________________
69
XXXVI]
Philosophy of Saivism is entirely different from the view of Vijñāna Bhikṣu as expressed in the Vijñānāmrta-bhāşya, a commentary on the Brahma-sūtra in which he tries to establish a view well known in the Purāņas, that the prakrti and the puruşa are abiding entities outside God and are co-existent with Him; they are moved by God for the production of the universe, for the teleological purposes of enjoyment and experience of the puruṣas, and ultimately lead the puruṣas to liberation beyond bondage. It may not be out of place here to refer to the commentary of Sankara on the Brahma-sūtra (II. 2. 37 et seq.) where he tried to refute a Saiva doctrine which regards God as the instrumental cause that transforms the prakṣti to form the universe, a view somewhat similar to that found in the Vijñānām;ta-bhāsya of Vijñāna Bhikṣu. This Saiva view seems to have been entirely different from the Saiva view expressed by Srikantha, expressly based on the traditions of the twenty-eight yogācāryas beginning with Sveta. Lord Siva, the supreme personal God, is regarded as fulfilling all our desires, or rather our beneficent wishes. This idea is brought out by Appaya in his somewhat fanciful etymology of the word 'siva,' a twofold derivation from the root vaša and from the word 'śiva' meaning good.
Srikantha adores the first teacher of the Saiva thought and regards him (Sveta) as having made the various Agamas. But we do not know what these Agamas were. Appaya in his commentary is also uncertain about the meaning of the word 'nānāgamavidhāyine.' He gives two alternative interpretations. In one he suggests that the early teacher Sveta had resolved the various contradictions of the Upanişadic texts, and had originated a system of Saiva thought which may be properly supported by the Upanisadic texts. In the second interpretation he suggests that the word 'nānāgama-vidhāyine,' that is, he who has produced the various Agamas, only means that the system of Sveta was based on the various Saivāgamas. In such an interpretation we are not sure whether these Agamas were based on the Upanişads or on other vernacular Dravidian texts, or on both.1 In commenting upon the bhāsya of Sankara on the Brahma-sūtra (II. 2. 37), Vācaspati says in his Bhāmatī that the systems known as Saiva,
asmin pakşe 'nānāgama-vidhāyinā'ity
asya nānāvidha-pāśupatādy-āgama-nirmātrā ity arthaḥ. Appaya's commentary on Srikantha's bhāsya (Bombay, 1908), Vol. 1, p. 6.
