1. Siddhanta Mukti

2. Siddhanta & Siddhantins

3. Some Dasha-words

4. Siddhanta and Vedanta

5. Bakti in the Vedas

6. Siddhanta and Advaita

7. Siddhanta Advaita & Mukti - Meykandar Siddhanta Deconstructed

8. The MetaTheism of Sacred Tamil - Metaphysics of Colors

9. Meykandar Siddhanta Shastras Deconstructed

10. Siddhanta Teaches Thou Art Siva - Meykandar

11. Corroborating Siddhanta - that 'Thou Art Siva'

12. Learning the TRUTH and Gaining Moksa - Appar

13. Ajita Tantra

14. Skanda-Muruga in the Vedas

15. Morbid Sexuality Blinds the Soul - Vallalar

16. The Magic of Tantra - Invoking the Gods, Worshipping the Gods

17. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (BrihasâraNyaka)

18. One God, Many Gods

19. Chandogya Upanishad (Chândogya)

20. Transductive Perceptions and ESP

21. Aitareya Upanishad

22. Isha or Ishavasya Upanishad (Îsha or Îshâvâsya)

23. Katha Upanishad or Kathopanishad (Kathâ)

24. Siva Prevents the Fall from Paradise - Punitavati

25. 20th Century Reforms of the Hindus

26. Kena Upanishad or Kenopanishad

27. Usefulness of Scriptures

28. Mandukya Upanishad (MâNDukya)

29. The Pleasant Side of Siva - Manikkavasagar

30. BEING and Submergence in Earthly Life - Punitavati

31. Prashna Upanishad

32. The Transcendence of Language - Tayumanavar

33. The Destruction of Ego and the Bliss of Moksa - Vallalar

34. The Inner Light

35. Shvetashvatara Upanishad (Shvetâshvatara)

36. Darshanas

37. Siva Does Not Promote VarNas - Vallalaar

38. Space -Time

39. Makuta, Chandrajnana and Parameshvara Agama

40. The Natural Laws and the Play of BEING - Vallalaar

.

.

.
---------------------------------------------------------

.

.
Siddhanta Mukti

Let us always keep in mind that all religions and philosophies are based on
postulates. These are posited to make the philosophic reasoning stand. God, soul
and the world are the three main postulates of any religious philosophy
including siddhanta.

We can verify the world by simply opening our eyes and seeing the world out
there. It is Real. We can prove it. It is mind and matter, albeit of temporary
existence, arrangements of protons, and the neurological firings that ***sesses
information and p***es it on to the consciousness. The mind is a tool of the
consciousness of the soul.

We are aware of our soul as our consciousness, and we all accept it as a reality
although we cannot prove it. It is a given.

We posit God as a reality, although it cannot be proven.

What we have is philosophies built on these three, two of which posits cannot be
proved, because they are non-matter. What we have is rational reductionist
philosophies that are non-falsifiable, therefore cannot be deconstructed. Give
us a philosophy that can be falsified and we shall falsify it.

What we do have are the countless testimonies of sages who have experienced the
other two posits - god and soul, whose 'experience' byp***ed and circumvented
their sense organs and therefore not received by their sense organs and mind,
and therefore remains inexplicable. It is inexplicable because our consciousness
requires tools to express the experience, but the sense organs and mind that we
have are inadequate for this task.

Eventually we fall back on and rely on their testimonies, and the only way to
prove it is to trod the path and experience it ourselves, then leave a testimony
for others to peruse.

The issue here is 'why did god create the soul'. And the (Meykandar) answer is that
'obviously because the souls were already infested with malam and therefore God
in His Infinite Love and Grace refashioned existing primordial matter for the
souls to experience, evolve and divest itself from the malam and gain unity with
God'.

The new question is, where did the primordial matter come from?

The next question is, is the malam integral to the soul? If not, how did it
become infested with malam in the first place? Why was this question not dealt
with?

Obviously the malam is not integral to the soul simply because God eventually
unfetters the soul from it. If it is integral, it cannot be divested of it.

So when did the soul become infested with the malam which is not integral to it?

This is the question to the Meykandar siddhantists.

If the answer is 'we don't know', then why not accept in the first place that
'we don't know why, and how, God created the world, and how God and the soul is
one'. Why try and explain this first 'we don't know' with the theory of
non-creation of the three pre-existing entities, to end up again with the second
'we don't know'?

The first time we hit a brick wall on logic, that is when our questions on
causation must necessarily cease. If not its a never ending chicken and egg
situation of which came first.

After deconstructing the other philosophies, then establishing siddhanta by
reductionism as a viable and non falsifiable alternate, in my opinion, Meykandar
should have stopped right there and not go further on the question of creation
or non creation of souls. He had already established everything he needed to
establish.

If the subject is not approached, it is already a given ***umption, another
posit, that God, souls and world are in unison (somehow) as a one entity,
eternal and beginningless. Such a postulate is entirely in accordance with the
overwhelming majority of testimonies in the agamas and vedas.

Next we then have to deal with the question of God's Veiling Grace. Just what
exactly is He veiling when the soul is supposedly already infested, veiled,
fettered and bonded hopelessly by the malam to the point of total ignorance and
helplessness? Is there a need to veil it further?

Taking a seed, which is already perfect and untainted, and putting it in the
ground and covering it with earth, is veiling it, so that the right conditions
are available for the already perfect untainted seed to sprout, blossom and grow
into a vast tree. This is done, so that the seed 'realises' its vast and full
potential, that it is indeed a towering tree and not just a mere seed. This
analogy serves the purpose of explaining His Veiling Grace and Revealing Grace.

Souls, like seeds, were at all times perfect and untainted. They just needed the
world (pasam) to mature, into His likeness. The seeds transforming into trees,
is movement from one perfection to another perfection, and this is echoed in the
hymn 'purnamadah, purnamidam..'

And where did the untainted seed come from? From that (tat) Big Tree of course.
No further reductionism than this or it leads to another chicken and egg
situation.

The Rule of Emanation
Life is a ceaseless text; from the Big Bang which exploded out the whole world
of matter and planets, from the stars shining and emanating light, heat,
magnetism and gravity, to lifeforms dividing, from animals laying eggs to giving
birth, to death and atropy where one changes into another - all these are
examples of one coming out from another, or one changing into another. It is
always an unending loop of 'form change' and transformation only. We do not have
a single instance of one manifesting from nothing, or something transforming
into nothing. There is always a pre-existence but in another form.

So why did the Big Tree create seeds? Its the nature of trees to produce seeds
and propagate itself. Its the nature of the sun to shine, to emanate, and Gods
to create, as Brahma and Vishnu too asked that first question. In that Hindu
myth, referred to many times by Tirumular, we have a testimony that two gods and
an unknown linga of light 'sprang forth from The Nothingness', but there is no
mention of souls or the primordial matter in that primordial time as it was not
there differentiated in those primordial times, has not sprung forth yet we have
to ***ume. That (tat) Nothingness obviously is not 'empty' or void, as it
emanated three entities. Now if it can emanate three great gods, what is the big
problem with emanating souls and worlds!

Afterall emanation is what we see everyday in our lives in everything. We
produce many kids who came from 'nowhere'. Physically we emanate or discharge,
mentally we emanate or generate ideas and visions, psychically we emanate love
or emotions. Emanation is a flow, and the way to go.

And if the two primordial gods could not figure out how the linga of light
emerged from the Nothingness right before their very eyes even in 'realtime', we
are implicitly told not to proceed further with this line of questioning and
reduction, but stop right there.

Notice that we have not departed at all from saying that the soul and world is
also eternal and beginningless. The seed was already existing as an imprint in
the dna of the Big Tree, as a potentiality waiting to manifest. It was already
enjoying a nondual relationship with the Big Tree.

But the question of 'beginningless' does not apply really until the advent of
the time-space continuum. It does not apply during the interim period after
mahapralaya and before re-creation during which time there is no time-space.
Therefore we cannot say these three entities were 'pre-existing'. What we can
say is that 'they were neither existent nor non existent, neither differentiated
nor non differentiated'.

Regards.

Pathma

PS
I am not casting doubt on Meykandar; on the contrary as
you already know, I accept it (almost) fully, except that I am stopping just
short of the issue on creation and dissolution, and not proceeding further, as
it is not necessary.

I would agree with Nammalvar that upon mukti souls have the privilege of either
retaining their separate existence, or merging fully and not retaining their
individual identity. There are many such souls who chose to maintain their
separate identity, some of whom are worshipped to this day by Hindus, as gods.

What is siddhanta? It is knowledge, the final conclusions on the relationship
between god and soul. Philosophies describe themselves as advaita, dvaita, etc.,
in relation to the union of god and soul.

Who is a siddhantist? That would be a silly question to Hindus. The question
should be, who is not a siddhantist. Anyone who goes to a temple, worships the
Diety (pati), and the vahana (pasu) and the altar (pasam) - is a siddhantist,
whether he realises it or not. Anyone who worships at a home alter is a
siddhantist. Anyone who offers flowers to a Diety, sings hymn to the Diety is a
siddhantist. Anyone who meditates (to realise his advaitic union with God) is a
siddhantist. The path is siddhanta too as the nayanmars have shown, as well as
the goal. One can entirely not know any philosophy and still be a siddhantist.

Siddhanta is not about books and theories. Whether the Sivajnanabodham was
translated into the sanskrit Raurava Agama, or the other way around, is
immaterial and of no consequence. Siddhanta existed before the Meykandar
Shastras, and never depended on it. It existed before the Raurava Agama. The
point is siddhanta is independent of books. It is independent of the Meykandar
shastras as of a dozen others, not beholden to any set of documents.

Just with the tamil mahavakyas siddhanta can be
propounded without once resorting to the Raurava Agama or Meykandar Shastras and
the methodology, terminology and nomenclature used there.

Below is an explanation of the Siva Jnana Bodham.

Pathma

.
.
SIVA JNANA BODHAM

A MANUAL OF SAIVA RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE

Translated from the Tamil with synopsis, exposition, &c.,
by
THE LATE GORDON MATTHEWS M.A., B.Litt.

http://www.shaivam.org/tamil/sansivae.pdf

PREFACE

Siva-ńana-bodham is a Tamil manual of saiva religious doctrine by Meykanda Devar and
belongs to the first half of the thirteenth century A.D. It appears to be based on twelve
Sanskrit Sutras said to be from the Raurava Agama. These, freely paraphrased, are to the
following effect:

1. The world, animate and inanimate, passes through a cycle of three phases, evolution,
maintenance, and dissolution. As the world evolves, it exists; for that which does not
exist never evolves, never comes into being, as, for example, the horn of a hare. As the
world is something which exists, it must have an efficient cause. This efficient cause is
not Maya, the measurable, the empirically objective; for M?y? is material and devoid of
consciousness. The efficient cause must be the Agent of dissolution. He is the Primal
Being, the Supreme Deity; for of the three phases dissolution is primary, all evolution
being but the manifestation of the inherent potentialities of the unevolved or dissolved;
and, secondly, because all deities other than the Agent of dissolution are themselves
necessarily involved in the universal dissolution.

The purpose of this periodic reproduction of the world of animate and inanimate being is
to free souls from anava, the principle of individuation, called Sahaja Mala, the impurity
born together with the soul, by association with which from eternity souls have been
enveloped in the darkness of unconsciousness. This release is effected by providing for
souls the earthly experience in the midst of which they may receive by divine grace the
light of the knowledge of their oneness with God and their dependence upon Him.

2. God’s relation to souls is advaita, non-duality; this relation is understood as a synthesis
of three relations, abheda or identity, bheda or difference, and bhed?bheda, a
combination of these two.

God causes the world to re-emerge from Maya through the instrumentality of His Sakti or
Power, with which He is in implicit union, samavaya, the union of substance and quality.
When sakti functions thus as the instrumental cause of the evolution of M?y?, it is called
Tirodhana Sakti or Concealment-Power; for though in associating the soul with a
material body, sense-organs and intellectual faculties, all evolutes of M?y?, it causes a
finite experience in which the utter unconsciousness of the soul involved in ?n?ava is
dissipated, yet in that finite experience the Truth, the Knowledge of Reality, is still
concealed from the soul until such time as by God’s grace it is revealed. It is ?akti, not
Karma, which provides souls with the conditions of finite experience; but Karma, the
principle of action and reaction, determines the form and quality of the experience. The
soul experiences pr?rabdha karma, ‘that which has begun’, in other words, the
consequence of so much of the ‘store’ of previous deeds, sańcita, as is ready for fruition.

3. Besides (a) Pati, the Master, God, and (b) Pasa or Bond, the threefold fetter consisting
of anava, Karma, and Maya, there is a third pad?rtha or category of being, (c) Pasu, the
herd, i.e. souls. The argument for the existence of this third category, the soul, is that
there is something which, failing to discover the soul among empirical objects, denies
that there is a soul; that something is the soul.

Soul is not the body; it is that which is conscious of possessing a body. It is not the five
sense-organs; it is that which is conscious of all five kinds of sensation, whereas each
sense perceives only one, and which is conscious of the functioning of the sense-organ,
whereas the sense-organ is aware only of its object. It is not the suksma sarira or subtle
body which functions in the dream-state, svapna; it is that which in association with the
s?ks?ma ?ar?ra dreams and in association with the sth?la ?ar?ra or gross body wakes and
realizes the dream to have been a dream. It is not pr?n??a-v?yu, the vital air, that functions
in deep sleep, sus?upti, and in the fourth state, turya; it is that which causes the difference
between these states and the waking state, in which the functioning of Pranna-vayu is a
common factor. It is not Brahma; it is that which lies unconscious when devoid of sense-
organs, and only becomes conscious when associated with them. It is not the whole
material organism, body, sense-organs, &c.; it is different from it as eyesight differs from
lamplight.

4. Nor is the soul to be identified with the antahkaranas, namely, citta, manas,
ahamkara, and buddhi, which constitute the inner sensorium. But it is associated with
them. Through citta it is vaguely aware, through manas it registers the message of the
senses, through aham?k?ra it questions these data, and through buddhi it reaches a rational
conclusion. The necessity of this association is that by reason of ?n?ava the soul without
them is utterly devoid of consciousness. In association with these mental faculties and
other tattvas or evolutes of M?y? the soul passes through five phases or states of
consciousness, j?grat, svapna, sus?upti, turya, and tury?t?ta, as the activity of successive
tattvas is suppressed.

5. Without the soul the sense-organs are not sensitive to the stimuli of their respective
objects; they are percipient only when the soul in union with them perceives in and
through them. Their capacity to perceive is dependent upon the soul, and is limited to
their objects; they cannot perceive themselves or the soul. Similarly the soul’s
consciousness is dependent upon God, who is in union with the soul; its knowledge is of
the empirical world; the soul does not know itself or God. God is not Himself subject to
change by reason of the changeful experience that He makes the soul undergo. The
changes of the soul are like the movements of a piece of iron which a magnet causes; and
God is no more affected than is the magnet.

6. What is knowable by P??a-jń?na, sense-perception, and by Pa?u-jń?na, the soul’s
sense-conditioned knowledge, is asat, the non-real. What is not thus knowable is ??nya,
the void, the non-existent. God is not knowable in that way; nor is He in that sense
unknowable; He is neither asat nor ??nya. He is beyond V?k and Manas, that is to say,
beyond, P??a-jń?na and Pa?u-jń?na, and yet He is comprehensible. He is Cit-sat, ?iva-
sat, Absolute Spiritual Reality, and is knowable only by Pati-jń?na, immediate
knowledge of God imparted to the soul by divine grace.

7. God, the Real, does not know P??a, the non-real; for the non-real cannot appear in the
presence of the real, even as darkness cannot exist in the presence of light. And even if
God did know Pasa, He would not know it objectively, because it does not exist apart
from Him.

Conversely, P??a, the non-real, which includes M?y? and its evolutes, the sense-organs
and intellectual faculties, has no knowledge of the real; for P??a is insentient and
impercipient matter. The appearance of knowledge in the non-real is an illusion, like the
appearance of water in a mirage. But the soul, which is neither real nor non-real, can
depend on and identify itself with either. In association with the non-real, it can by its
help know the non-real; and in association with the real it can with its help know the real.

8. When the soul in association with the senses and intellectual faculties is immersed in
earthly experience, it knows the non-real through the non-real, but it does not know itself
or God. But when God comes as a guru and teaches the soul, the soul is made to see that
the world of experience, evolved from M?y?, is non-real. It ceases then to identify itself
with the non-real and to depend upon it; and in so doing it discovers its oneness with
God.

This knowledge received from a guru is the last of the four p?das which prepare the soul
for release. Jń?na, knowledge, follows upon the due performance of the first three, viz.
Cary?, menial service in the temple, Kriy?, acts of worship, and Y?ga, inward spiritual
worship. It is, in all cases, of divine, not human, origin; but the manner in which it is
imparted varies according to the class of soul. To Sakalas, souls immersed in all three
impurities, God comes as a guru of human form; to Pralayakalas, souls affected only by
?nava and Karma, He comes as a guru in Siva’s form; and to Vijń?n?kalas, souls
involved only in ?nava, He comes as the inner principle of the soul’s consciousness.

9. It is not by p??a-jń?na, nor by pa?u-jń?na, in other words, not by sense-perception nor
by discriminative reason, that the soul can know reality, God. To know Him is God’s gift,
an experience of illumination to which the prepared soul is brought by the instruction of a
guru in whom God dwells. Such knowledge is pati-jń?na, variously termed in Tamil
tiruvadiń?nam, knowledge of God, meyńń?nam, knowledge of the truth or reality, and
ń?nakkan, spiritual vision or illumination. This experience of illumination, this
knowledge of reality, arises in the instant when the soul, with God as immanent but
hidden principle of its consciousness, the unseen light of all its seeing, recognizes the
non-reality of the non-real. What in that recognition the soul discovers is the Real; what
shines forth is Knowledge, Jń?na-svar?pa, knowledge which is not only of the Real but
is the Real, Divine consciousness itself, Absolute Spiritual Reality.

But through the influence of long association with the non-real the soul may tend to lose
its new sense of oneness with God and dependence on Him, and to resume its old
dependence on the non-real. To combat this tendency, the j?van-mukta, the soul released
but still in the body, must concentrate meditation upon the ?r? Pańc?ks?ara, the Five-
Letter symbol of Absolute Spiritual Reality.

10. The results attained by this s?dhana, this way of release, through Jń?na, are twofold,
the soul’s release from P??a and its attainment of Siva.

As to the former, release from the threefold bond consisting of ?n?ava, Karma, and M?y?,
the soul achieves its escape from ?n?ava, the principle of individuation, through its union
with God. It is not enough for the soul to know God; because even when it knows Him
there is the illusiory thought, ‘I know Him’. The soul, to destroy this illusion of ‘I’ and
‘mine’, must not only know Him but be one with Him. The removal of the other bonds,
Karma, and M?y?, release from the necessity of finite experience in association with
evolutes of M?y?, is achieved through devoted service of God. The j?van-mukta continues
to experience pr?rabdha, the karmic fruit of previous deeds; but if in devoted service,
knowing that he does nothing but by God’s grace, he regards his every action as God’s
action, then prarabdha, his present experience, cannot sow ?g?mya, the seed of future
experience. It cannot create the karmic necessity for rebirth.

11. The second result attained by this way of Jń?na is ?ivapp?ru, ‘the attainment of
Siva’, the soul’s experience of Divine Blessedness in conscious oneness with God. This
is the soul’s nis?th?, its final goal or resting-place; and it may be reached while still in the
body.

12. So long as those who have found release remain in the body, their thought is
concerned with the knowledge of the non-reality of this world of sense; their affection
finds expression in the fellowship of ?iva’s devotees; and their activity is occupied with
the worship of ?iva, as dwelling in the emblems worn by His devotees and in the linga.



TRANSLATION
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SUTRAS
ACCORDING TO MEYKANDAR’S KARUTTURAI

SUTRA
1. God, who causes its Dissolution, is the Primal source of the world.
2. How the world is evolved again.
3. The existence of the soul.
4. The same.
5. God’s first service to souls.
6. The real and the non-real.
7. A supplement to the above.
8. How the soul obtains Knowledge.
9. How the soul is purified.
10. How Pasa, the fetter, is removed.
11. How the soul reaches the sacred feet of God.
12. How God, invisible and unknowable, can be worshipped as visible and knowable.

Ten in Sanskrit is dashan. It is regarded as a perfect number in that (in one
tradition) there were ten incarnations of VishNu here below.

The Sanskrit writer Dananjaya (10th century C.E.) wrote a work on theater theory
entitled Dasharűpika. Here he listed ten kinds of dramatical works. (Recall
that categorization is a science in which classical Hindus excelled.) In his
classification, nâTaka is the highest form of drama, wherein the subject matter
is usually from history, sacred or secular. Plays in which the protagonists are
not of the royal family were classified as prakaNa. Then are presentations in
the form of a soliloquy. These are called bhâna. They are often appealing to the
masses. Some plays have just two or three characters. These are known as vîthi.
Likewise there are light-hearted comedic plays called prahasana. To the category
dima belong plays which treat of purely legendary themes, whereas a vyâyoga
play usually deals with a military matter: wars, conquests, etc. Plays dealing
with the supernatural are called samavakâra. supernatural theme. Sometimes there
is a play within a play. Such a one is known as an angka. Finally to the tenth
category belong plays that deal with imaginary and exotic animals, and they are
known as îhâ-mriga.

The eminent Shankaracharya classified renunciants into ten categories, giving
them names based mostly on natural and geographical variety. The ten names of
these dashanâmi monks were Sârasvatî (pool), Purî (citadel), Vana (tree), Tîrtha
(ford), Giri (hill), Parvata (mountain), Bhâratî (land), ÂraNya (forest),
Âshrama (hermitage), and Sâgara (sea). The tenth Sikh Guru Gobind Singh wrote
Dasam Granth (Tenth Granth).

The villain in the Ramayana was RâvaNa. He had ten faces. Therefore he is also
known as Dashânana, or Dasakantha or Dashagrîva the ten-headed or the ten necked
one. He is said to be an embodiment of dashendriya: five organs of knowledge and
five motor organs.

The father of the epic hero Rama was called Dasharatha because he had ten
chariots which went along ten directions which consist of the four cardinal
directions (East, West, North, and South), the four diagonal ones (Northeast,
Southeast, Northwest, and Southwest), as well as the upward and downward
directions. He is said to have had full control over his ten as he had control
over the ten horses.

Sudâsa was an ancient king who is mentioned in the Rig Veda. No less a personage
than Vishvâmitra was his minister. Sudâsa was a great conqueror, but ten
different groups joined hands to fight in a battle. That battle is referred to
as dasharâjńa.

In the Hindu framework the Divine manifests itself periodically here on earth
for the welfare of human kind. Such a descent, as per the grammarian PâNini, is
what one calls an avatâra. In the VaishNava tradition there were ten distinct
avatâras which are therefore collectively known as the dashâvatâra. It may be
noted that there are at least four different branches of VaishNava school:
Ekântika, Vhyűhavâda, Avarâravâda, and Pâńcarâtra, and each has its own list and
interpretation of the dashâvatâra. The dashâvatâra, as per the Mahâbhârata are:
Hamsa (Swan) Kűrma (Tortoise), Mâtsya (Fish), Varâha (Boar), Narasimha
(Man-Lion), Vâmana (Dwarf), Râma, Balarâma, Sâtvata (Vâsudeva), and Kalkin. Some
purâNas include the Buddha and others Risabha (the Jain Tîrthankara) also. Other
texts list 22 different avatâras.

The tenth and last day of the Navaratra festival is called Dassarâ
(Dusshera) It is dedicated to the Mother Goddess in some parts of India or taken
to celebrate Rama's victory (Vijayadashami) in other region.

In view of the various exchanges where the Saiva Siddhanta darsana is compared with Vedanta and said to be essentially non-different and that Siddhanta is indeed Vedanta (whatever it means) I feel I have to say something to show that there is no school of philosophy not only in India but in the whole world similar or even comparable to Saiva Siddhanta. Anyone who dilutes the great achievements of Tirumular Meykandar and so forth and whose metaphysical achievement far exceeds that of Sankara Ramanuja Madhava and so forth, are doing a great disservice to the Tamil genius. What I want to point out is that the metaphysical achievements of the Tamils are really great and they deserve recognition and given a prominent place in the tradition of Indian philosophies.

1.
Now the first point and which is quite new and not even perhaps known to Tirumular Appar and so forth is that the roots of Saiva Siddhanta go back to the SumeroTamil period and hence millenniums earlier than the Vedas. The exaggerated importance given to the Vedas come only because till recently it was not well known that the First Sangam of the Tamils was true and it existed in Sumeria and that the main texts are available now and where they belong to the 3rd- 4th Millennium period well before even a single sloka of Rig Veda was sung. This metaphysics prevalent was Agamism as there were massive temples built, gods installed and worshipped. There were even many philosophically endearing Temple Hymns sung, a tradition that was continued by Tamils in their latter day Sacred Tamil literature where most of the hymns are Temple Hymns.

2.
Now the main methodological orientation was already worked out even as early as 3000 BC. When Surruppak said “nig-nam kal-kal-in me kal kal (Ta, nikaznam kalkallin mey kal kal): if you study the happenings around you will learn truths), he already articulated the METHOD that has sustained Dravidian philosophical tradition to this day and which has enabled them to develop numerous Hermeneutic Sciences where Metaphysics has been developed as the most inclusive Hermeneutic Science. This was the accomplishment of Meykandar and in which he also deconstructed all the Vedantas brilliantly. The TRUTH- orientation made the Dravidian philosophers remain OPEN to all philosophies but only to deconstruct all with the view to establish and enjoy TRUTH and nothing else. All the Vedantic schools have been pushed to Parapakkam, the realms of the false. Only that which remains beyond all forms of deconstruction are retained in Supakkam and Saiva Siddhanta with its Triadism belongs to this Supakkam. It is worth remembering that none of the Vedantic scools have anything comparable to the Siddhiyar of AruNandi, the SaGkaRpa NirakaraNam of Umapathi etc. The Vedantic philosopher do not venture beyond the different interpretations of the Vedanta Sutras and fight bitterly among themselves only about the interpretations. This is true even to-day none of the Vedanties ever bother to read Meykanda Sastras and so forth and establish the Vedanta by deconstructing them.

3.
Now while all the Vedantic traditions are authoritarian, Siddhanta tradition is not. You can see that in any treatise on Vedanta, at very crucial points they will say since X is inconsistent with the Vedas, it has to be rejected. The believe is that Vedas already contain the TRUTH, only they contain the TRUTH being Aparushiya etc and so no metaphysical insights contradicting the Vedas can be admitted. The Vedanties CANNOT reject the Vedas and plunge into metaphysical inquiries independent of the Vedas. They don’t have the mental freedom to reject the Vedas and investigate as free souls. This also makes the Vedantic tradition implicitly support the very evil Varnashrama Dharma that has eaten up into the whole of Hinduism like a poison.

4.
Now such a restriction into metaphysical studies does not hold in the Siddhantic tradition where metaphysics has been developed as the most inclusive Hermeneutic Science. We are FREE to reject the Vedas, the Agamas, Meykanda Sastras, the Sacred Tamil literature and so forth and begin inquiry into metaphysics taking the World as TEXT and existence as something being written there. As is the case in Science there are no authorities except that of TRUTH. Siddhantins search for Axiomatic Truths, the truths that cannot be further deconstructed. The Fundamental Ontology of Triadism, the Siddhanta Mukti and so forth are Axiomatic Truths and hence already there as objective realities to be encountered and enjoyed by ANY. So it also promotes a VD free egalitarian society where all human beings are treated as potential mumuksus.

5.
From this it also follows that while the Vedantic systems promote inauthentic life, a life of ideological constructions, postulates beliefs and so forth that do not invite deconstruction but only rationalization. In contrast to this Siddhanta has located the Axiomatic Truths that allow further deconstruction (if possible) and with that found an existence on absolute truths. Such an existence is the most authentic existence and hence something that is really San Maarkkam, the Way of Enlightenment. Now as part of this and as an understanding whatever axiomatic truths, the piramaaNam a soul enjoys is a blessing of BEING, aruL. Siddhanta also cultivates LOVE and COMPASSION and not at all the Vedantic aloofness and indifference.

6.
Now it should be noticed that the Suddhadvaita or the absence of alienness of the soul with BEING is actually a matter of Pure Love unto all and that unless LOVE and Compassion are cultivated the SAMENESS of the soul with BEING cannot be enjoyed and which is again a GIFT of BEING. In Vedanta systems there is no love and compassion and BEING is understood only as Brahman, the resplendent and not at all as Anbu, Love and Compassion. No Vedantic Maka Vakkiyas declare Anbe Sivam (Love is Siva and vice versa) and so forth.

Loga
31.5.2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What an excellent summary of siddhanta and vedanta, and it is some of your best writings so far. It is fantastic and I agree with it entirely. I shall save it and promote it. Like I said we have advanced siddhanta more in these last few
weeks than in the last 700 years, even more in the last two days. Perhaps my forceful and confrontational writing brings out the better in you.

That said, let me clarify somethings. When we say vedanta what we mean is the upanishads. That is what Tirumular meant, and not the uttar mimamsha philosophies based on the so called 'vedanta sutras', all of which did not exist
during his time. So if you want to hit these vedantic philosophies please carry on but do not refer to them as vedanta. Instead refer to them as uttar mimamsha schools of philosophies. Otherwise it gives the wrong impression that you are knocking the upanishads and as Dr. Kannan says, someday someone will use these to run you and your writings down. We have no quarrels with the upanishads; it is in accordance with siddhanta and vice versa.

We are agreed that the works of Tirumular, Meykandar, Arunandi, Umapati Sivam, etc are incomparable, and in their dazzling light the rest of the sages and philosophies are mere shadows. One look at the Tirumantiram and the entire upanishads will look like its pale shadow. But that is for others to find out and say so! It is not for us to criticise the others (and other sages) if they do not know and acknowledge it.

I have always suspected that the vedas and agamas did not suddenly spring from nowhere in the 2nd millenium BCE in such perfect form, rather that it must have had some previous beginnings. Due to little archeological findings to support the suspicions all we could say was 'Saivism is prevedic'. Now we have some linguistic proofs, thanks due to your works and those few before you, that there is indeed a linkup and continuation from Sumerian texts. It is for this reason that I quickly included the Sumerian texts in the chronological listings of Hindu texts and sages as prevedic here in this forum a few months ago, thereby bringing things to a completeness. Though such thinking may be nascent it is only a matter of time before the indologists acknowledge this. Some swamis already have.

While the vedas limits itself to propounding the Ultimate Truths, Tirumular went even further than that in stating that there is something even higher than truth, and that is, Love is Siva. In this regard even the vedas is not comparable to the Tirumantiram. Tirumular must have found that in the agamas and in his realisations. This is not to say the vedas does not talk of Love; it is also there as the ananda of 'satchitananda', but this has not been propounded rather left in the background with little attention to it.

The reason why siddhanta is not widely studied is because it is largely in tamil, and its proponents often insist one must know tamil first before reading siddhanta. This puts a blocker. But I have shown there is siddhanta in sanskrit too and even prior to Meykandar. So should I insist that everyone learn sanskrit to understand siddhanta? Now its english that is propagating siddhanta and thats the way to go.

Let us not confuse casteism and caste atrocities with either vedanta or siddhanta. Let us leave it out completely. It arose from the smirthis and its a sociological problem due to the mass psychological influences of these evil texts on the people.

Pathma
31.5.2007

.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.
Now if the North Indians were not aware of Meykanda Sastras and the hundreds of philosophical treatises written by Tamils because the language was Tamil, we can understand that. Even this shows how prejudiced and closed are the Hindu minds - It just baffles me to note that the bulk of North Indian scholars can remain ignorant of the deconstructions of all Vedantic schools by Meykandar, AruNandi and so forth.
 
But anyway the surprising thing is that since the 16th cent there has been hundreds of books on Vedanta written by great Tamil scholars and mostly non-brahmins except for Tattva Rayar. I have a good collection of them. You are familar with Kaivalya Navaneetham of TaNdavarayar, Vedanta IlakkaNam of IIsuur Caccinathan SwamikaL, etc.  Now among hundreds of these NONE  comparable to Siddhiyar SaGkRapa Nirakaranam and so forth. In none of Vedanta texts written by Tamils and in Tamil language, there is a desconstruction of other schools including Saiva Siddhanta to establish Vedanta as the Supakkam.
 
As a young man when I made it a point to collect as many books in philosophy and in Tamil, this is one of the glaring DIFFERENCES I noticed  between Siddhnnta and Vedanta. Even in post 16th cent Saiva classics like Tattva Prakasam, NjaanavaRaNa ViLakkam, etc we see clear description of contrary philosophies and their deconstruction.
 
The point is Vedantic culture does not promote FREE inquiry - it closes the mind and resorts to REPEAT what has been said and which finally rests on the authority of the Vedas.
 
Now you may counter my view by saying that Swami ViddyaNaya's (16th cent)  Sarva Darsana Sagkraham is comparabel to Siddhyar, etc. But you find  here  only a compilation of the different schools of Indian philosophy (Saiva Siddhanta not included) but no deconstruction at all. The book does not have Parapakkam and Supakkam.
 
The only conclusion we can arrive at is that the Vedantic tradition does not promote FREE inquiry and whether Brahmins or Non Brahmins, whoever follows Vedanta do not practice the art of deconstuction and with that seek out Axiomatic Truths.
 
This applies also to the 18 VaishNava Rahasya Granthas - none of them deal with Saiva Siddhanta and many other schools current at that time, and deconstruct them. Here too there is no culture of deconstruction.
 
I will be happy if anyone can cite me philosophic texts in Tamil and on Vedanta which practices deconstruction as practiced by AruNandi, Umapati and so forth.
 
Loga
31.5.2007

Bakti is the essence of the veda samhitas. The entire rig veda samhitas are hymns of salutations, adoration, devotion to the gods, prayers of thanksgiving and beseeching benedictions upon the worshipper. These are bakti hymns, sung to the gods in devotion in homa sacrifices as well as in temples today. The hymns are full of humility and love for the gods.

Singing to the gods has been the Hindu tradition continued in the bakti hymns till this day. It is for this reason Hindus wrote hymns in the vedas, thirumurais and prabandam - hymns to be sung to the Gods.

Muslims read the doa (affirmation), Christians pray (beg), but Hindus sing songs of love and adoration of the gods. There is a difference here.

Whereas the agamas are *manuals* of worship and jnana. They are not a collection of devotional hymns like the veda samhitas and thirumurais (although some mantras are mentioned) - they are instructions on worship. It is a collection of instructions or 'orders'.

The thirumurais and prabandam follows the same pattern as the veda samhitas in an unbroken continuity.

The rudram and chamakam together saluting 26 Dieties in the yajur veda are the grandest hymns of devotion par excellence in the vedas and remains unexcelled. Likewise the Sri Suktam, found in the khila rig (not the vedas, but an addendum to the rig which was added onto the rig much later) which is addressed to MahaDevi (but later interpreted as Lakshmi), the the Lalita Sahasranama which occurs in the Brahmanda Purana, and the Aditya Hridayam for Narayana in the Ramayana.

I'm sure there is bakti enshrined as the essence of the Sumerian texts?

The itithasas and puranas are not bakti texts in my opinion but a continuation of the metaphorical hermeneutic explanation of 'truths' in the communicative language of myths, which tradition has its origins in the vedas itself.

In passing may I mention that neither the vedas nor puranas were written by Vyasa. He was the author of non devotional texts; commentator on some upanishads and the yoga sutras of Patanjali, as well as the author of the Bharatha (not the original Jaya, the precursor of the Bharatha, whose author remains unknown) which is the precursor of todays Mahabharatha. The bharatha is a collection and woven together composition, and then expansion, of several vedic and puranic metaphorical myths. So we can safely say he wrote nothing new.

In my readings of his writings he did not come across to me as someone who knew about meditation, let alone enlightened. Anyone who is on the spiritual path, now or in the past, would have noticed it quickly in fifteen minutes of reading. He came across to me as a scholar. My humble opinions only and I hope this is received in the spirit of study and enquiry.

If we are discussing philosophy, all participants must disclose their stand and
define it. This is being transparent.

In post no. 27668 I have already clearly stated my stand, on advaita, siddhanta,
siddhantin, the areas of agreement, and the areas of disagreement. I call my
siddhanta as Monistic theism or Advaita Isvarapada. This advaita encompasses the
threefold relationship of god and the soul. It is derived from the Tirumantiram,
backed by the Tirumurais, consistent with the upanishads, and in my view does
not necessarily differ from the Siva Jnana Bodham, although the way we explain
it is different. (It may differ from the rest of the Meykandar shastras as it
seems to take a different turn and become more dualistic.)

Ganesalingam says, "this aspect of relationship in three states (onraai,
udanaai, veraai) is the *Advaita* relationship mentioned in Siddhanta
philosophy". (Which is what I said anyway.)

And he mentions, "the second Aphorism of Sivagnanabodham speaks of the Advaita
relationship in Siddhanta philosophy" and he further states, "The Advaita
relationship of God with us *always exists*".

In post no. 27352 Ganesalingam then says, "saying 'Siddhanta is Advaita' is like
saying 'table is chair' (because both are made of wood)".

Dr. Loga now says, " I don't agree at all with Pathma's claim that Siddhanta is
Advaita. The one-ness that Siddhanta talks about is suddhadvaita and which means
the absence of alienness".

Chandra says, "My conclusion....it is pluralism all the time from Sumerian times
right up to Meykandar.".

Can everyone now see the confusion in siddhanta? They are not really sure how to
characterise themselves, are averse to using the term advaita due to its
association with the mayavada philosophy which they despise. Well the word
'advaita' does not belong to the mayavadins.

In his article on Siddhanta Mukti, Dr. Loga says:
"It gives an account of advaita without annihilating the psyche in the
process."

"The Siddhanta Mukti is not annihilation of the subject,...it is a transposition
into an inseparable unity, a supremely blissful oneness with the Deity
Himself. Most certainly we cannot think of anything higher than that
homogeneity".

In that same article Dr. Loga characterises the oneness of god and the soul as
"the 'soul is in perfect harmony with the Diety, perfect synchronity,
indistinguishable from the Diety, its activities are in fact the activities of
the Deity, homogeneity with the Diety, the impossibility of distinguishing the
soul from the Diety, the soul does not do anything the Diety does not, the soul
is the Diety as far as behaviour goes, there is an inability to establish a
fissure between the soul and the Diety, an inseparable unity of the soul and the
Diety'.

Now what is that? Just look at it. This is advaita! This is what we monists have
been saying all along! This is a long winded, wordy, roundabout rhetorical way
of saying 'advaita'. This is not dualism or pluralism. The above description of
the union with God is what we simply, clearly and unambiguously call 'merging
with Siva'.

Well at least we have finally after 700 years, established clearly that
Meykandar's Siddhanta is suddhaadvaita. Fine, that is acceptable to me. Whatever
the qualifications and prefixes are, it is still advaita. The qualifications are
just hair splitting and which I think is not necessary.

Whereas all these 700 years siddhantists have not been clearly defining
themselves, rather they have been calling themselves pluralists, or avoiding
every sort of definition and ducking any attempt at categorisation. That was my
point. One reckless writer even hastily wrote a book called 'There has Always
been a Pluralistic Saiva Siddhanta'.

When we call them pluralists, they immediately point to the oneness and say they
are advaitists. When we tell them that what they are saying is advaita, they
immediately point to the three eternal realities.

In the threefold relationship, when I highlight the oneness (ondraai), they
highlight the twoness (veyraai). When I say that the cup is half full, they say
the cup is half empty! This is exasperating.

It is not for no reason that the very first word in the 3,000 verse Tirumantiram
says, 'onRavan thAnE (The One is He only), clearly stressing its importance, and
of the One Reality ONLY.

Gordan Matthews explains even all deities other than the Agent of Dissolution
are themselves necessarily involved in the universal dissolution. All evolutes
and dieties too permanently and irreversibly dissolve in Him. Anything that
evolves, dissolves.

He further clarifies, "God's relation to souls is advaita, non-duality; this
relation is understood as a synthesis of three relations, abheda or identity,
bheda or difference, and bhedabheda, a combination of these two.

In para 7 he says, "God, the Real, does not know Pasa, the non-real; for the
non real cannot appear in the presence of the real, even as darkness cannot
exist in the presence of light. And even if God did know Pasa, He would not know
it objectively, because it does not exist apart from Him".

"..Conversely, Pasa, the non-real, which includes Maya and its evolutes.."

In other words, pasa is non real and has no ultimate reality, and dissolves in
Him at Dissolution.

Satyam which means 'the ultimate truth or reality' means, "that which exists in
all the three periods of time (past, present and future) without undergoing any
change; and also in all the three states of consciousness (waking state, dream
state and deep-sleep state)." This is therefore the absolute Reality —
birthless, deathless and changeless — referred to in the Upanishads as Brahman
or Siva, and to jivas (souls) too.

This does not mean that the world of maya is unreality, rather the world is
relatively real, relative to brahman. Relative Reality, pasa, is not eternal.

But I take it further; whatever exists after Dissolution, after time and space
have ceased to exists, is the Only Reality. For time, space and causation starts
at the point of creation and ends at dissolution. Where there is no time and
space there is no eternity, no existence, and whatever is there cannot be
described.

He further states, "..the soul achieves its escape from anava, the principle of
individuation, through its union with God. It is not enough for the soul to know
God; because even when it knows Him there is the illusory thought, `I know Him'.
The soul, to destroy this illusion of `I' and `mine', must not only know Him but
be one with Him".

Again Matthews says there will be no 'I' and 'my' upon dissolution. All separate
identity will disappear.

What all this means is that pasa is a non-Reality, an evolute, and the souls
union with Siva is outright merging with permanent and total loss of identity,
with the annihilation of the psyche, for as long as the psyche remains the 'I'
and 'my' remains.

This is advaita. And I have shown it clearly even from the Siva Jnana
Bodham/Raurava Agama. This is what Meykandar says! This is what the
Sivajnanabodham says.

If one can abandon the fixations with the rest of the 13 Meykandar Shastras, one
can begin to see what Meykandar actually said.

It is for these reasons that I say that insofar as the relationship between God
and souls and its ultimate merger, we, all siddhantins, are advaitists, and we
have no differences.

Let us use this term.

But all these are rationalisations of the mind, whereas there is an area beyond
time, space and causation where there is consciousness but no mind, and the laws
of mind and matter don't apply. This is the area of the tattva no. 1-5 and
beyond tattva no. 1 (parasiva).

My arguments cannot be
refuted as it is based on the Siva Jnana Bodham itself! I simply lifted the
lines from the Meykandar Karuttural in the explanation of the SJB. The
translations are not mine at all, but by Gordon Matthews (Oxford, 1947). I can
provide further references by S. Shivapadasundaram (1934) where he too explains
siddhanta as advaita (but distinguished from mayavadin advaita) in explaining
the Siva Jnana Siddiyar.

In the absence of rebuttals and deconstruction of my arguments, which now stands
for all time as it has been published in this respectable international forum,
my position that siddhanta is advaita and on siddhanta mukti then stands,
unchallenged. And it is in accordance with the Siva Jnana Bodham insofar as
mukti.

Which then allows us to proceed to the next stage of discussions, if the
participants so wish, on the areas of disagreement, viz, creation or non
creation of souls, and on triadism.

Before that one issue needs to be clarified:

On Ekan anekan, Dr. Loga says, "The point is that BEING discloses Himself in
countless number icons or deities leading the souls to think that is Many " Siva
VishNu Muruka Ambal etc but where as a matter of fact He is really One. "

You have limited anekan to mean just the various iconic forms, the various gods.
Whereas we take Anekan to mean not just iconic forms or gods, but include souls
and the world. This is our different understanding. Why do you restrict? Where
is the qualification on anekan? Ekan, Anekan is followed by Iraivan, meaning
Lord or Ruler. What would He be a Lord of? Souls and the world of course, and
not just the various iconic forms. Why would He need to be a Lord of His own
iconic forms?

This remains another area of disagreement.

Now to proceed to the issue of creation or non creation of souls, I would need
the questions raised in my post no. 27745 to be responded to.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27745

The reason is it would become obvious to the discussant that I have already
deconstructed Meykandar's siddhanta (which I feel Dr. Loga already suspects).
For the first time in 700 years in a public fora, meykandar's siddhanta has been
demolished, in that fateful post no. 27745. This is why I said that in the past
few weeks we have really moved siddhanta forward. I hope this development is
welcomed and pondered over, and not criticised.

Meanwhile, while responding to this post and my earlier questions, consider this
from the SJB which relates to the issue of creation, dissolution and triadism.

"Nothing can come into being except out of the dissolution into which it
dissolved; for it dissolves there."

"That which dissolved is produced (again) from that into which it dissolved."

"That which is produced must be that which dissolved."

"If thou sayest that that which dissolved is in (the Agent of preservation), then the
whole world has not dissolved. (The Agents of)preservation and production
dissolve there (viz. in the Agent of dissolution)."

"Darkness cannot exist in the presence of light." (When light appears, the
darkness recedes without a trace. Where is the darkness then?)

The above are not my words or translations. Please dont blame me or anyone for
mistranslations or misunderstandings because these are lifted straight from the
Siva Jnana Bodham, from the Meykandar Karutturai and from the interpretations of
the 18th century commentary by Siva Jnana Yogi in the expository notes. Its your
own shastras, not mine.

Dissolve into something, then later emerge from that something. That is creation
and dissolution. If the gods (iconic forms) dissolve in Him, if the worlds
dissolve in Him, why would the mere souls not dissolve in Him with total
annihilation of identity when they already enjoy a oneness relationship with Him
anyway, all along? These are the axiomatic truths, on the laws of emanation or
causation.

The deconstruction of triadism is clear, as all that undergoes changes,
including fettered souls and the worlds *dissolve* in Him.

Pathma

The Dravidian folks and right from Sumerian times were neither montheistic nor polytheistic but rather METATHEISTIC. This is summarized by Manikkar when he says BEING is both Ekan (One) and Anekan (Many). A few years back I wrote many essays on Metatheism showing this is how in Sacred Tamil BEING is understood.

The notion of Metatheism seems to be quite unique to Dravidian Thesim.

Loga

Essence-ing Appar on the Metaphysics of Colors-3

One of the most important concepts that thrived in Sumerian culture (perhaps also in Nubian and Kemetian) is that of METATHEISM and which involves the AVOIDANCE of MONOTHEISM that has been at the roots of evangelical religions and continue to be so even now causing the many religious strives throughout the world. The Metatheism of Appar that he clearly formulates here and elsewhere, avoids not only this Monotheism but also the Vedantic Idealism where ‘atman’ is taken to be as the same as Brahman (God?) a view that has been very repellant not only for the Saivites but also the Tamil VaishNavites who have battled with this Advaita Vedanta in their own way. Metatheism is the understanding that the ONE and SAME BEING shows Himself in so many different iconic forms and all only to illuminate the understanding of the creatures so that eventually and in stages they are brought to enjoy the Njaanam, the Absolute Understanding so that the very hermeneutic impulse to investigate and search is undermined and subliminated

The Sources Monotheism

But what is source of Monotheism and how was it avoided by the Sumero-Dravidians at least?
With this question in mind, let us look at the following verse again

3.
cintai vaNNamum tiiyatoor vaNNamum
antip pootu azakaakiya vaNNamum
pantik kaalanmaip paayntatoot vaNNamum
anti vaNnamum aavar aiyaaRaree

Meaning:
The BEING who pervades this Temple of AiyaaRu takes also forms whereby He stimulates metaphysical thinking where He takes the Form of Pure Fire (tiiyatoor vaNNam) in order to PURIFY the consciousness by burning off the dirt within. Now when one has come to end of life and fears death He also assumes various kinds of the Beautiful Forms and showing that there is BEAUTY even at old age He dispels the unwanted fears. On the way when fear of premature death grips the soul, He discloses Himself as the One who can terminate the whole of embodied existence by transporting the soul to the timeless metaphysical realms that allows them to enjoy the Nittyam, the absoluteness (the Anti VaNNan).

BEING here is the Rudra Siva, the Agni Ille, the Intense Fire and in which form he singes to ashes the Kaalan, the Black One, the demon of DEATH. Metaphysical BEING-as-Rudra is the Fire that violates the DARK FORCES, the Malam that throws the whole of cosmos into the Primordial NIGHT, a situation where NOTHING is allowed to shine forth as there, enjoy a presence, uL-mai (uNmai) being there as real. The Kaalan that causes the DEATH is this same DARK FORCE but in the soul and which does the same - devour the physical body so that the soul is forced to roam around somewhere but bodiless until BEING blesses with another physical embodiment (Punar uRpatti).

Now we can see that this BEING-as-Rudra is WHOLLY powerful and who cannot have another power above Him to cause its presence or absence, that BEING-as-Rudra is a power unto Himself, the Supreme, the TaRparan, the One ABOVE all.

In this understanding we can see the birth of Monotheism as was probably the case with Zoroastrianism where this Rudra worship was installed and to the EXCLUSION of other icon presentations of BEING. Now we do not have exclusivism in the Vedas reputed to be contemporary to the Avesta of Zorostrianism and where in addition to Agni we also have the worship of Indra Soma, Purusha , Mithra and so forth and in this quite consistent with the overall cultural openness that we see in SumeroTamil literature. En Hudu Anna as almost all the great Sumerians did NOT worship a single deity to the exclusion of others. En Hudu Anna though certainly very fond of In-Anna also sings the glories of An, En Lil and so many other deities .

Now we see this avoidance of Monotheism and continuation of METATHESIM most clearly in the following verse of this Patikam as well

4.
iruLin vaNNamum eezicai vaNNamum
curuLin vaNNamum coothiyin vaNNamum
maruLum naamukan maalodu vaNNamum
aruLum vaNNamum aavar aiyaRaree!

Meaning;
BEING who pervades the Temple of AiyaRu is the Night colored at the point of the total annihilation of everything into the Empty Nothingness when everything is resolved into the Black Hole and becomes the Forms of the Seven Musical Notes (when he re-issues) the resolved universe. Now He also becomes the One with the Long Curls that He spreads across the whole universes during His Ananta Tandava (that installs sexual desires within all). At the same time becomes the Pure Light to illuminate all creatures (and with that prevent the fall into vulgar sexuality). To help further the creatures in their metaphysical learning He also becomes the Brahma who installs the desires for scriptural learning and production and Tirumaal of Yoga Nidra so that the creatures will also enjoy Deep Dreams and with that access the world beyond the senses.

Here the key description is that eezicai vaNNam- the form of all musical notes and which we can generalize to all colors and forms. It also retains the importance of AESTHEICS, the arts and the spirit of hermeneutic sciences where the sciences are approached THROUGH the arts and not by KILLING the arts as is done in the Western positive sciences.

The Avoidance of Monotheism

Now how is the uncountable multiplicity of the forms and colors of BEING is maintained along with the fact BEING is ONE and the Supreme who has NOTHING above and along with Him?

Here emerges the essentials of the Pedagogic Hermeneutic of the Dravidian folks (perhaps common to all the Tantric traditions in India and elsewhere) . Whatever taken for analysis is a TEXT with a DUALITY of structure - the Surface Structure(SS) and Deep Structure (DS). When human understanding does not forget or dissolve this DEPTH dimensions as structured by SS-DS elements and where the metaphysical journey can be like into a China Box, entering into a box only to discover another within and so forth, we can see that BEING-as-One-and-Supreme at the Deepest of DS with all other colors and forms as DS’s on the way. We can take up the climb upon a mountain to illustrate the point. BEING-as-the One is the Peak experience while BEING as so many deities as the experience of the SAME BEING but at the different steps while climbing up.

When we remain alive to the peak experience of BEING or the possibility of it while enjoying the experiences of BEING at the various steps on the way, we have an understanding that is essentially metatheistic - the ONE and SAME BEING showing Himself in so many guises -dancing away as said in CaGkam Tamil, assuming and throwing off different guises ( palluruvam peyarttu nii aduGkaal )

The Avoidance of Advaita Vedanta
.
The essence of Advaita Vedanta is the denial of the substantial and separate identity of self, the atman and taking it as the same as Brahman, Paramatman etc and attributing the sense of difference in ordinary life to some kind of inexplicable Maya Sakti etc. Now once we keep firmly to the fact that our understanding is TEXTUAL with SS-DS organization inherent to it, it is clear this kind of understanding pertains to the self, the Atman and it remains as such even at the Peak Experience where it reaches the Absolute Understanding, the Njanam and which also understands from within that experience itself that it is the LIMIT, that it cannot move further for it encounters only Sunyam beyond it, as Meykandar observed (sattu etit suunyam). The self is there as that which enjoys this Njaanam and which is the LIMIT only because it has overcome the EGO completely. The Paramatman is not BEING only the ego-less self. The self that has been the dual self, the sat-asat-self become the Sat-Self alone at the point of this peak experience and it is this Sat_Self that is the Paramatma.

Loga

As there have no rebuttals and my propositions and deconstructions have been
allowed to pass without challenge, we may proceed to the next level of
discussion. If in future a discussant wishes to rebut my refutations of the now
debunked Meykandar siddanta, we may resume our discussions then at that point.

The usual summarised view of the siddhanta philosophy as put forward by the
Meykandar siddhantists is as follows:

"The triad - God, souls and the world are three eternal realities, each separate
and distinct from each other, and uncreated, existing from eternity. God in His
infinite Love so as to free the souls, existing from eternity, fettered by the
bondage of anava, created this world from the pre-existing uncreated primordial
stuff, maya, so that souls and evolve and know Him and reach His Holy Feet to
forever enjoy a non-dual (but a differentiated oneness) relationship with Him."

It is claimed that this is the teachings of the Siva Jnana Bodham. There are
many translations of the SJB, some of which I have studied. Shown below are two
translations by Gordon Matthews (GM) and K. Loganathan (KL).

It is my view, and I now challenge any discussant to show otherwise, that the
claim that 'souls and the world are uncreated independent eternal realities', is
not found anywhere in those twelve sutras of the SJB. No such postulate has been
put forward by Meykandar. The SJB does not deal with the issue of creation or
non creation of the souls and worlds! It is silent on those issues. It deals
with freeing the souls of its inherent fetters.

So where did that assumed claim come from? From the 13 commentaries on the Siva
Jnana Bodham which together with the SJB are collectively called the '14
Meykandar Shastras'. Being commentaries they are not really original writings
but an expansion and elaboration of the 12 original SJB sutras. And in that
process assumptions and corollary postulates have been put forward so as to make
the whole Meykandar philosophic scaffolding stand.

In these commentaries the question was asked, 'why did god create the world'.
And inorder to resolve that they 'worked backwords' to come up, to provide, a a
reasonable and acceptable basis. A hypothesis was put forward, 'that God did
create the world', and therefore a hypothetical theory was backward generated -
logic working backwards, 'that it must have been indeed a praiseworthy reason
for him to do so'. So we arrive at a solution that 'it was to free the eternal
souls from the malams' that 'somehow got enmeshed with souls', even though the
malams are obviously not integral to the soul. As to how the souls got infected
with malams in the first place is not for anyone to impertinently ask, and
neither was such a crucial question dealt with in the SJB which is supposed to
be a complete overarching philosophy.

Notice that the SJB did not comment anything on the subject of 'why god created
the world' but delves straight into freeing souls of anava.

So I make a firm separation between the SJB and the rest of the 13 Meykandar
Shastras. The MS is not in compliance and consistent with the SJB. It dealt with
a subject that was not dealt with in the SJB.

While we are on this let us be reminded that the Siva Jnana bodham is a
translation of the Raurava Agama, and therefore not an original text (this is
accepted by S. Shivapadasundaram). Tirumular (200 BCE) mentions the 28 agamas,
including the Raurava, which means that agamas clearly preceded the SJB. The
'receiver' of the Raurava Agama according to tradition is Rishi Gautama, a vedic
sage, who authored/received several rig veda samhitas an well as several
upanishads. One would be hard pressed to believe that he would write something
that contradicts his own upanishads and rig verses.

As to whether Meykandar translated the Raurava agama faithfully is another
issue, but something I do not which to pursue as it is not necessary. We are
certain that Meykandar did not author the SJB because he wrote a commentary to
the SJB, the Meykandar Karutturai. One does not write a text and then write a
commentary on it. There would be no logic here, as that would mean his SJB is
incomplete, and a sorely needed addendum was required.

The word 'siddhanta' was used for the first time in the Tirumantiram. It is used
to describe the philosophy of Tirumular. He was a saint and therefore did not
codify his philosophy as a scholar such as Meykandar would. Neither in the
Raurava Agama or in the Siva Jnana Bodham is the word 'siddhanta' once used to
describe itself as that philosophy. Siddhanta therefore cannot be used to to
describe the Siva Jnana Bodham.

While the vedas and upanishads speaks of several traditions including monism,
dualism, monotheism, polytheism as well as metatheism, the agamas are specific;
it is singularly theistic, monistic and unambiguous. This can be shown later if
required.

It has to be shown clearly 'where exactly' Meykandar 'wrote' in those twelve
sutras that souls and world are;

1. uncreated by Him,
2. independent of Him
3. and on Dissolution, souls and worlds continued to exist independent of Him.

After all, such important distinctions would surely deserve a clear statement to
that effect.

Let all read and judge for themselves. Just quote me the exact sutra number and
line, as I cannot seem to locate it.

Thereafter I shall proceed to show exactly what Meykandar's commentary was, to
further discredit the now demolished philosophy that is so called 'Meykandar's
siddhanta'.

It must be borne in mind that 'what remains unchallenged and undeconstructed' is
the final siddhanta.

Regards.

Pathma

SIVA JNANA BODHAM

FIRST SUTRA
GM: Because the world, consisting of things male, female and neuter, is subject
to the three operations (production, maintenance, and dissolution), it is an
entity produced (by an Agent). Having dissolved, it comes into being again
because of Impurity. The end is the beginning, say the wise.

KL: This world, objectively understood and linguisticalized in terms of the
pronouns he, she, it and so forth is a totality that is in historical flux; and
therefore a Reality caused to appear. And since though dissolved by DARKNESS
into not-being-there, it gets continuously reissued, there is a BEING that
remains as the causal ground for its dissolution and reissuance. So will say the
philosophers.

SECOND SUTRA
GM: He, being one with souls and other than souls, abides in inseparable union
with the Power, so that souls experience going and coming because of twofold
works.

KL: The creatures act as if they are BEING itself, get into the existential
circulation of births and deaths as determined by the MORAL LAW, the basis of
which is the undying DECREE of BEING, who stands always with them never
departing or absenting HIMSELF even for a moment.

THIRD SUTRA
GM: By saying that it is not, by saying `my body', by knowing of the five
senses, by knowledge when they are suppressed, by the absence of feeling and
activity in sleep, by knowing when caused to know,(it is proved that) there is a
soul in the body which is an instrument produced by Maya.

KL: The psyche exists as a distinct entity in a machine-like body because; there
is the act of denial or negation; there is appropriation of the body as its own;
there is consciousness of the five senses being ineffective during meditative
moments; when deeply asleep there is no emotional and feeling toned activities,
and there is learning on being instructed.

FOURTH SUTRA
GM: The soul is not one of the inner faculties. But being without knowledge
owing to Innate Impurity, it is associated with them like a king with his
ministers, and has five states.

KL: The psychic entity is not any one of the internal cognitive utensils but
rather that which uses them (to attain various states of consciousness). Being
not-yet-fully-conscious because of the intrinsically present atomising DARKNESS,
like a king who uses the information provided by his ministers (to make a
decision), the psyche enjoys the five fold existential states (with the use of
these utensils).

FIFTH SUTRA
GM: Though body, mouth, eye, nose (and ear) perceive by the help of the soul,
they do not know. Like them, souls, (though they know), by the grace of the
Peerless One in their knowing (do not know). They are like the iron in the
presence of the magnet.

KL: The senses the eyes, nose, mouth, the body and so forth do not perceive and
judge unless ordained by the psychic entity the truth of which has already been
shown. In an analogous manner the psychic entities remain ignorant of themselves
unless they are given to understand themselves by BEING that remains the GROUND
of LOVE. The psychical entities attain self-consciousness in being drawn unto
BEING irresistibly like pieces of iron are drawn to a magnet.

SIXTH SUTRA
GM: If He is knowable, He is non-real; if He is unknowable, He is non-existent.
Therefore the truly wise say that He is neither, but is spiritual reality,
knowable and unknowable.

KL: If whatever apprehended is nonabsolute and if not apprehended at all then it
is a nothing, the understanding of BEING, it should be noted is not either of
these. It is understood however in a way distinct from the above too. The world
is understood and articulated in terms of these two distinct modes of
understanding, i.e. understanding the civacat and acat.

SEVENTH SUTRA
GM: In the presence of the real all things are non-existent; so the real does
not know (them). The non-real is not; so it cannot know (the real). (Therefore)
that which knows both is the soul which is neither.

KL: Because there is nothing as an Other in the context of absolute
illumination, BEING cannot be said to perceive in the ordinary sense. The
Non-Being, because it is NOT-THERE absolutely, can never be conscious of the
possibility of absolute illumination. Hence there is something different from
BEING and Non-Being with the capacity for both i.e. with a Being that is
[Being-(BEING)] and which on account of that does not cease to be a single
individual.

EIGHTH SUTRA
GM: When because of the soul's meritorious practices the Primal One enlightens
the soul as a guru also, saying, `Brought up among savages, the five senses,
thou hast lost consciousness (of thy true estate), the soul leaves them and,
being not other (than Hara), reaches Hara's feet.

KL: The human beings are normally lost in the pleasures of the senses that they
seek like the hunters and grow ignorant of the nonsensorial. The BEING however
discloses HIMSELF in various archetypal forms and instructs as a GURU and on
account of which the human beings gain illumination provided they practice the
necessary austerities. And since BEING is not alien to the Being of these
individuals, they naturally gravitate towards the divine presence of BEING.

NINTH SUTRA
GM: Let the soul by spiritual vision discover the Lord in its own
consciousness-the Lord who cannot be known by imperfect knowledge and
sense-perception. Which the soul abandons the world of sense as a quickly
passing mirage, the Lord becomes cool shade (for it). It will ponder the Five
Letters in the manner prescribed.

KL: BEING cannot be comprehended with the objective glances that disclose only
the sensorial, the physical and hence transcending them and developing visages
for the noumenal realities one should seek to comprehend BEING through
hermeneutical efforts in these realms. And having grasped the essence of BEING
which is beyond any form of the linguistic one should abandon the earthly
desires. At this point the relevant sadhana is pancatsara, the recitation and
full understanding of which would lead the anma to the cool shades of the
presence of BEING ITSELF.

TENTH SUTRA
GM: When the soul, having become one (with the Lord), even as the Lord is one
with the soul, abides in the Lord's service, powerful Karma and Mala and Maya
pass away.

KL: Existence constituted by the self living as SAME AS BEING is authentic
existence. And when one pursues it, being always One-With-BEING and doing only
those dictated by BEING, not only we escape the worldly attachments but also the
karma so difficult to disengage otherwise.

ELEVENTH SUTRA
GM: Like the soul which makes the seeing eye to see-in order that the soul may
see, the Lord sees, and makes the soul to see. Therefore in unforgetting love
the soul reaches the feet of Hara.

KL: Like the mind that directs the eyes and makes them perceive, BEING directs
the self and also discloses to the self what it is in itself. And because of
this overcome with immense gratitude the anma will abide with unabating LOVE
towards BEING and follow unquestioningly Its dictates.

TWELFTH SUTRA
GM: When, having washed away the Impurity which prevents it reaching the
sustaining Feet that are like the red lotus-flower, and having joined the
company of those who love the Lord, the soul is rid of delusion, it worships as
Hara Himself the habit of those who abound in devotion, and His shrines.

KL: Having destroyed the presence of ANTIBEING within that resists the anma
accessing and being in the realms of UNIVERSAL DANCE, one should be in the
company of those in LOVE with BEING, worshipping the divine individuals pure in
heart and full of universal LOVE and the Temples as if BEING itself is present
as these.

Links to Translations:
http://shaivam.org/tamil/sansivae.pdf
http://mssubashinik.tripod.com/sivabo_1.htm

In Tamil:
http://shaivam.org/siddhanta/san_sivagnana_bodam_u.htm

These are issues that we have to ponder over a while and let it sink in, as we
have been so long fixated to given ideas, this ruthless discrediting would be
mentally violating. Dazed and disoriented, one may console oneself and walk away
thinking this is just a minority opinion of a misguided person, or a
mistranslation by foreigners. But have a look below (at the bottom of the page)
of a translation of the SJB by one of the greatest and most prolific of all
tamil poets, listed among 'Worlds Great Men', Kavi Yogi Shuddhananda Bharati.
(http://www.srambharati.com/sria/anglais/Association/DrShuddhananda.html).

A careful reading shows there is no pluralism at all in the SJB. In fact, in the
first verse Meykandar states that all things -- which he calls "he, she and it"
-- undergo the three processes (creation, preservation and dissolution). He also
states that Siva is Himself the end and the source of existence. Meykandar
speaks of God, the Creator, as Beginning and End. Nowhere does he tell us that
souls coexist from eternity with God, that there were three things in the
beginning and will be three in the end. Rather, he clearly states that there is
one Beginning, God; there is one End, God. Antham aathi - the end (is/becomes)
the beginning. Nor does he speak of an eternal, uncreated world. He assures that
God created in the beginning and will reabsorb in the end.

I can provide any amount of quotes from the shastras, but we have all been
through that tiring route umpteen times before. The vedas, agamas, upanishads,
tirumantiram all use analogies to explain emanation and dissolution. The Raurava
Agama itself describes creation as a spark of fire or light issuing forth from
the third eye of the Creator. All these we shall put aside to consider what the
Meykandar Shastras says.

Meykandar says,

5. 2 (a) "Siva is not conscious of the non-real (world), because the non-real is
nothing."

6.2(b) "All the organs of knowledge are non-real; therefore none knows the One.
And thou, the knower, cannot know (Him). If thou knewest Him, He would be (an
object) other than thou. He who has seen the Truth knows (Him) by Himeslf. So he
does not know the Peerless One as (an object) other than himself.

7.1 In His presence there is no inglorious non-real, even as there is no
darkness in the presence of the sun.

8.4(a) The soul, like a great river dammed, escaping from the restriction of
sense-knowledge attains the everlasting feet of Hara and never returns, just as
the river bursting the dam flows into the sea and merges itself therein.

12.4(d) O thou who hast learnt the Siddhanta that thou art Siva, souls with one
and with two Impurities become Siva, where there is no rebirth.."

I have been quoting the SJB and the Meykandar Karutturai verbatim. None of these
is my words.

It is Meykandar himself who uses the analogy of water merging with water, and
exclaims 'thou art Siva'. In his own words he says that 'siddhanta teaches thou
art Siva'.

He so clearly speaks of the 'non real' (world) and of vanishing without a trace.
He says the world is non-real and therefore Siva does not know the world, as it
does not exist, as the darkness does not exist when there is light. He says only
the soul perceives the world, only for the souls do the world seems to exist,
and in ignorance it clings to it. In his own words Meykandar debunks triadism.

There is laya, pralaya and mahapralaya. The agamas only deals with pralaya (as
mahapralaya is too far away). Even Arulnandi, the most respected of Meykandar's
commentators, admitted to the completeness of mahapralaya and thereby
transcended pluralism to absolute monism at mahapralaya when he wrote in
Sivajnana Siddhiyar:

Only One remains at the end of time.
If two others (pashu-souls and pasham-fetters) also
remained at their posts, then it cannot be.

One cannot say this and not be a monist.

All these remains irrefutable, BECAUSE I have not quoted any 'authority' even
once all this while. I have not quoted any veda, agama, upanishad, or
tirumantiram, but I have simply reproduced verbatim the words of the grandmaster
logicians Meykandar and Arulnandi from their texts, which is the subject of
discussion! (One can only refute what is not one's own position. One cannot
refute one's own position.)

The SivaJnana Bodham and the Meykandar Karutturai is entirely monistic-theistic,
consistent with the Tirumantiram and the Agamas, and this is attested
unequivocally by Arulnandi. We have brought an epoch to an end.

As there can be no refutations, and my post can only be responded to with
elegant silence indicating negative concurrence, we could proceed to
corroborating the siddhanta rationalisations.

Regards.

Pathma

Siva Jnana Bodham

as translated by

Kavi Yogi Shuddhananda Bharati, 'The Revelations of Saint Meykandar'.

1. He, she and it -- these are the three terms in which the cosmic entity is
spoken of. This cosmos undergoes three changes -- birth, growth and death --
triple functions. It appears, stays and disappears; but it reappears by dint of
the ego-consciousness which binds it. He who ends it is its origin. He, Hara, is
the Supreme Master: so say the seers of knowledge.

2. He is one with souls; yet He is Himself unattached, beyond all. He is
identified with His willpower, His knowledge-force in inseparable union. Through
this force, He pervades all and submits souls to birth and death, allowing them
to eat the fruits of their dual acts [good and bad deeds].

3. Because it says: "The body is the mechanism of nature. A soul dwells in its
core." For it responds, "Yes" or "No." It asserts, "This is my body." It feels
the five sensations. It is conscious in dreams. It does not hunger or eat or act
in deep sleep. It knows when taught.

4. The soul is none of the antahkaranas [the inner faculties or senses]. The
soul does not feel shrouded by egoism. It is cognizant only in conjunction with
the Inner Instruments, just as the king knows the state of affairs through his
ministers. Similar is the relation of the soul with the five planes of
experience, too.

5. The senses perceive and carry impressions of external objects to the mind.
But they cannot know themselves; nor do they know the soul. The soul perceives
through the senses and the mind. But similarly, it cannot know itself or God. It
is the Divine Grace that activates it, just like a magnet activates iron.

6. If [God] is knowable, then He is nonreal; if unknowable, He does not exist.
Therefore, the wise of the world say that He is neither of the two, but the
Supreme Reality, both knowable and unknowable. [This version is from Mariasusai
Dhavamony's Love of God According to Saiva Siddhanta, who renders this sutra and
the next more adequately.]

7. Before Being, all things are nonexistent; hence, Being does not know
[nonbeing]; nonbeing does not exist, so it cannot know [Being]. Therefore, that
which knows both [Being and nonbeing] is the soul, which is neither Being nor
nonbeing [Dhavamony].

8. When the soul is sufficiently advanced in tapasya (spiritual discipline), the
Supreme Lord comes in the form of a divine master. He instructs the soul: "O
Soul, thou hast fallen into the hands of the hunters [the senses]; growing up
among them, thou hast forgotten the Lord, who is thy very core. Awake!" The soul
wakes up to Reality, renounces all attachments to the senses. It devotes itself
unreservedly and uniquely to Hara and attains His Blessed Feet."

9. The Lord cannot be seen by carnal eyes, by the senses. The eye of knowledge
must open. Thought must fix in it. Bondage of the lower nature must be left off
as a mirage. Then the soul finds shelter in God. To attain this blissful state,
the soul should meditate upon the mantra Namah Sivaya.

10. Siva is one with the soul. The soul must merge its individuality, become one
with Him and do His Will; then there shall be no stain of maya and karma left in
its immaculate self.

11. The soul sees and enables the eye to see. Even so, Hara sees, knows and
enables the soul to see and know. The soul, by ceaseless devotion (love),
attains the feet of Hara.

The best the vedas came up with was the 'thou art that. Meykandar went further
and clarified 'tat' as Siva. For this we are indebted to him. No more ambiguity.
Now you know why we call it siddhanta.

You can share with me you dreams and I can share with you my visions. We all
accept the 'reality' of dreams because all of us have experienced dreams during
sleep even though there is no way to prove it to another. When we are asleep,
with all the sense organs are shut off, and we experience a dream, that is a
fact of the existence of soul. The dream is received and processed by the barely
functioning mind. When awake we remember our dreams indicating that it has been
recorded in the subconscious as a memory.

One can tell me their dream in vivid detail but there is no way for me to verify
or corroborate it, that one has indeed had a dream and what the substance of the
dream was, and what was the hermeneutic interpretation of the dream was. It is
not possible to verify another's dream unless we have the same dream which is an
imposibility. But we accept that dreams are possible and take a person's word
for it. It is accepted as a testimony.

Likewise with visions. Having a vision is almost exactly like having a dream,
except that it is in the waking conscious state and not during sleep state. Here
too the sense organs are temporarily shut off and the mind at a standstill.
Another difference between dreams and visions is that there is (usually) no need
for any hermeneutic interpretations, for visions are direct cognitions of
another Reality. We perceive it directly, and enjoy the effects of it. For
example it like seeing another sun in the sky in the waking conscious state -
two suns at the same time, something that can be repeatedly seen at different
times, on different days, experienced repeatedly as often as we want to. This is
very unlike a dream. There is nothing to interpret except to simply recognise
that reality of two suns. A vision would be something like that except that it
is in the meditative/worship state experiencing the inner reality and not the
outside physical world.

Most people have dreams most of the nights except that most do not remember it
upon waking. Therefore they say they only experience dreams occasionally. This
is not true. What is true is that they don't remember.

Anyone who can dream can have a vision. But we hardly hear of people saying they
have had visions, and so we conclude that visions are rare and only experienced
by rare spiritual souls, rarely.

Well, this is even more untrue. Most people have visions most of the time in the
waking as well as after the deep sleep state. It is just that they do not
recognise it! It is because of this non recognition that we find it hard to
accept the 'reality' of visions. While all of us accept the reality of having
dreams most people cannot accept the possibility of having visions, though both
cannot be 'proved'. This is itself illogical, and such statements of having
visions are met with disbelief.

So how do we corroborate dreams and visions? A Belgian friend asked if I
meditate and I replied, 'yes, in the morning'. Then he asked me, 'is it before
brushing your teeth or after brushing your teeth'. This question immediately
told me that he indeed was a meditator. I replied, 'before brushing my teeth',
and with this he immediately recognised that I was an established meditator. We
recognised each other, and we both knew more or less where each other stood. To
his statement that he practiced mantra meditation I replied I did 'light and
sound'. Thereafter concord, harmony and deference followed.

For those on the path, this is how we recognise a testimony, as only another
knower would know it, and all others are excluded from this knowledge. Another
person present in that discussion thought we listen to background music while
meditating and offered to lend me his CDs on buddhist chants! This is the
'criteria to verify a testimony'. It would be impossible for one to convince
another about dreams if that other person has never ever experienced one
himself. Likewise with visions.

So we see things differently; chandra (moon), surya (sun), the warm glow of
soma, infinite energy, agni the fire that gives no heat - all these things means
different to us. To the rest they just chant 'agnim ille purohitam..''
mindlessly. It may interest you to know that when we speak of 'that' or 'tat',
all of us whether hindus, buddhists, taoists, christians, etc - exclusively call
it shiva, not kuan yin, nirvana or anything else. No other word can be used
to describe it adequately. It is a state as well as a Being that is very alive,
and of infinite energy. No other diety that we know of quite corresponds to what
we are trying to mean. Ganesha, Muruga and any other dieties just does not quite
'fit' this Being. Meykandar must have experienced that, and clearly identified
'tat' as Siva. It is for this we are in gratitude and recognise his greatness
too, over and above the vedas.

It is for this reason that teachers of the past formulated traditions like
chariya, kriya and yoga, so that the people can train themselves to be open to
receive metaphysical dreams and remember it, and experience visions during the
awake state. These are practices to shutoff the mind, shutoff the instinctive
and intellectual mind, shut off the subconscious, release the sub of that
subconscious, shut the sense organs, and recognise the inner reality. When one
is stable in these practices, having a vision is as routine as having dreams
during sleep.

Time and Space are the axis of the room that provides a three-dimentional
experience, with past, present and future. If one is living in a sealed room
right from birth, one cannot know what is outside, and the laws that apply
there. We cannot know if there is time and space or whether the room is
free-falling in a vacuum. One can only speculate. Outside time-space there are
no points of reference; we cannot say we are standing still, or falling, because
there is no fixed point of reference. We cannot say something exists or does not
exists; we can only say something in relation to something else, relative to
something. Outside time-space 'there is no something else'. Anything that we
rationalise about the period prior to creation (or time-space) is guessing or
postulating. We are applying laws of the room to the realm outside the room. All
that we can firmly say is that, 'we do not know' - naam ariyom.

Why stop at rationalisations? Why not go further, higher, to corroborate? Here
only an experiencer can tell us of it. It would be his testimony of his
experiences. Siddhanta accepts all avenues of information, more so those of
Sivajnanis - knowers of Siva.

Logic and rationale can only supply standards. "The agamic method is of
proceeding from facts of experience to general principles and in saiva
philosophy, experiences includes yogic vision obtained by spiritual
illumination, which may be regarded even as the higher type of intuition." (The
Saiva School of Hinduism by S. Shivapadasundaram, Victoria College, Jaffna,
1934). Wisdom says we have to corroborate our reason with testimonies by
jivanmuktas. These testimonies are experiences of being outside the room.

Consider another way of looking at the solution, the yogic way, and what past
and currently living jivanmuktas have shared with me is this:

1. In the White Light
Here the meditator goes into a realm where there is a brilliant white light
pervading everywhere. He has consciousness of himself and the White Light, and
nothing else. He is not aware of his body, mind or the world. Only two things
remain - his awareness and the white light. Its a duality.

2. In the Dark Inner Space
Next, from the realm of the white light the experiencer moves into another realm
where there is what we call the Dark Inner Space pervading everywhere. It looks
like the physical outer space above the stratosphere but this is inner, within
us, and it is dark. The meditator has consciousness of himself and this Dark
Inner Space and experiences deep peacefullness. He is not aware of his body,
mind or the world. Only two things remain - his awareness and the dark endless
space. Its a duality.

3. In the Golden Light
Next, the experiencer moves from the realm of the dark inner space into another
realm where a yellow-golden light is experienced. It is not really a 'move' from
one realm into another but rather the realm of the dark inner space transforms
into this Golden Light pervading everywhere. It is formless form. The meditator
has consciousness of himself and this Golden Light. He is not aware of his body,
mind or the world. All these things cease to exist. Only two things remain - his
awareness and the golden light. Its a duality.

4. Entering the Golden Light
Next, the experiencer 'moves' from merely being aware of the golden light to
entering it, or, becoming the golden light. This is a transition phase, where
the consciousness of the experiencer merges into the golden light. He is only
aware of the merging.

5. Becoming the Golden Light
Next, the transition is complete, and the experiencer has become the Golden
Light. He is the Golden Light. He has lost awareness of his own personal
consciousness. There is no duality. Only One Thing exists in this realm. The
experiencer sees himself as All, has all knowledge and bliss, but no power.

6. Entering the Nothing
Next, the experiencer as the Golden Light, moves or transforms, into The
Nothingness. There is no duality. He is only aware of himself as
the golden light entering another dimension and becoming The Nothing. This is another
transition phase really.

7. Becoming the Unknown
Next, the experiencer 'moves' from experiencing The Nothing to merging into the
Nothing and becoming what we call as The Unknown. Nothing is describable in this
state. It cannot be said if anything exists or does not exists.

State 6 & 7 is what we term as parasiva, parabrahman, atattva (beyond the 36
tattvas). Buddhists call state 6 as nirvana. The relationship cannot be
described, (if there is one, that is) except as not two.

State 3, 4 & 5 is what we term as satchitananda, parashakti, Siva or Saguna
Brahman, tattva 1 & 2. Oneness and twoness is experienced here.

Nowhere in any book to date has the parasiva state been described in two stages,
like above.

When the experiencer 'returns' to normal consciousness and the mind begins to
stir and become alive again, it is only the 'aftermath of the experience' that
is remembered, but is not fully explainable.

How do we know if this was made up or a fake. Check any veda, upanishad or agama
and you will not find any such knowledge there. Only living jivanmuktas can
describe all these stages with such clarity, precision and exactitude. And this
is the first time something such as this this has been published in the public
fora.

Or, show this to any jivanmukta and he may confirm its accuracy. I have
confirmed this with 'more than two' living jivanmuktas, men and women, Indians
and Chinese, Hindus and Buddhists, more than a thousand times, over decades. It
cannot be corroborated otherwise, as siddhanta deals with those realms that
transcends the mind. Otherwise it would be like convincing one about the reality
of dreams when that person has never had a dream in his entire life.

While the rest of the world can rationalise and speculate on these issues, we
know it for a certainty, as clear as the sun rises each morning, and corroborate
it directly with the Diety daily. Because thats what we do daily; corroborate it
each morning.

But it remains that these testimonies overrides any rationalisations of the mind
that we discussed above, as it deals with areas beyond the realms of the mind,
in the realm of tattvas 1 to 5.

The point here in this testimony is that it reconfirms the non-dual
relationship, the threefold relationship of God and soul, the final siddhanta,
that 'thou art Siva'.

One can read the geography of a place, rationalise about it, but its better to
have it confirmed by one who has visited the place. All of our rationalisations
must be corroborated and verified by experiencers and not remain mere
intellectual gymnastics on documents.

This would be my final in this series for the moment. Is there anyone who wishes
to rebut it?

Until such time, this stands as the final siddhanta - monistic, theistic,
advaita isvarapada, the siddhanta of Tirumular and Meykandar. There are no other
philosophies and religions in the world today; what remains existing in the mass
mind are illogics as well as that commonly known as 'myths, superstitions and
faiths'.

Regards.

Pathma

For easy reference these are the records that has to be dealt with.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27352

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27639

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27668

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27701

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27745

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27778

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27819

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27832

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27868

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27887

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27909

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27921

Learning the TRUTH and Gaining Moksa

TRUTH is something objectively there in the world accessible to all and as deathless. Because of this any culture that organizes itself as for seeking TRUTH also becomes DEATHLESS. The social philosophy promoted is also one of EQUALITY where no one is denied accessing and enjoying the TRUTH that hovers in the horizon as belonging to all. The TRUTH is NOT trapped inescapably in any of the scriptures or the mind of the messiahs. The Tamil culture has disallowed this enslavery of the mind and this is the secret of its survival and which we realize now in that it is one of the most ancient cultures of the world that still survives with a vitality of its own. When a culture is founded upon TRUTH, everything on the way can be thrown out and new insights installed and thus the culture maintained with CONTINUITY amidst even fundamental changes.

It is quite amazing that what Appar declares as the essence of Metaphysical Life as distinct from the religious life of fanaticism and hatred was also declared by Suruppak around 3000 BC and in a language that is quite clearly Tamil: nig-nam kal-kal-en nig-a me kal-k