tamilnadu, unlike manuscripts of Somasambhupaddhati, which has been current in Tamilnāḍu but also elsewhere in India, as manuscripts of it are found in Kasmir and Nepal. In the field of the doctrine AghoraŚiva does not seem to have been followed. The prominent trend after him is also a kind of dualism, but blended with monism. The main movement is that which has its origins in the Sanskrit agamic literature, but which has taken Tamil as a medium of exposition, from the time of Meykanḍadevar in 13th century. It has different ontological foundations.
Tamil Saivasiddhanta literature is a great contribution of Tamilnadu. Earlier in Cola times Tamilnadu had already contributed a lot to the history of Saivasiddhanta and produced the most extreme and pure form of the doctrine in the philosophical works of Aghoraśivacārya.
Appendix.
We give below the text of the Aghorasivacāryacaritam from a transcript preserved in the French Institute of Pondicherry, of the unique known manuscript belonging to Tiruvadudurai Math
Cidambarasåre brahmanandaśamkarayatiśvarasamvade
śrimadaghoraśivācāryacaritam
yatra pratiṣṭhitam lingam patanjalimahātmanā tatra gatvă mahādevam siṣyaiḥ sākam yatiiśvaraḥ // 1 // phalapuspakṣatair gandhaiḥ samabhyarcya yathāvidhi dvārād bahiḥ samagacchan brahmanandayatiśvaraḥ // 2 || "śivalayasya purato vahnikone virājitam
dṛśyamānam idam sthanam visņor va samkarasya va // 3 //

Page #13

123
iti teṣām vacaḥ śrutvā tatkathām gurur abravit trisahasramunindraś ca cidambarapure vare ||4|| śrautasmārtā dikarmāņi prakurvanto yathāvidhi naṭeśārādhanam kṛtvā vedenoditavartmanā || 5 ||
tatragatebhyaḥ sarvebhyo dvijātibhyo yathākramam tebhyo 'nnam samprayacchanti nivasanti dvijottamāḥ // 6 //
samtatam sarvavarṇebhyo dadaty annam cidambaram evam vadanti lokeṣu [manu] gandharvanirjarah || 7 || durvāsās tadvacaḥ śrutvā siṣyeņa sahito muniḥ annadanaparikṣārtham sarvalokeṣu viśrutam // 8 // suşupteşu ca sarveṣu tilvaranyam samāyayau śeṣapujitalingasya nikate munipumgavaḥ || 9 ||
bhavati bhikṣām dehīti trivāram samudirayat bhikṣām dātum kāpi nārî nāyayau nidrayā tayā // 10 // munis tadānim durvāsāḥ kopasamtaptamānasah "tilvaranyerkabhūyiṣṭhasamam tat paridṛśyate // 11 //
iti purvam samuccārya cottaram gaditum tataḥ na vidyate śivas tilva iti vaktum samudyataḥ // 12 //
tada nṛttagaṇādhyakṣaḥ svamataram acintayat bhikṣām ādāya tam gauri iti matva mudānvitaḥ || 13 ||
pradakṣiņanamaskaraih stotraih sampujya sādaram murdhāñjaliputas tiṣṭhan sivakāmim hṛdā smaran // 14 //
gaury uvāca
"he vatsa śṛņu bhadram te lokānugrahakāriņam aghoraśivanāmānam naiṣṭhikabrahmacāriņam // 15 // Sivagamarthatattvajñam tvacchisyam śuddhamana [sa] m śūdrāṇam śivabhaktānām dikṣām kartu m yathvāidhi // 16 //
asmin sthale sthāpaya [tvam] bhaktānām hitakāmyayā " ity uktväntardadhe gauri cidambarasabhāntare // 17 || sasisyo munisārudūlas tām diśam sampranamya ca samkalpya vāsasadanam sarvālamkaraśobhitam // 18 //
grham praviśya vidhivad vāstuśāntipurashsaram śrimukhābdę śuklapakṣe puşyarkṣe pañcamitithau // 19/

Page #14
124 vaisakhe guruvare ca subhalagnasamanvite gauryas cajnam htdi dhyatva durvaso munipumgavah || 20 || sambhitya sambharan anayitva rsin tatah . pastabhisekam akarod aghorasivanamakam 1/ 2111 tatah sisyam samaniya citsathayam munisvarah puspanjalim karayitva trisahasramunisvaraih || 22 11 natesasya natesasyai ca phaladini nivedya ca cidambaram dars'ayitva nirajanapurahsaram || 23 // sivarpita sankhatoyair elagandhadhivasitajh proksayitva sisyamurdhni devasya tveti mantratah // 24 // aghorasivacarya iti namadheyam cakara sah trisahasramunindrebhyah svarnapuspam samarpya ca // 25 || pradaksinanamaskaraih prinayitva sathapatim tatah svamasramam prapya sasisyo munipumgavah || 26 // tatra lingam pratisthapya samabhyarcya yathavidhi "aghorasiva he vatsa lingam enam supujaya || 27 || sivadvijanam sarvesam sudranam ca yathavidhi diksanam samayadinam tattadvarnanusaratah || 28 // inganam sivaberanam saktinam ca tathaiva ca agamani samalokya paddhatih kuru suvrata " || 29 || ity uktva sthapayamasa naisshikabrahmacarinam tatah kailasam agamat pancaksaraparayanah || 30 || tathaiva paddhatim krtva diksakarma karoti ca caritram sivabhaktasya bhaktanam avadad guruh // 31 //