Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Philosophy v5: Volume 5

A History of Indian Philosophy v5

Language
English

Contents

Volume 5

Front matter

v5.c46.2

This image contains a blank page with no printed text or elements to transcribe.

v5.c46.3

The page is completely blank.

v5.c46.4

OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY

v5.c46.5

BY THE LATE SURENDRANATH DASGUPTA

v5.c46.6

VOLUME V SOUTHERN SCHOOLS OF ŚAIVISM

v5.c46.7

CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

v5.c46.8

PUBLISHED BY THE SYNDICS OF THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

v5.c46.9

London Office: Bentley House, N.W. 1 American Branch: New York

v5.c46.10

Agents for Canada, India, and Pakistan: Macmillan

v5.c46.11

*Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge* *(Brooke Crutchley, University Printer)*

Surendranath Dasgupta: A Memoir

v5.c47.2

THE late Surendranath Dasgupta was born in Kusthia, a subdivision of Bengal, in October 1885 (10th of Āśvina). He came from a well-known family in Goila, District Barishal, East Bengal. This family was particularly known for its great tradition of Sanskrit learning and culture. His great-grandfather was a distinguished scholar and also a Vaidya (physician of the Ayurvedic school of medicine). He was known by his title "Kavīndra", and was running a Sanskrit institution known as "Kavīndra College", which continued in existence up to the time of the partition of India in 1947. This institution maintained about 150 students with free board and lodging, and taught Kāvya, Grammar, Nyāya, Vedānta and Āyurveda in traditional Indian style. Professor Dasgupta's father, Kaliprasanna Dasgupta, was the only member of the family who learnt English and took up the job of a surveyor.

v5.c47.3

In his early years, between five and eight, while he did not know any Sanskrit, he showed certain remarkable gifts of answering philosophical and religious questions in a very easy and spontaneous manner. He could demonstrate the various Yogic postures (*āsanas*); and used to pass easily into trance states, while looking at the river Ganges or listening to some Kirtan song. He was visited by hundreds of learned men and pious saints at his father's residence at Kalighat and was styled "Khoka Bhagawan" (Child God). Mention may particularly be made of Srimat Bijay Krishna Goswami, Prabhu Jagat Bandhu and Sivanarayan Paramhansa. He was sometimes taken to the Theosophical Society, Calcutta, where a big audience used to assemble, and the boy was put on the table and questioned on religious and theological matters. The answers that he gave were published in the Bengali and English newspapers along with the questions. Some of these are still preserved.

v5.c47.4

He was educated at Diamond Harbour for a time, and then for seven years in the Krishnagar Collegiate School and College. He was interested in Sanskrit and science alike, and surprised the professor of chemistry by his proficiency in the subject so much that he never taught in the class unless his favourite pupil was present. He took his M.A. degree from Sanskrit College, Calcutta, in 1908. His fellow-students noticed with interest his habits and peculiarities. He took no care of his clothes and hair; he studied on a mat with a pillow for his table; and his place was littered with books and papers. Though he did not talk very much, he already had a reputation for scholarship when he was an M.A. student at the Sanskrit College. His scholarship in Pāṇini was so great that when even his teachers had differences of opinion about a grammatical matter, he was called out of his class to solve it. His first research work on Nyāya, which was written while he was in the Sanskrit College, was read out before the Paṇḍits, and was very highly appreciated by them and the then Principal, the late Mahamahopadhyaya H. P. Sastri. Incidentally it may be noted that Nyāya was not one of the subjects of his M.A. curriculum. After his childhood, both as a student and as a young man, he had many striking religious and spiritual experiences, which were known to a group of his intimate friends and admirers.

v5.c47.5

One of the peculiar traits of Dasgupta was that he seldom wished to learn anything from others. He had an inner pride that led him to learn everything by his own efforts. He never wanted any stimulus from outside. Whenever he took up any work, he threw his whole soul and being into it. He passed his M.A. in Philosophy in 1910, as a private candidate, summarising all the prescribed books in his own way. He was twice offered a state scholarship to study Sanskrit in a scientific manner in Europe, but as he was the only child of his parents, he refused out of consideration for their feelings. He began his service at Rajshahi College as an officiating lecturer in Sanskrit. He was soon provided with a permanent professorship at Chittagong College, where he worked from 1911 to 1920 and from 1922 to 1924.

v5.c47.6

Chittagong was to him like a place of banishment, being far away from the great libraries of Calcutta. The College was newly started and had none of the facilities that it possesses now. But Dasgupta had taken the resolution that he would dedicate himself to the study of the Indian “Śāstras” in their entirety. For him to take a resolution was to accomplish it, and while many of his colleagues enjoyed club life in an easy-going manner, he continued his studies for fourteen hours or more a day, in spite of the teasing of his friends. At this time Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi of Cassimbazar made an offer of 300 rupees a month for Dasgupta to start his library; this is now one of the best of its kind, containing many unpublished manuscripts and over 15,000 printed books. It was given by him as a gift to the Benares Hindu University on his retirement from the Calcutta University. Love of knowledge seems to have been the guiding passion of the professor's life. He never sought position or honour, though they were showered upon him in quick succession in his later days. He had a unique sincerity of purpose and expression, and the light that came from his soul impressed kindred souls.

v5.c47.7

When Lord Ronaldshay, the Governor of Bengal, came to visit Chittagong College, he had a long talk with Professor Dasgupta in his classroom, and was so much impressed by it that he expressed the desire that the first volume of the *History of Indian Philosophy* might be dedicated to him. Originally Dasgupta's plan was to write out the history of Indian systems of thought in one volume. Therefore he tried to condense the materials available within the compass of one book. But as he went on collecting materials from all parts of India, a huge mass of published and unpublished texts came to light, and the plan of the work enlarged more and more as he tried to utilise them. As a matter of fact, his was the first and only attempt to write out in a systematic manner a history of Indian thought directly from the original sources in Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit. In a work of the fourteenth century A.D., the *Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha* of Mādhavācārya, we find a minor attempt to give a survey of the different philosophical schools of India. But the account given there is very brief, and the work does not give an exhaustive survey of all the different systems of philosophy. In the present series the author traced, in a historical and critical manner, the development of Indian thought in its different branches from various sources, a considerable portion of which lies in unpublished manuscripts. He spared no pains and underwent a tremendous amount of drudgery in order to unearth the sacred, buried treasures of Indian thought. He revised his original plan of writing only one volume and thought of completing the task in five consecutive volumes constituting a series. He shouldered this gigantic task all alone, with the sincerest devotion and unparalleled enthusiasm and zeal.

v5.c47.8

Dasgupta had taken the Griffith Prize in 1916 and his doctorate in Indian Philosophy in 1920. Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandi now urged him to go to Europe to study European philosophy at its sources, and generously bore all the expenses of his research tour (1920–22). Dasgupta went to England and distinguished himself at Cambridge as a research student in philosophy under Dr McTaggart. During this time the Cambridge University Press published the first volume of the *History of Indian Philosophy* (1921). He was also appointed lecturer at Cambridge, and nominated to represent Cambridge University at the International Congress of Philosophy in Paris. His participation in the debates of the Aristotelian Society, London, the leading philosophical society of England, and of the Moral Science Club, Cambridge, earned for him the reputation of being an almost invincible controversialist. Great teachers of philosophy like Ward and McTaggart, under whom he studied, looked upon him not as their pupil but as their colleague. He received his Cambridge doctorate for an elaborate thesis on contemporary European philosophy. The impressions that he had made by his speeches and in the debates at the Paris Congress secured for him an invitation to the International Congress at Naples in 1924, where he was sent as a representative of the Bengal Education Department and of the University of Calcutta; later on, he was sent on deputation by the Government of Bengal to the International Congress at Harvard in 1926. In that connection he delivered the Harris Foundation lectures at Chicago, besides a series of lectures at about a dozen other Universities of the United States and at Vienna, where he was presented with an illuminated address and a bronze bust of himself. He was invited in 1925 to the second centenary of the Academy of Science, Leningrad, but he could not attend for lack of Government sanction. In 1935, 1936 and 1939 he was invited as visiting professor to Rome, Milan, Breslau, Königsberg, Berlin, Bonn, Cologne, Zürich, Paris, Warsaw and England.

v5.c47.9

While in Rome he delivered at the International Congress of Science in 1936 an address on the Science of Ancient India with such success that shouts of “Grand’ uomo” cheered him through the session of the day. This led eventually to the conferment of the Honorary D.Litt. upon him by the University of Rome in 1939. He was on that occasion a state guest in Rome and military honours were accorded to him. At this time he read out before many cultured societies English translations of his own Bengali verses called *Vanishing Lines*. The appreciation that these verses received secured for him a special reception and banquet at the Poets’ Club. Before this, only two other Indian poets had been accorded this reception: Tagore and Mrs Naidu. Laurence Binyon spoke of his poems in the following terms: “I am impressed by the richness of imagination which pervades the poems and the glow of mystic faith and fervent emotion—reminding me of one of William Blake’s sayings: ‘Exuberance is beauty’. It would be a great pity if the poems are not published in English.”

v5.c47.10

The University of Warsaw made him an honorary Fellow of the Academy of Sciences. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. The Société des Amis du Monde of Paris offered him a special reception, and M. Renou, Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Paris, wrote to him afterwards: “While you were amongst us, we felt as if a Śaṅkara or a Patañjali was born again and moved amongst us.” Kind and simple and gentle as he was, Dasgupta was always undaunted in challenging scholars and philosophers. In the second International Congress of Philosophy in Naples, the thesis of his paper was that Croce’s philosophy had been largely anticipated by some forms of Buddhism, and that where Croce differed he was himself in error. On account of internal differences Croce had no mind to join the Congress, but the fact that Dasgupta was going to challenge his philosophy and prove it to be second-hand in open congress, induced him to do so. In the same way he challenged Vallée Poussein, the great Buddhist scholar, before a little assembly presided over by McTaggart. In the meetings of the Aristotelian Society he was a terror to his opponents, his method of approach being always to point out their errors. He inflicted this treatment on many other scholars, particularly Steherbatsky and Levy.

v5.c47.11

Disinterested love of learning and scientific accuracy were his watchwords. He had to make a most painstaking tour of South India to collect materials for his great *History*. Though he was well known as a scholar of Sanskrit and philosophy, his studies in other subjects, such as physics, biology, anthropology, history, economics, political philosophy, etc. are very considerable. Above all, he developed a new system of thought which was entirely his own. A brief account of this appeared in *Contemporary Indian Philosophy* edited by Radhakrishnan and Muirhead and published by Allen and Unwin.

v5.c47.12

In 1924, as a mark of recognition of his scholarship, he was admitted to I.E.S. service in Calcutta Presidency College and was posted as Head of the Department of Philosophy. In 1931 he became Principal of the Government Sanskrit College, Calcutta, and *ex-officio* Secretary of the Bengal Sanskrit Association. In the latter capacity he had to arrange about 218 papers in Sanskrit for Sanskrit Title Examinations for about ten thousand candidates coming from all parts of India. During the eleven years of his principalship in Sanskrit College he had worked in various ways for the advancement of Sanskrit learning and culture in India.

v5.c47.13

In 1942 he retired from Sanskrit College and was appointed King George V Professor of Mental and Moral Science in the University of Calcutta. He worked there for three years and delivered the Stephanos Nirmalendu lectures on the history of religions. He had been suffering from heart trouble since 1940, but was still carrying on his various activities and research work. In 1945 he retired from the Calcutta University and was offered the Professorship of Sanskrit at Edinburgh which had fallen vacant after the death of Professor Keith. The doctors also advised a trip to England. On his arrival in England he fell ill again. In November 1945 he delivered his last public lecture on Hinduism in Trinity College, Cambridge. Since then he was confined to bed with acute heart trouble. He stayed in England for five years (1945–50). Even then he published the fourth volume of his *History of Indian Philosophy* at the Cambridge University Press, the *History of Sanskrit Literature* at Calcutta University, *Rabindranath the Poet and Philosopher* with his Calcutta publishers, and a book on aesthetics in Bengali. In 1950 he returned to Lucknow.

v5.c47.14

In 1951, through friendly help given by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, he started writing the fifth and final volume of the *History of Indian Philosophy*. He had also planned to write out his own system of philosophy in two volumes. His friends and students requested him several times to complete the writing of his own thought first. But he looked upon his work on Indian philosophy as the sacred mission of his life, and thought himself to be committed to that purpose. His love of his mother country and all that is best in it always had precedence over his personal aspirations.

v5.c47.15

With strong determination and unwavering devotion he brought his life's mission very near its completion. Till the last day of his life he was working for this, and completed one full section just a few hours before his passing away, on 18 December 1952. Even on this last day of his life, he worked in the morning and afternoon on the last chapter of the section of Southern Śaivism. He passed away peacefully at eight in the evening while discussing problems of modern psychology. All his life he never took rest voluntarily and till his end he was burning like a fire, full of zeal and a rare brightness of spirit for the quest of knowledge.

v5.c47.16

His plan of the fifth volume was as follows:
(1) Southern Schools of Śaivism.
(2) Northern Schools of Śaivism.
(3) Philosophy of Grammar.
(4) Philosophy of some of the Selected Tantras. Of these the first was to be the largest section and covers more than a third of the proposed work according to his own estimate. He collected manuscripts from various sources from Southern India and completed his survey of the different schools of Southern Śaivism. This is now being published by the Cambridge University Press.

v5.c47.17

Another aspect of his life, which showed itself in trances and in deep unswerving devotion and faith in his Lord, never left him. These were manifest in him even as a child, and continued all through his life. In trials and troubles and sorrows he was fearless and undaunted. In difficulties he had his indomitable will to conquer; he bore all his sufferings with patience and fortitude. His faith in God sustained him with an unusual brightness and cheerfulness of spirit. He never prayed, as he thought there was no need of it since his dearest Lord was shining in his heart with sweetness, love and assurance. That is why in different critical stages of his illness he never gave up hope, and tried to cheer up his worried wife and attending doctors. It was through sheer determination and unshaken faith that he carried out his life's mission nearly to completion when God took him away—maybe for some purpose known to him alone.

v5.c47.18

It now remains to thank the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press for the very kind interest that they have shown in the publication of this fifth volume of the *History of Indian Philosophy* by my husband. The Indian Government have permitted me to complete the remaining portion of the work as planned by the author. It is a great task and a very sacred obligation that I owe to my husband, both as his disciple and wife, and I do not know how far I shall be able to fulfil it. It all depends on God's will. But the work as it stands now is self-complete and will serve the need of enquiring minds about the different important schools of Śaivism from the beginning of the Christian era. The references to texts and manuscripts have been duly checked. I beg the forgiveness of readers for any mistake that might remain.

v5.c47.19

SURAMA DASGUPTA

v5.c47.20

*University of Lucknow, India* *19 June 1954*

v5.c47.21

CHAPTER XXXIV

v5.c47.22

LITERATURE OF SOUTHERN ŚAIVISM

v5.c47.23

| | | PAGE |
| 1 | The Literature and History of Southern Śaivism . . . . | 1 |
| 2 | The Āgama Literature and its Philosophical Perspective . . . | 20 |
| 3 | *Śiva-jñāna-bodha* by Meykaṇḍadeva . . . . . | 24 |
| 4 | *Mātaṅga-parameśvara-tantra* . . . . . . | 28 |
| 5 | *Pauṣkarāgama* . . . . . . . . | 29 |
| 6 | *Vātulāgama* . . . . . . . . | 38 |
| 7 | *Vātula-tantram* . . . . . . . | 38 |

v5.c47.24

CHAPTER XXXV

v5.c47.25

VĪRA-ŚAIVISM

v5.c47.26

| 1 | History and Literature of Vīra-śaivism . . . . . | 42 |
| 2 | *Anubhava-sūtra* of Māyi-deva . . . . . . | 61 |

v5.c47.27

CHAPTER XXXVI

v5.c47.28

PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRĪKAṆṬHA

v5.c47.29

| 1 | Philosophy of Śaivism as expounded by Śrīkaṇṭha in his Commentary on the *Brahma-sūtra* and the Sub-commentary on it by Appaya Dīkṣita . . . . . . . . | 65 |
| 2 | The Nature of Brahman . . . . . . . | 77 |
| 3 | Moral Responsibility and the Grace of God . . . . | 85 |

v5.c47.30

CHAPTER XXXVII

v5.c47.31

THE ŚAIVA PHILOSOPHY IN THE PURĀṆAS

v5.c47.32

| 1 | The Śaiva Philosophy in the *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa* . . . . | 96 |
| 2, 3 | Śaiva Philosophy in the *Vāyavīya-saṃhitā* of the *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa* | |
| | Section 1 . . . . . . . . . | 106 |
| | Section 2 . . . . . . . . . | 118 |

v5.c47.33

CHAPTER XXXVIII

v5.c47.34

ŚAIVA PHILOSOPHY IN SOME OF THE IMPORTANT TEXTS

v5.c47.35

| | | PAGE |
| 1 | The Doctrine of the *Pāśupata-sūtras* | 130 |
| 2 | The Śaiva Ideas of Māṇikka-vāchakar in *Tiru-vāchaka* | 149 |
| 3 | Māṇikka-vāchakar and Śaiva Siddhānta | 154 |
| 4 | Śaiva Philosophy according to Bhoja and his commentators | 159 |
| 5 | Śrīpati Paṇḍita’s Ideas on the Vedānta Philosophy, called also the *Śrīkara-bhāṣya* which is accepted as the Fundamental Basis of Vīra-śaivism | 173 |
| | INDEX | 191 |

Chapter XXXIV. Literature of Southern Śaivism

The Literature and History of Southern Śaivism

v5.c48.s1.1

THE earliest Sanskrit philosophical literature in which we find a reference to Śaivism is a *bhāṣya* of Śaṅkara (eighth century) on *Brahma-sūtra* II. 2. 37. In the commentary on this *sūtra*, Śaṅkara refers to the doctrines of the Siddhāntas as having been written by Lord Maheśvara. The peculiarity of the teachings of the Siddhāntas was that they regarded God as being only the instrumental cause of the world. Here and elsewhere Śaṅkara has called the upholders of this view Īśvara-kāraṇins. If Śiva or God was regarded as both the instrumental and the material cause of the world, according to the different Siddhānta schools of thought, then there would be no point in introducing the *sūtra* under reference, for according to Śaṅkara also, God is both the instrumental and the material cause of the world. Śaṅkara seems to refer here to the Pāśupata system which deals with the five categories, such as the cause (*kāraṇa*), effect (*kārya*), communion (*yoga*), rules of conduct (*vidhi*) and dissolution of sorrow (*duḥkhānta*)¹. According to him it also holds that Pāśupati (God) is the instrumental cause of the world. In this view the Naiyāyikas and the Vaiśeṣikas also attribute the same kind of causality to God, and offer the same kind of arguments, i.e. the inference of the cause from the effect.

v5.c48.s1.2

¹ The skeleton of this system has already been dealt with in another section as *Pāśupata-śāstras*.

v5.c48.s1.3

Vācaspati Miśra (A.D. 840), in commenting on the *bhāṣya* of Śaṅkara, says that the Maheśvaras consist of the Śaivas, Pāśupatas, the Kāruṇika-siddhāntins and the Kāpālikas. Mādhava of the fourteenth century mentions the Śaivas as being Nakulīśa-pāśupatas who have been elsewhere mentioned as Lākulīśa-pāśupatas or Lakulīśa-pāśupatas, and they have been discussed in another section of the present work. Mādhava also mentions the *Śaiva-darśana* in which he formulates the philosophical doctrines found in the *Śaivāgamas* and their cognate literature. In addition to this he devotes a section to *pratyabhijñā-darśana*, commonly called Kāśmīr Śaivism. This system will also be dealt with in the present volume. Vācaspati mentions the Kāruṇika-siddhāntins and the Kāpālikas. Rāmānuja in his *bhāṣya* on *Brahma-sūtra* II. 2. 37 mentions the name of Kāpālikas and Kālamukhas as being Śaiva sects of an anti-Vedic character. But in spite of my best efforts, I have been unable to discover any texts, published or unpublished, which deal with the special features of their systems of thought. We find some references to the Kāpālikas in literature like the *Mālatī-mādhava* of Bhavabhūti (A.D. 700–800) and also in some of the Purāṇas. Ānandagiri, a contemporary of Śaṅkara and a biographer, speaks of various sects of Śaivas with various marks and signs on their bodies and with different kinds of robes to distinguish themselves from one another. He also speaks of two schools of Kāpālikas, one Brahmanic and the other non-Brahmanic. In the Atharva-veda we hear of the Vrātyas who were devotees of Rudra. The Vrātyas evidently did not observe the caste-rules and customs. But the Vrātyas of the Atharva-veda were otherwise held in high esteem. But the Kāpālikas, whether they were Brahmanic or non-Brahmanic, indulged in horrid practices of drinking and indulging in sex-appetite and living in an unclean manner. It is doubtful whether there is any kind of proper philosophy, excepting the fact that they were worshippers of Bhairava the destroyer, who also created the world and maintained it. They did not believe in *karma*. They thought that there are minor divinities who perform various functions in world creation and maintenance according to the will of Bhairava. The Śūdra Kāpālikas did not believe also in the caste-system and all these Kāpālikas ate meat and drank wine in skulls as part of their rituals. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar thinks on the authority of *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa* that the Kālamukhas were the same as the Mahāvratadharas. But the present author has not been able to trace any such passage in the *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa*, and Bhandarkar does not give any exact reference to the *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa* containing this identification. The *Mahāvrata*, meaning the great vow, consists in eating food placed in a human skull and smearing the body with the ashes of human carcasses and others, which are attributed to the Kālamukhas by Rāmānuja. Bhandarkar also refers to the commentary of Jagaddhara on the *Mālatī-mādhava*, where the *Kāpālika-vrata* is called *Mahāvrata*. Bhandarkar further points out that the ascetics dwelling in the temple of Kāpāleśvara near Nasik are called the Mahāvratins¹. Be that as it may, we have no proof that the Kāpālikas and Kālamukhas had any distinct philosophical views which could be treated separately. Members of their sects bruised themselves in performing particular kinds of rituals, and could be distinguished from other Śaivas by their indulgence in wines, women, and meat and even human meat. Somehow these rituals passed into Tāntric forms of worship, and some parts of these kinds of worship are found among the adherents of the Tāntric form of worship even to this day. Tāntric initiation is thus different from the Vedic initiation.

v5.c48.s1.4

¹ *Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems*, by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar (1913), p. 128.

v5.c48.s1.5

Frazer in his article on Śaivism in the *Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics* says that, in some well-known temples in South India, the ancient blood-rites and drunken orgies are permitted to be revived yearly as a compromise with the aboriginal worshippers, whose primitive shrines were annexed by Brahmin priests acting under the protection of local chieftains. These chieftains, in return for their patronage and countenance, obtained a rank as Kṣatriyas with spurious pedigrees. Frazer further gives some instances in the same article in which non-Brahmins and outcastes performed the worship of Śiva and also offered human sacrifices, and one of the places he mentions is Śrīśaila, the Kāpālika centre referred to by Bhavabhūti. These outcaste worshippers were ousted from the temple by some of the Buddhists, and thereafter the Buddhists were thrown out by the Brahmins. By the time of Śaṅkara, the Kāpālikas developed a strong centre in Ujjain. We, of course, do not know whether the South Indian cult of blood-rites as performed by Brahmins and non-Brahmins could be identified with the Kāpālikas and Kālamukhas; but it is quite possible that they were the same people, for Śrīśaila, mentioned by Bhavabūti, which is described as an important Kāpālika centre, is also known to us as a centre of bloody rites from the *Sthala-māhātmya* records of that place as mentioned by Frazer. The Kāpālikas and Kālamukhas were anti-Vedic according to the statement of Rāmānuja in *Brahma-sūtra* II. 2. 37. Śaṅkara also, according to Ānandagiri, did not hold any discussion with the Kāpālikas, as their views were professedly anti-Vedic. He simply had them chastised and whipped. The Kāpālikas, however, continued in their primitive form and some of them were living even in Bengal, as is known to the present writer. The habit of smearing the body with ashes is probably very old in Śaivism, since we find the practice described in the *Pāśupata-sūtra* and in the *bhāṣya* of Kauṇḍinya.

v5.c48.s1.6

The Kāruṇika-siddhāntins mentioned by Vācaspati have not been referred to by Mādhava (fourteenth century) in his *Sarvadarśana-saṃgraha*, and we do not find a reference to these in any of the *Śaivāgamas*. But from the statement of Śaiva philosophy in the *Vāyavīya-saṃhitā* of the *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa*, as discussed in another section (pp. 106–29), it is not difficult for us to reconstruct the reasons which might have led to the formation of a special school of Śaivism. We find that the doctrine of grace or *karuṇā* is not always found in the same sense in all the Āgamas, or in the *Vāyavīya-saṃhitā*, which was in all probability based on the Āgamas. Ordinarily the idea of grace or *karuṇā* would simply imply the extension of kindness or favour to one in distress. But in the *Śaivāgamas* there is a distinct line of thought where *karuṇā* or grace is interpreted as a divine creative movement for supplying all souls with fields of experience in which they may enjoy pleasures and suffer from painful experiences. The *karuṇā* of God reveals the world to us in just the same manner as we ought to experience it. Grace, therefore, is not a work of favour in a general sense, but it is a movement in favour of our getting the right desires in accordance with our *karma*. Creative action of the world takes place in consonance with our good and bad deeds, in accordance with which the various types of experience unfold themselves to us. In this sense, grace may be compared with the view of Yoga philosophy, which admits of a permanent will of God operating in the orderliness of the evolutionary creation (*pariṇāmakrama-niyama*) for the protection of the world, and supplying it as the basis of human experience in accordance with their individual *karmas*. It is again different from the doctrine of *karuṇā* of the Rāmānuja Vaiṣṇavas, who introduce the concept of Mahālakṣmī, one who intercedes on behalf of the sinners and persuades Nārāyaṇa to extend His grace for the good of the devotees.

v5.c48.s1.7

The word '*śiva*' is supposed to have been derived irregularly from the root '*vaś kāntan*'. This would mean that Śiva always fulfils the desires of His devotees. This aspect of Śiva as a merciful Lord who is always prepared to grant any boons for which prayers are offered to Him is very well depicted in the *Mahābhārata* and many other Purāṇas. This aspect of Śiva is to be distinguished from the aspect of Śiva as *rudra* or *śarva* or the god of destruction.

v5.c48.s1.8

We have seen that we know practically nothing of any importance about the Kāpālikas and the Kālamukhas. The other doctrines of Śaivism of the South are those of the Pāśupatas, the Śaiva doctrines derived from the Āgamas and the Vaiṣṇavas. The other schools of Śaivism that developed in Kāśmīr in the ninth and tenth centuries will be separately discussed. The *Pāśupata-sūtra* with the *Pañcārtha bhāṣya* of Kauṇḍinya was first published from Trivandrum in 1940, edited by Anantakriṣṇa Śāstri. This *bhāṣya* of Kauṇḍinya is probably the same as the *Rāśīkara-bhāṣya* referred to by Mādhava in his treatment of *Nakulīśa-pāśupata-darśana* in *Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha*. Some of the lines found in Kauṇḍinya’s *bhāṣya* have been identified by the present writer with the lines attributed to Rāśīkara by Mādhava in his treatment of the Nakulīśa-pāśupata system. Nakulīśa was the founder of the Pāśupata system. Aufrect in the *Catalogus Catalogorum* mentions the *Pāśupata-sūtra*¹. The *Vāyavīya-saṃhitā* II. 24. 169, also mentions the *Pāśupata-śāstra* as the *Pañcārtha-vidyā*². Bhandarkar notes that in an inscription in the temple of Harṣanātha which exists in the Śīkar principality of the Jaipur State, a person of the name of Viśvarūpa is mentioned as the teacher of the *Pañcārtha-lākulāmnāya*. The inscription is dated v.e. 1013 = a.d. 957. From this Bhandarkar infers that the Pāśupata system was attributed to a human author named Lakulin and that the work composed by him was called *Pañcārtha*. This inference is not justifiable. We can only infer that in the middle of the tenth century Lakulīśa’s doctrines were being taught by a teacher called Viśvarūpa, who was well reputed in Jaipur, and that Lakulīśa’s teachings had attained such an authoritative position as to be called *āmnāya*, a term used to mean the Vedas.

v5.c48.s1.9

¹ Bhandarkar notes it in his section on the Pāśupatas, *op. cit.* p. 121*n*.

v5.c48.s1.10

² The present writer could not find any such verse in the edition of *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa* printed by the Venkateśvara Press, as II. 24 contains only seventy-two stanzas.

v5.c48.s1.11

In the *Pāśupata-sūtra* published in the Trivandrum series, the first *sūtra* as quoted by Kauṇḍinya is *athātaḥ paśupateh paśupataṃ*

v5.c48.s1.12

*yogavidhiṃ vyākhyāsyāmaḥ*. Here the *yoga-vidhi* is attributed to Paśupati or Śiva. In the *Sūtasaṃhitā* IV. 43. 17, we hear of a place called Nakula and the Śiva there is called Nakulīśa. The editor of the *Pāśupata-sūtra* mentions the names of eighteen teachers beginning with Nakulīśa¹. These names are (1) Nakulīśa, (2) Kauśika, (3) Gārgya, (4) Maitreya, (5) Kauruṣa, (6) Īśāna, (7) Paragārgya, (8) Kapilāṇḍa, (9) Manuṣyaka, (10) Kuśika, (11) Atri, (12) Piṅgalākṣa, (13) Puṣpaka, (14) Bṛhadārya, (15) Agasti, (16) Santāna, (17) Kauṇḍinya or Rāśīkara, (18) Vidyāguru. The present writer is in agreement with the view of the editor of the *Pāśupata-sūtra*, that Kauṇḍinya the *bhāṣyakāra* lived somewhere from the fourth to the sixth century A.D. The style of the *bhāṣya* is quite archaic, and no references to the later system of thought can be found in Kauṇḍinya’s *bhāṣya*. We have already seen that according to the *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa* there were twenty-eight yogācāryas and that each of them had four disciples so that there were 112 yogācāryas. Out of these twenty-eight yogācāryas the most prominent were Lokākṣī, Jaigīṣavya, Ṛṣabha, Bhṛgu, Atri and Gautama. The last and the twenty-eighth ācārya was Lakulīśa, born at Kāyā-vatarana-tīrtha. Among the 112 yogācāryas, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanātana, Kapila, Āsuri, Pañcaśikha, Parāśara, Garga, Bhārgava, Aṅgira, Śuka, Vaśiṣṭha, Bṛhaspati, Kuṇi, Vāmadeva, Śvetaketu, Devala, Śālihotra, Agniveśa, Akṣapāda, Kaṇāda, Kumāra and Ruru are the most prominent².

v5.c48.s1.13

¹ These names are taken from Rājaśekhara’s *Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya* composed during the middle of the fourteenth century. Almost the same names with slight variations are found in Guṇaratna’s commentary on *Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya*.

v5.c48.s1.14

² See *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa*, *Vāyavīya Saṃhitā* II. 9, and also *Kūrma-purāṇa* I. 53. The *Vāyu-purāṇa* describes in the twenty-third chapter the names of the four disciples of each of the twenty-eight *ācāryas*. Viśuddha Muni mentions the name of Lakulīśa in his work called *Atma-samarpaṇa*. See also Introduction to the *Pāśupata-sūtra*, p. 3 n. The list of twenty-eight teachers given in the *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa* does not always tally with the list collected by other scholars, or with that which is found in the *Ātma samarpaṇa* by Viśuddha Muni. It seems therefore that some of these names are quite mythical, and as their works are not available, their names are not much used. Viśuddha Muni summarises the main items of self-control, *yama*, from the *Pāśupata-śāstra*, which are more or less of the same nature as the *yamas* or measures of self-control as found in the *Yogaśāstra* introduced by Patañjali. It is not out of place here to mention that the concept of God in *Yogaśāstra* is of the same pattern as that of the Paśupati in the *Pāśupata-sūtra* and *bhāṣya*.

v5.c48.s1.15

Mr Dalal in his introduction to *Gaṇakārikā* says that the *Lākulīśa-pāśupata-darśana* is so called from Lakulīśa, who originated the system. *Lakulīśa* means "a lord of those bearing a staff". Lakulīśa is often regarded as an incarnation of God Śiva with a citron in the right hand and a staff in the left. The place of the incarnation is Kāyārohaṇa in Bhṛgu-kṣetra which is the same as Kāravaṇa, a town in the Dabhoi Taluka of the Baroda State. In the *Kāravaṇa-māhātmya* it is said that a son of a Brahmin in the village Ulkāpurī appeared as Lakulīśa and explained the methods and merits of worshipping and tying a silken cloth to the image of the God Lakulīśa. This work is divided into four chapters; the first is from the *Vāyu-purāṇa*, the remaining three are from the *Śiva-mahāpurāṇa*. At the commencement of the work, there is obeisance to Maheśvara, who incarnated himself as Lakuṭa-pāṇīśa. There is a dialogue there between Śiva and Pārvatī, in which the latter asks Śiva of the merits of tying a silken cloth. Śiva then relates the story of his incarnation between the Kali and Dvāpara yugas as a Brahmin named Viśvarāja in the family of the sage Atri. His mother was Sudarśana. Some miraculous myths relating to this child, who was an incarnation of Śiva, are narrated in the *Kāravaṇa Māhātmya*, but they may well be ignored here.

v5.c48.s1.16

We have already mentioned the name of Atri as being one of the important teachers of the Pāśupata school. But according to the account of these teachers as given above, Nakulīśa should be regarded as the first founder of the system. We have seen also that by the middle of the tenth century there was a teacher of the *Pañcārtha-lākulāmnāya*, which must be the same as the doctrine propounded in the *Pāśupata-sūtra*. It is difficult to say how early the concept of Paśupati might have evolved. From the Mohenjo-daro excavations we have a statuette in which Śiva is carved as sitting on a bull, with snakes and other animals surrounding Him. This is the representation in art of the concept of the lord of *paśus* or *paśupati*, which is found in pre-Vedic times. The concept of Śiva may be traced through the Vedas and also through the Upaniṣads and particularly so in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad. The same idea can be traced in the *Mahābhārata* and many other Purāṇas. The religious cult of Śiva, which defines the concept of Śiva in its various mythological bearings, has to be given up here, as the interest of the present work is definitely restricted to philosophical ideas and the ethical and social attitude of the followers of Śiva¹.

v5.c48.s1.17

¹ Those who are interested in the study of the evolution of the different aspects of God Śiva, may consult Bhandarkar's *Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism*, and also the article on Śaivism by Frazer in the *Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics*.

v5.c48.s1.18

It must, however, be said that the Śaiva philosophy and the worship of Śiva had spread itself far and wide throughout the whole of the peninsula long before the eighth century A.D. We have the most sacred temples of Śiva in the north in Badrikāśrama, in Nepal (Paśupati-nātha), in Kāśmīr, in Prabhāsa, in Kathiawar (the temple of Somanātha), in Benaras (the temple of Viśvanātha), the Nakulīśvara temple in Calcutta, and the temple of Rāmeśvaram in extreme South India. This is only to mention some of the most important places of Śiva-worship. As a matter of fact, the worship of Śiva is found prevalent almost in every part of India, and in most of the cities we find the temples of Śiva either in ruins or as actual places of worship. Śiva is worshipped generally in the form of the phallic symbol and generally men of every caste and women also may touch the symbol and offer worship. The Śaiva forms of initiation and the Tāntric forms of initiation are to be distinguished from the Vedic forms of initiation, which latter is reserved only for the three higher castes. But as the present work is intended to deal with the philosophy of Śaivism and Tāntricism, all relevant allusions to rituals and forms of worship will be dropped as far as possible.

v5.c48.s1.19

The Jaina writer Rājaśekhara of the middle of the fourteenth century mentions the name of Śaiva philosophy in his *Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya* and calls it a *yoga-mata*². He describes the Śaiva ascetics as holding staves in their hands and wearing long loin cloths (*prauḍha-kaupīna-paridhāyinaḥ*). They had also blankets for covering their bodies, matted locks of hair, and their bodies were smeared with ashes. They ate dry fruits, bore a vessel of gourd (*tumbaka*), and generally lived in forests. Some of them had wives, while others lived a lonely life. Rājaśekhara further says that the Śaivas admitted eighteen incarnations of Śiva, the Overlord, who creates and destroys the world. We have already mentioned the names of the teachers that are found in *Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya*. These teachers were particularly adored and among them it was Akṣapāda who enunciated a system of logic in which he discussed the *pramāṇas*, perception, inference, analogy and testimony and also described the sixteen categories that are found in the *Nyāya-sūtra* of Gautama or Akṣapāda. Rājaśekhara mentions the names of Jayanta, Udayana, and Bhāsarvajña. Thus according to Rājaśekhara the Naiyāyikas were regarded as Śaivas. It does not seem that Rājaśekhara had made any definite study of the Nyāya system, but based his remarks on the tradition of the time¹. He also regards the Vaiśeṣikas as Pāśupatas. The Vaiśeṣika saints wore the same kind of dress and the marks as the Naiyāyikas and admitted the same teachers, but they held that the perception and inference were the only two *pramāṇas* and that the other *pramāṇas* were included within them. He also mentions the six categories that we find in the *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra*. Rājaśekhara calls the Naiyayikas Yaugas. The Vaiśeṣika and the Nyāya are more or less of the same nature and both of them regard the dissolution of sorrow as ultimate liberation. Guṇaratna, the commentator of Haribhadra Suri's *Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya* was a Jaina writer like Rājaśekhara and he was in all probability a later contemporary of him. Many of his descriptions of the Naiyāyikas or Yaugas seem to have been taken from Rājaśekhara's work, or it may also have been that Rājaśekhara borrowed it from Guṇaratna, the descriptions being the same in many places. Guṇaratna says that there were found kinds of Śaivas such as the Śaivas, Pāśupatas, Mahāvratadharas and the Kālamukhas². In addition to these both Guṇaratna and Rājaśekhara speak of those who take the vow (*vratins*) of service to Śiva and they are called Bharaṭas and Bhaktas. Men of any caste could be included in the class of Bharaṭas (servants) and Bhaktas (devotees) of Śiva. The Naiyāyikas were always regarded as devotees of Śiva and they were called Śaivas. The Vaiśeṣika philosophy was called Pāśupata¹. Haribhadra also says that the Vaiśeṣikas admitted the same divinity as the Naiyāyikas².

v5.c48.s1.20

² *atha yoga-mataṁ brūmaḥ, śaivam-ity-aparā-bhidham*. Rājaśekhara's *Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya*, p. 8 (2nd edition, Benares).

v5.c48.s1.21

¹ *śrutānusārataḥ proktam naiyāyika-mataṃ mayā.* Ibid. p. 10.

v5.c48.s1.22

² *śaivaḥ pāśupataścaiva mahāvrata-dharas tathā,* *turyāḥ kālamukhā mukhyā bhedā ete tapasvinām.* Guṇaratna's commentary on Haribhadra's *Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya*, p. 51 (Suali's edition, Calcutta, 1905). According to Guṇaratna, therefore, the Mahāvratadharas and the Kālamukhas are entirely different. The Kāpālikas are not mentioned by Guṇaratna. These four classes of Śaivas were originally Brahmins and they had the sacred thread. Their difference was largely due to their different kinds of rituals and behaviour (*ācāra*): *ādhāra-bhasma-kaupīna-jaṭā-yajñopavītinaḥ,* *sva-svācārādi-bhedena caturdhā syus tapasvinaḥ.* Rāmānuja mentions the names of Kāpālikas and Kālamukhas as being outside the pale of the Vedas (*veda-bāhya*). In *Śaṅkara-vijaya* of Ānandagiri also the Kāpālikas are represented as being outside the pale of the Vedas. But the Kālamukhas are not mentioned there.

v5.c48.s1.23

¹ See Guṇaratna’s commentary, p. 51.

v5.c48.s1.24

² > *devatā-viṣayo bhedo nāsti naiyāyikaiḥ samam,* *vaiśeṣikāṇāṁ tattve tu vidyate’sau nidarśyate.* Haribhadra’s *Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya*, p. 266.

v5.c48.s1.25

Excluding the Kāpālikas and the Kālamukhas, about whom we know very little except the traditional imputations against their rituals and non-Vedic conduct, we have the text of the Pāśupata system and the Śaiva philosophy as described in the Śaiva Āgamas. We have also the *Pāśupata-śāstra* as described in the *Vāyavīya saṃhitā*, the Śaiva philosophy of Śrīkaṇṭha as elaborated by Appaya Dīkṣita, and the Śaiva philosophy as expounded by King Bhoja of Dhāra in his *Tattva-prakāśa* as explained by Śrīkumāra and Aghora-śivācārya. We have also the Vīra-śaivism which evolved at a later date and was explained in a commentary on *Brahma-sūtra* by Śrīpati Paṇḍita who is generally placed in the fourteenth century³. Śrīpati Paṇḍita was posterior to the Pāśupatas and Rāmānuja, and also to Ekorāma and the five ācāryas of the Vīra-śaiva religion. Śrīpati was also posterior to Mādhavācārya. But it is curious that Madhava seems to know nothing either of Vīraśaivism or of Śrīpati Paṇḍita. He was of course posterior to Basava of the twelfth century, who is generally regarded as being the founder of Vīra-śaivism. As Hayavadana Rao points out, Śrīpati was posterior to Śrīkaṇṭha, who wrote a *bhāṣya* on the *Brahma-sūtra*⁴. We have treated in a separate section the philosophy of Śrīkaṇṭha. Śrīkaṇṭha lived somewhere in the eleventh century and may have been a junior contemporary of Rāmānuja. Śrīkaṇṭha in his treatment of *Brahma-sūtra* III. 3. 27–30, criticises the views of Rāmānuja and Nimbārka. Hayavadana Rao thinks on inscriptional grounds that Śrīkaṇṭha was living in A.D. 1122⁵.

v5.c48.s1.26

³ C. Hayavadana Rao’s *Śrīkara-bhāṣya*, Vol. I, p. 31.

v5.c48.s1.27

⁴ *Ibid.* p. 36.

v5.c48.s1.28

⁵ *Ibid.* p. 41.

v5.c48.s1.29

Meykaṇḍadeva, the most famous author of the Tamil translation of the Sanskrit work *Śiva-jñāna-bodha* belonged to Tiruvenneyllur near the South Arcot district. There is an inscription in the sixteenth year of the Chola King Rājarāja III (A.D. 1216–48) which records a gift of land to an image set up by Meykaṇḍa. This fixes the date of Meykaṇḍadeva, the disciple of Parañjoti muni to about the middle of the thirteenth century. Hayvadana Rao after a long discussion comes to the view that Meykaṇḍa actually lived about A.D. 1235, if not a little earlier¹. From inscriptional sources it has been ascertained that Śrīkaṇṭha, the commentator of *Brahma-sūtra* lived about A.D. 1270. It is quite possible that Meykaṇḍa and Śrīkaṇṭha were contemporaries. The philosophical difference between Meykaṇḍa and Śrīkaṇṭha is quite remarkable, and the two persons cannot therefore be identified as one². Śrīkaṇṭha thinks that the world is a transformation of the *cicchakti* of the Lord. It does not provide for the creation of the material world, does not speak of the *āṇava-mala*, and is apparently not in favour of *jīvan-mukti*. Further Śrīkaṇṭha appears to establish his system on the basis of the *śruti*. Meykaṇḍa, however, tries to establish his system on the basis of inference, and there are many other points of difference as will be easily seen from our treatment of Meykaṇḍadeva. It does not seem that Śrīkaṇṭha had any relation with Meykaṇḍadeva.

v5.c48.s1.30

¹ *Ibid.* p. 48.

v5.c48.s1.31

² *Ibid.* p. 49. The systems of Śrīkaṇṭha and of Meykaṇḍa have been dealt with in separate sections of the present work.

v5.c48.s1.32

Śrīpati quotes from Haradatta in very reverential terms. Hayvadana Rao refers to an account of the life of Haradatta as given in the *Bhaviṣyottara-purāṇa*, and to the writings of his commentator Śiva-liṅga-bhūpati, which would assign Haradatta to the Kali age 3979, corresponding roughly to A.D. 879. In the *Śiva-rahasya-dīpikā*, however, Kali age 3000 is given as a rough approximation of the date of Haradatta. Professor Shesagiri Śāstrī accepts the former date as a more correct one and identifies the Haradatta quoted in *Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha* as being the same as the author of *Harihara-tāratamya* and the *Caturveda-tātparya-saṃgraha*. As we have mentioned elsewhere, Haradatta was the author of the *Gaṇakārikā*. Mr Dalal in all probability had confused the two in his introduction to the *Gaṇakārikā*, in which he says that Bhāsarvajna was the author of *Gaṇakārikā*. In reality Haradatta wrote only the *Kārikā*, and the Nyāya author Bhāsarvajña wrote a commentary on it called the *Ratnaṭīkā*¹. Śrīpati also quotes from *Siddhānta śikhāmaṇi*, a Vīraśaiva work written by Revaṇārya.

v5.c48.s1.33

¹ The colophon of the *Gaṇakārikā* runs as follows:

v5.c48.s1.34

It is curious to note that though Vīra-śaivism was founded at least as early as the time of Basava (A.D. 1157–67), Mādhava in the fourteenth century does not know anything of Vīra-śaivism. It is, however, doubtful if Basava was really the founder of Vīra-śaivism in India. We have got some sayings in Canarese known as the *vacanas* of Basava, but we find that his name is seldom mentioned as a teacher of any articles of the Vīra-śaiva faith. There is a semi-mythical account of Basava in a work called *Basava-purāṇa*. It is said there that Śiva asked Nandin to incarnate himself in the world for the propagation of the Vīra-śaiva faith. Basava was this incarnation. He was a native of Bāgevāḍi from where he went to Kalyāṇa where Vijjala or Vijjana was reigning (A.D. 1157–67). His maternal uncle, Baladeva, was the minister, and he himself was raised to that position after his death. Basava’s sister was given away to the king. He was in charge of the treasury and spent large sums in supporting and entertaining the Liṅgāyat priests or mendicants called Jaṅgamas. When the king came to know of this, he became angry and sent troops to punish him. Basava collected a small army and defeated these troops. The king brought him back to Kalyāṇa and there was apparently some reconciliation between them. But Basava later on caused the king to be assassinated. This depicts Basava more as a scheming politician than as a propounder of new faith.

v5.c48.s1.35

Returning to our treatment of the literature of the Pāśupatas, we see that between the Vaiṣṇavas and the monists like the Śaṅkarites we have a system of thought representing the monotheistic point of view. This view appears in diverse forms in which God is sometimes regarded as being established as upholding the universe, but beyond it; sometimes it is held that God is beyond the world and has created it by the material of His own energy; at other times it

v5.c48.s1.36

*ācārya-bhāsarvajña-viracitāyāṃ gaṇakārikāyāṃ*
*ratnaṭīkā parisamāptā.*

v5.c48.s1.37

This led to the confusion that the *Gaṇakārikā* was the composition of Bhāsarvajña, who only wrote the commentary. This Haradatta must be distinguished from the Haradatta of the *Padamañjarī* on the *Kāśikā-vṛtti*, and also from the commentator of the *Āpastamba-sūtra*.

v5.c48.s1.38

has been held that God and energy are one and the same. Sometimes it has been held that God has created the world by His mercy or grace and that His grace is the inner dynamic force which follows the course of creation and maintenance. It is in this way that a compromise has been made between the theory of grace and the theory of *karma*. There are others, however, who think that we do not as of necessity have a right to reap the fruits of our actions, but we have to be satisfied with what is given to us by God. The Pāśupatas hold this view, and it is important to notice that the Nyāya which admits the doctrine of *karma* also thinks that we are only entitled to such enjoyments and experiences as are allotted to us by God. The fact that both the Nyāya and the Pāśupatas think that God can be established by inference, and that the grace of God is ultimately responsible for all our experiences, naturally leads us to link together the Nyāya-vaiśeṣika view with the Pāśupata view. The tradition is preserved in the two *Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccayas* of Rājaśekhara and Haribhadra with Guṇaratna, which, as well as the benedictory verses in most Nyāya works until the tenth and eleventh centuries, justify the assumption that the Nyāya-vaiśeṣika was a school of Pāśupatas which paid more emphasis to evolving a system of logic and metaphysics. The Pāśupata system generally accepted the caste-division, and only those belonging to higher castes could claim to attain spiritual liberation. Yet as time rolled on we find that men of all castes could become devotees or servants of God and be regarded as Śaivas. We find the same kind of gradual extension and withdrawal of caste system among the Vaiṣṇavas also. Both in Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism, *bhakti* or devotion to God came to be regarded as the criterion of the faith.

First 82 of 868 passages. Read on

Linked texts (78)