Indian Philosophy

SR No.: 001545
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sukhlal Sanghavi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1977
Total Pages: 128
Language: English
Classification: Book_English & Philosophy
File Size: 9 MB

Page 111

The Views Regarding God and the Doctrine of Brahman
103
For this Śrıkantha employs the technical term 'samavayi-cause', Srikanthā. cārya says that the texts called Agamas which did away with the so many contradictions that were vitiating Upanişads and which thus revealed their true essential-meaning were composed by the Saiva teacher named Sveta. And there arose twenty-seven Saiva teachers even after Sveta. Srikantha's claim is that his bhāşya is composed in conformity to the Agamas in question; and lastly on the basis of so many Upanişadic texts on the one hand and Purānas and Smộtis on the other. He establishes that Maheģyara himself is the Supreme Brahman. And the same Brahman is designated by so many names like Śiva, Śarya, Bhava, Maheśvara, Iśāna etc. etc.
Śrikanthācārya has attributed to Brahman the status of God in the form of Siva, and that too by treating Him as a material-cause as well as an efficient cause of the world. Thus he has given expression to his difference of opinion in relation to Nakulīša, Pāśupata, Nyāya-Vaišeşika etc. who would treat Maheśvara as a mere efficient-cause of the world. Though he has written bbäsya on Brahmasūtra, yet it appears that he bases himself on so many Śaiva Āgamas, There is no clarity on the question as to whether these Saiya Āgamas were originally composed on the basis of Upanişads or on the basis of texts written in some Dravadian language, but it appears that he did have before him several Saiva Āgamas that reflected the ideas contained in Upanişads.
Śrıkaņtha too has had to answer one question. Thus in the second sub-section of the second section of Brahmasūtra there occurs a topic beginning with 'patyur asāmañjasyat', a topic in the course of commenting on which sankarācārya refutes the view upheld by four types of Mābešvaras on the ground that they treat Mabesvara as a mere efficient-cause of the world and not also its material-cause - so that the view is not a doct. rine of Brahman. Now there arose occasion for these aphorisms to be co
ed on by Srikantha himself who, being a Saiva master, was out to write a bhäsya where Brahman was identical with Siva; and it was in the context of these aphorisms that the Saiva view was refuted by so many masters like Śankarācārya etc. So what ought to be done in a context like this ? - this was the question which presented itself before Śrskantha. Being himself a Saiva he could not follow Sankarācārya etc. in interpreting the set of aphorisms in question as one intended to refute the Mahesvara view. So he adopted a different path of his own. Thus Srikantha submitted that the Māheśyara view sought to be refuted in the set of aphorisms in question represents the view upheld by a sub-section of Saivas. That is to say, on Srikantha's view there were also such-Saivas as would treat Mah. eśvara as a mere cfficient cause of the world. Hence Śrikantha too, following in the footsteps of the masters like Sankarācārya etc., refutes in the context of the present aphorisms the view upheld by a sub-section of sai