1

I said at the beginning that there was no script during the time of Shiva. There was an alphabet but no script. What a strange situation! People had to learn the alphabet by pronouncing it. There were sixteen vowels and thirty-four consonants, a total of fifty letters. Everything had to be learned by hearing it from the masters, and along with the proper pronunciation, everything had to be memorized.

Long after Shiva’s time, about six thousand years ago, pictorial script was first developed in China, and almost the same time or a little later, Dravidian pictorial script or Saendhavii script (Mahenjodáŕo script) came into existence in India. In later periods the ancient pictorial script of China underwent great transformation and took the form of the modern script, and the ancient Dravidian pictorial script of India, through gradual metamorphosis, took the form of letters (that is, of the Bráhmii and Kharośt́hii scripts). This ancient Indian alphabetic script was in use throughout West and South Asia, Tibet, Sri Lanka and all of Southeast Asia. Chinese pictorial script was in use in Siberia, Mongolia, Outer Mongolia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the Okinawa group of islands.

Long before Shiva, the Vedas came into being. There are six related limbs of the Vedas – chanda, kalpa, vyákarańa, nirukta, jyotiśa and áyurveda (also called dhanurveda). Though these treatises are not as ancient as the Rgveda, they are quite old, and existed before the time of Shiva. That is, even though there was no alphabet at the time of Shiva, there were quite a few scriptures, which were learned by hearing them from the guru’s mouth and were preserved very carefully by committing them to memory. Because the existence of all these scriptures depended on people’s memory power, it was very difficult for a single scholar to be an authority on more than one scripture. So the people who were well-versed in more than one scripture were highly esteemed, and those who were authorities in all six limbs of the Vedas – chanda, kalpa, vyákarańa, etc. – were honoured with the title of śad́aungii.⁽¹⁾ Those who were adept in one Veda – who had committed the whole Veda to memory – were known as páńd́eya ([modern surname] Pande); those who could memorize two Vedas were known as dvivedii (Dube); those who could memorize three Vedas were known as trivedii (Tiwari); those who were able to remember all four Vedas were called caturvedii (Chaube). It is to be remembered that the division of the Vedas into Rk, Yaju and Atharva⁽²⁾ arose only after script came into existence.

In those days there were many interpreters and commentators who could not themselves commit any Veda or scripture to memory but could explain it after hearing it from those who had memorized it but could neither understand nor explain it themselves. This is why in those days people used to say, Ávrttih sarvashástráńáḿ bodhádapi gariiyasii [“The recitation of all the scriptures is better than the understanding of them”].

Whatever might be the number of shástras – needless to say, all were unwritten – in existence at the time of Shiva, there was no such thing as darshana shástra. Maharshi Kapila wrote darshana shástra for the first time; by that time alphabetical script had been invented. People were charmed by his erudition and almost all the scholars of the society venerated him as the first exponent of darshana shástra, and called him ádividván [first scholar]. This erudite personality of Ráŕh enumerated the fundamental causes of the mystery of this creation and presented them in a systematic way before the society of scholars.

The perennial questions confronting humanity are: What is this universe? What is a living being? What is God? What is the relation between living beings and the universe, between God and living beings, between God and the universe?

Má go ámár ei bhávaná
Ámi kotháy chilám, kotháy elám
Kotháy yába nái t́hikáná.

[Oh Mother, this is the only thought in my mind: Where was I? Where am I now? Where shall I go? I know nothing about these matters.]

It is not an easy task to answer these perennial questions satisfactorily. Maharshi Kapila enumerated certain fundamental causes obtained by an intensive analysis of various facts and factors, and then said, “Living beings and the universe must be considered on the basis of this enumeration of fundamental causes.” He did not clearly say anything about God, but he considered the idea that one entity is controlling everything, and said that the existence of a single controller may be accepted, and that controller may be termed Janya Iishvara. What to speak of thoroughly explaining the relationship of the universe and the living being with this Janya Iishvara, he did not even make any superficial observation. Since Iishvara could not be experienced directly, Maharshi Kapila did not clearly accept His existence. He proclaimed that átmá [soul], or puruśa [consciousness], is present in every living being, and so there are innumerable puruśas. But there is only one Primordial Prakrti, and this Primordial Prakrti is the main cause of the creation of this universe. Hers is the predominant role. That is why in Sáḿkhya, another name of Prakrti is Pradhána [the Predominant].

This is how he established the relationship between Prakrti and this universe. He recognized the existence of puruśa, or átmá, in every unit entity, but the concept of Iishvara remained unexplained. People can be liberated from bondages with the help of sádhaná, and these liberated persons are called mukta puruśa [liberated souls]. Even after the attainment of liberation, the puruśas remain separated from each other – that is, the plurality of puruśas remains unaffected. Kapila did not clearly explain the concept of liberation; although he said something about the saḿkalpa and vikalpa of the human mind, he did not explain it explicitly enough to give people a clear idea of the concept of liberation or salvation.

Shiva was a tremendous personality; it is impossible to explain such a great personality within the scope of Sáḿkhya philosophy. There is a clear difference between Shiva’s teachings and the assertions of Sáḿkhya philosophy. Shiva has clearly stated that this universe originated from a conscious Entity; it is maintained in the vast body of that conscious Entity; and it will finally merge again in that conscious Entity. Shiva’s greatness overwhelmed the váda, jalpa and vitańd́á⁽³⁾ of the Sáḿkhya philosophy.

The basic foundation of a comprehensive philosophy rests on váda, jalpa and vitańd́á. If the foundation is not sufficiently strong, the duration of the philosophy’s existence is not long. The Sáḿkhya philosophy defeated many later schools of philosophy by marshalling many arguments with the help of its intricate weapons of váda-jalpa-vitańd́a, and continues to do so even today. But the propounders of this philosophy were so overwhelmed by the greatness of Shiva and the radiance of His personality, though much older than themselves, that they could not give any idea of Shiva to humanity. Their own eyes were dazzled.

I was referring to the three weapons of philosophy – váda, jalpa and vitańd́á. One of those is váda, to strengthen one’s position through logic; the second is jalpa, to demolish the structures of the other philosophy or doctrine through logic; and the third, vitańd́á, is to capture the zone of intellectual influence of the defeated philosophy. Sáḿkhya philosophy possessed all three of the weapons of logic. But the Sáḿkhya philosophy avoided the great practical personality of Shiva.

Now it is ridiculous to compare Párvatii with the Prakrti of Sáḿkhya philosophy, because Shiva is not to be considered as one of the innumerable puruśas. It is like:

Tomáre páche sahaje bujhi tái ki eta liilár chal!
Báhire yabe hásir chat́á bhitare tháke cokher jal.
Bujhi go ámi bujhi go taba chalaná,
Ye kathá tumi balite cáo se kathá tumi bala ná.
Tomáre páche sahaje dhari, kichuri taba kinárá nái,
Dasher dale pheli go páche vimukha tumi, virúpa tai?
Bujhi go ámi, bujhi go taba chalaná,
Ye pathe tumi calite cáo se pathe tumi cala ná.
Sabár ceye adhik cáha, t́ai ki tumi phiriyá yáo,
Helár bháre khelár mata bhikśájhuli bhásáye dáo.
Bujhechi ámi bujhechi taba chalaná,
Sabár yáhe trpti hala, tomár táhe hala ná.

[Lest we should understand you easily, You elude us through so many pretenses!
While externally people beam, inside there are tears.
Yes, I understand, surely I understand Your pretenses.
You don’t say what You really mean;
Lest we should understand You easily, You have made Yourself limitless.
Are You angry with us because we have counted You as one of the many?
Yes, I understand, surely I understand Your pretenses.
You don’t walk along the path on which You pretend to,
You demand more than anyone: is that why You go away unsatisfied?
You throw away Your beggar’s bag as if it were a plaything;
Yes, I understand, surely I understand Your pretenses –
When everyone else is satisfied, You are still unsatisfied.]

The beggar’s bag will not be filled up. This beggar does not approach anyone for anything; He wants the person, not the alms. It will never be proper to compare this unique personality with one of the many puruśas of Sáḿkhya. No, whether or not this puruśa becomes angry or annoyed at such comparisons and if He does indeed become annoyed, how His anger is expressed – this will be discussed later.

2

Long after the Sáḿkhya philosophy was propounded, another great philosopher was born in Ráŕh – Maharshi Patanjali. He took special care to correct some of the basic defects of the Sáḿkhya philosophy, but in some matters he lagged behind. His school of philosophy, which is popularly known as Pátaiṋjala Yoga, Yoga Sútram or Seshvara Sáḿkhya, is an eloquent testimony to his high degree of intellect and erudition. Some aspects of the philosophy were explained in a very psychological way, but it lacked the detailed analysis of Kapila’s Sáḿkhya. Another positive aspect of Pataiṋjali’s philosophy was that it accepted the existence of the all-controlling Iishvara and provided spiritual aspirants valuable guidelines for their intuitional practice. But a most glaring defect was that it failed to demarcate the relation between the jiivas [living beings] and Iishvara, the Supreme Controller of the universe. Moreover, it did not explain clearly and conclusively how Iishvara exercises His supreme authority in controlling the universe, nor why people should practise yoga, why they should try to suspend all their psychic propensities, etc.

Thus the fundamental difference between Shiva and the Iishvara of Patanjali’s philosophy is obvious. Shiva looked upon all the living beings of the universe as His loving children. He raised them with loving care and, at the end of their physical existence, pulled them onto His affectionate lap. Not even a hint of the glory and sweetness of Shiva’s ideology can be found in the Pátaiṋjala philosophy. Pátaiṋjala Yoga is a dull and dry school of yogic discipline; it does not make the yogi’s heart ever-fresh and ever-green. And unless the heart of a yogi is fresh and tender, the seed of devotion, although sown in time, does not sprout. Without that blissful flow of devotion which vibrates and inspires living beings to attain the highest spiritual realization, the Pátaiṋjala school of philosophy could not create a large group of devotees, a Hariparimańd́ala [circle of people around the Lord].

Not only the gods are fond of the fragrance of flowers; devotees also want to string garlands for their beloved Iśt́a with the fragrant flowers of the devotion of their hearts. If a flower has no fragrance, it has no value for a devotee. One should remember that the fragrance of a flower and the tender sweetness of a devotional heart together make a perfect combination. What does the perfume of the flower represent? The worldly activity which a devotee does with a heart filled with love is the perfume of the flower, and the overflowing devotion for one’s Iśt́a is the tender sweetness in the devotee’s heart. With these two together, the devotee makes a garland. Now, if there are fragrant flowers, but there is no sweetness in the devotee’s heart, then the devotee cannot make a garland for his or her Iśt́a – then there is no question of garlanding Him at all, and though the flower basket may be full of flowers, they wither with the pain of emptiness and the agony of unfulfilled yearning. Then if the Beloved does not accept the garland, what is the use of holding the basket full of flowers and crying –

Bhará sáji ki go
He mor Devatá
Emni bhariyá rabe.

[O beloved Lord,
Will my basket of flowers
Ever remain full?]

The Pátaiṋjala philosophy may have accepted Shiva as Iishvara, but certainly did not accept Him as the Lord of the heart. This was indeed a great injustice to Shiva, because He was the Supreme Lord of the human heart. The glory of Shiva is not properly reflected in the light of Pátaiṋjala Yoga philosophy. How, indeed, can it be reflected? Compared to the dazzling brilliance of Shiva’s effulgence, the dim light of the Pátaiṋjala philosophy is fainter than that of a glow-worm.

Footnotes

(1) Literally, “six-limbed”; one who is expert in all six limbs of the Vedas. From this comes the modern surname Sarangi. –Trans.

(2) Sámaveda is not a recognized Veda. The compilation of the musical portions of all the Vedas is known as Sámaveda. Here sáma means “song”.

(3) The three steps of Sáḿkhya logic. –Trans.