ŚIVAVIŚIṢṬĀDVAITA OF ŚRĪKAṆṬHA & ADVAITA VEDĀNTA OF ŚAṂKARA:

REVIEW OF SOME CONCEPTS

DR. T. GANESAN
SENIOR RESEARCHER IN ŚAIVASIDDHĀNTA
FRENCH INSTITUTE
PONDICHERRY

The Brahmasūtra-s of Bādarāyaṇa is an analytical text attempting a type of

systematisation of the more voluminous Vedānta corpus, viz. the Upaniṣad-s. The basic
purport of the Vedānta is supposed to be brought out by the Brahmasūtra-s. The high
spiritual realisations of the great sages such as Vāmadeva, Āruṇi, Yājñavalkya,
enshrined in the Upaniṣad-s, are taken up for discussion with a view to ascertain their
inner meaning whereby a sort of cogency and consistency in those immortal utterances
are arrived at.
Later commentator cum systematisers beginning from Śaṃkara, Śrīkaṇtha, etc. have
written their voluminous commentaries, again, with an attempt to arrive at a sort of
consistency in the Brahmasūtra-s. Thus while the Brahmasūtra-s show the primary
attempt at systematisation, the commentaries (bhāṣya-s) of these system builders (=
ācārya-s) show the secondary level attempt of the Brahmasūtra-s. Interestingly, these
ācārya-s again analyse and interpret (and many times re-interpret) these Vedānta texts
(vedāntavākya-s). Therefore, these commentaries willy-nilly follow and adopt the
pūrvamīmāṃsā technic of vākyaśāstra—analysing the passages contained in the
Upaniṣad-s.
Among the commentators of the Brahmasūtra Śrīkaṇṭha stands unique in that he is the
first to write a commentary from the Śaiva standpoint; and the first to bring in some of
the basic notions of the Śaivāgama-s in tune with the accepted Vedāntic thoughts.
 2

It is very strange that the scholarly world is yet to fully study the bhāṣya of Śrīkaṇṭha;
the method, the approach and the views enunciated by him in his bhāṣya have not yet
been fully analysed and commented in modern terms. And that too, Śrīkaṇṭha is not an
ācārya who lived in the recent past; with some amount of certainty he can be placed in
the 11-12th centuries. It seems the scholarly world is under certain bias towards a
particular system or branch of Vedānta and it has been overlooking the school of
Vedānta represented and ably established by Śrīkaṇṭha for quite a long time.
In my present paper I attempt to bring out some of the basic differences in the notions
of Śaṃkara the Advaita Vedānta systematiser and Śrīkaṇṭha, his Śaiva Vedānta
counterpart and highlight the fundamental differences in their approach basing mainly
on the notion of Brahma and the concept of Samanvaya.

Brahmavicāra

The first sūtra discusses whether the inquiry into the nature of Brahma
(brahmavicāra) is to be undertaken or not. If yes, the person qualified to do
so, his preliminary qualifications and the benefit he gets by such an inquiry
must be stated. First, a person who has duly studied the Veda undertakes an
inquiry into the nature of the duties (dharmavicāra). Desirous of attaining
the supreme good, then, he starts an inquiry into the nature of Brahma. For,
according to Śrīkaṇtha the Veda-ordained duties (dharma / karma) serve as
the means to the worship of Brahma which is the object of worship
(ārādhana-ārādhyabhāva) 1. Even the order--first the inquiry about dharma and
then that of Brahma--is on the basis of the Upaniṣadic 2 passages. For him the
inquiry into the nature of dharma as well as that of Brahma
(dharmabrahmavicāra) forms a single unitary subject. Thus Śrīkaṇtha appears
to accept both knowledge of Brahma (jñāna) and the performance of Veda-
ordained duties (karma) as contributing to the ultimate realization of Brahma
which is Śiva (jñāna-karma-samuccaya).

1
This view seems to be unique to Śrīkaṇṭha.
2
vidyāṃ cāvidyāṃ ca yastadvedobhayam̐ saha / Īśāvāsyopaniṣad, 11
satyena labhyastapasā hyeṣa ātmā samyagjñānena brahmacaryeṇa nityam / Muṇḍakopaniṣad,
3:1:5
 3

Next the reason to undertake the inquiry about Brahma: He, who, after having fully
studied the Veda and also having duly performed the Veda-ordained duties without
any selfish motive, takes to the inquiry about dharma. Thus acquiring mental
purification and supreme devotion and with a view to attain the highest good
(niḥśreyasa) he undertakes the inquiry into the true nature of Brahma. Also, by noticing
the apparent contradictions between those passages of the Veda that ordain the
performance of sacrifices (which are but the gross form of worship of Brahma) and
those that ordain the performance of meditations (which are but subtle form of
worship of Brahma) a person, desirous of attaining the supreme human end (parama-
puruṣārtha), takes to the inquiry into the nature of Brahma.

 Purpose of such an inquiry

There are apparently conflicting views expressed in the Vedic passages

regarding Brahma. One of them says that "ayamātmā brahmā" -- "This self is
Brahma", and naturally there arises confusion in the mind of the inquirer.
For, Brahma is said in the same text to be completely free from any impurity
and to be possessing unlimited knowledge, power and bliss whereas the
individual self is clearly perceived to be overpowered by impurity with its
power of knowledge and action very much limited. Further, the self
experiences good and bad effects of the actions done by it in many previous
births. Moreover, there are such Vedic passages as "Food is Brahma" 3, "The
vital air is Brahma" 4 and "Nārāyaṇa is Brahma" 5. Therefore, to clearly
ascertain the nature of Brahma and to know the correct import of these
Vedic passaages Brahma-inquiry is to be undertaken. The benefit of such an
inquiry is attaining the highest prosperity, which is the liberation

3
annaṃ brahma . . . Taittirīyopaniṣad, 3:2.
4
prāṇo brahma . . . . ibid. 3:4.
5
Mahānārāyaṇopaniṣad, 11: 4
 4

characterised by supreme knowledge and bliss effected by the complete

removal of bondage by the grace of Śiva 6.

Śaṃkara holds entirely different views on the subject of enquiry into the
nature of Brahma. For him, the study of Veda is common to both the enquiry
into dharma (dharmavicāra) and that of Brahma (brahmavicāra). But, he
strongly states that as dharmavicāra has for its objective the enquiry into the
nature of Vedic duties which are of the form of karma and which produce
material prosperity (abhyudaya) as their fruit, it cannot precede the enquiry
into brahmavicāra. Since, basically, Śaṃkara does not consider these two
enquiries and consequently the two śāstra-s as forming a single unity, he
states that dharmavicāra cannot and need not be the precondition or the
presupposed qualification for brahmavicāra. Further, according to him, these
two enquiries have completely different objectives and fruits. 7

What is more, Śaṃkara fully bifurcates the two enquries – dharmavicāra

and brahmavicāra-- and finds no relationship between them; while the
knowledge of dharma—dharmaj ñ āna—demands action and it does not precede

its enquiry, the knowledge of Brahma—brahmajñāna—is ever-existent and it

does not depend on any type of action on the part of the self. For him the
one does not and need not lead to a desire in the other enquiry.

Therefore, Śaṃkara states that as a pre-requisite and as a necessary

qualification, the person, desirous of Brahmavicāra should possess the four
fundamental qualifications—nityānityavastuviveka, etc. and he need not have
undertaken the dharmavicāra at all. Thus, one may say with Śaṃkara that
the proper study of Vedānta and the enquiry into Brahma are possible only
by those who have renounced the world, in other words, only by the

6
śivasya parabrahmaṇaḥ prasādātiśayenāsyādhikāriṇaḥ pradhvastapāśapaṭalā
pratyakṣībhūtaniratiśayajṭānānandarūpā tatsamānaguṇasārā kaivalyalakṣmīḥ prayojanam ca
bhavati । Śrīkaṇṭhabhāṣya, I. 1. 1.
7
dharmabrahmajijṭāsayoḥ phalajijṭāsyabhedācca / abhyudayaphalaṃ
dharmajṭānam, taccānuṣṭhānāpekṣam / Śaṃkara’s bhāṣya on BS 1.1.1
 5

renunciates. Naturally one would ask, what is the position of persons who
live in the world with family with regard to the Brahmavicāra ? Does
Śaṃkara preclude them ?

Coming to Śrīkaṇṭha we observe an entirely different approach and

scheme. Regarding the sequence, Śrīkaṇṭha clearly states that first the study
of Veda through the oral teaching of the Guru, then the enquiry into the
actual nature of dharma which naturally leads in course of time to the final
enquiry into Brahma. Śrīkaṇṭha is categorical in saying:

na vayaṃ dharmabrahmavicārarūpayoḥ śāstrayoratyantabhedavādinaḥ,

kintvekatvavādinaḥ .

“We do not differentiate between the inquiry of dharma and that of

brahma; we consider both of them as one.”

He further establishes his view that the entire text of the sūtra-s

beginning from ‘athāto dharmajijñāsā’ and ending with ‘anāvttiḥ śabdāt’ is

a single unitary text where the text [Brahmasūtra = Vyāsasūtra according to
Śrīkaṇṭha] that begins with ‘athāto brahmajijñāsā’ is an intermediary one.
According to him dharma acts as the means to the knowledge of Brahma as
evidenced by the śruti passage. 8 Explaining further, Śrīkaṇṭha says that
though mere performance of any Veda-ordained karma is independent, still
it produces purity of mind in the person (cittaśuddhi) which is a basic
mental qualification for the rise of desire to know Brahma when performed
without any motive towards their fruits (phalābhisandhivarjita). Śrīkaṇṭha
holds highly the dharmavicāra and he speaks about its greatness as a basic
pre-requisite for the brahmavicāra. He takes the dharma ordained in the
Veda as a prescription of the highest order given out by Śiva 9, the supreme
Brahma (parabrahma) and as already stated, holds that dharma leads to

8
tametaṃ vedānuvacanena brahmaṇā vividiṣanti yajṭena dānena tapasānāśakena ।
Bhadāraṇyakopaniṣad, 4:4:22.
9
tanniyogarūpacodanālakṣaṇasya . . . Śrīkaṇṭhabhāṣya, 1.1.1
 6

brahma. Thus for Śrīkaṇṭha the entire Vedic corpus is a unitary whole and
unlike Śaṃkara who gives more emphasis on the Upaniṣadic portion alone
(and there too, only on the passages that speak of nirguṇa or nirviśeṣa
brahma, while treating those texts that speak about ‘saguṇabrahma’ as less
valid), Śrīkaṇṭha never differentiates between the karmakāṇḍa and the
brahmakāṇḍa. For him the entire Vedic corpus is a single unitary scripture
taught by Śiva to Brahmā and to the worthy sages 10 and this Vedic corpus is
supported and corroborated by the auxiliary corpus constituted by the
Arthavāda which glorify its greatness, the Smti, the Itihāsa and the Purāṇa,
sayings of great men (abhiyuktokti), all elaborating the inner meaning of the
Veda. Here we observe that Śrīkaṇṭha does not omit or downgrade any text
of the scriptural corpus and for him it includes all the Vedic and the
auxiliary literature. Śrīkaṇṭha says that the performance of dharma as
ordained in the Veda is another and a special form of worship (ārādhana) of
Śiva 11 and it is the storehouse of all the ocean of human ends
(puruṣārtharatnākara). This makes clear the fundamental view and the
difference of approach of Śaṃkara and Śrīkaṇṭha towards the Vedic corpus
and their view of dharmavicāra and bramavicāra.

Continuing further, Śrīkaṇṭha states that the regular performance of all

the Veda-ordained duties without any attachment to their fruits will
naturally awaken discrimination (viveka) as well as supreme devotion
(paramabhakti) towards the Highest Brahma, Śiva, which makes the person
undertake the enquiry into His actual nature. Here also the contrast between
them becomes more evident as Śrīkaṇṭha places Bhakti towards Śiva in an
important position.

 Brahma

10
yo brahmāṇaṃ vidadhāti pūrvaṃ yo vai vedāṃśca prahiṇoti tasmai .
tam̐ ha devamātmabuddhiprakāśaṃ mumukṣurvai śaraṇamahaṃ prapadye ।।
Śvetāśvataropaniṣad, 6:18
11
tadārādhanaviśeṣasādhanarūpasya . . . Śrīkaṇṭhabhāṣya, 1:1:1
 7

After thus propelled by the desire to know Brahma, there arises, naturally, in the
mind of the inquirer the next question regarding its characteristics and distinguishing
features which is given by the second sūtra "janmādyasya yataḥ". According to
Śrīkaṇṭha janmādi -- birth etc. – implies also maintenance, resorption, veiling and grace
on the part of Brahma. Therefore Brahma is that which performs the above mentioned
five acts for which Śrīkaṇṭha adduces many Vedic passages as evidence.12 Here it should
be mentioned that, whereas other commentators such as Śaṃkara explain "janmādi" as
comprising three acts -- creation, maintenance and destruction -- Śrīkaṇṭha adds two
more, namely, concealing and bestowing grace. This fact shows the influence of
Śaivāgamic thought on Śrīkaṇṭha. Though defining Brahma which is pure consciousness
in this way is not strictly correct, as It is not the object of these five acts even then,
Śrīkaṇṭha says, a sort of general definition (taṭasthalakṣaṇa) can be offered. That is,
Brahma is that which possesses omniscience, etc., which has eight well known names
such as Bhava, Śiva, Śarva, and which is the unique cause of the world. It has six divine
qualities: omniscience (sarvajñatva), eternal satisfaction (nityatçptatva), possession of
knowledge of everything from beginningless period (anādibodhatva), absolute
independence (svatantratva), invincible power (aluptaśaktimattva) and unlimited power
(anantaśaktimattva). To substantiate that Brahma is Śiva who possesses all these qualities
a number of śruti passages are cited by Śrīkaṇṭha. The commentary is very elaborate in
this section and the śruti passages range from Taittirīya Saṃhitā to Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad,
Atharvaśiraś and Atharvaśikhā. The same type of texts are also cited as authority to show
that Śiva is the Supreme reality denoted by the eight names -- Bhava, Śarva, Īśāna,
Paśupati, Rudra, Ugra, Bhīma and Mahādeva.

Śrīkaṇṭha ably establishes that ‘Brahma’ can only denote Śiva and nothing
else; he adduces many number of Vedic passages, and from the supportive
literatures such as the Purāṇa-s. To enumerate some of the attributes of
parabrahma Śiva:

12
yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante . . . tad brahma ( Tai. U. 3, 1)
pradhānakṣetrjñapatir guṇeśaḥ saṃsāramokṣasthitibandhahetuḥ (Śve. U. 6. 16)
 8

1. He is qualified by the Supreme Śakti which transforms into

universe consisting of all conscious selves and inert objects. 13

2. He is the abode of the basic purport of the entire scriptural

corpus. 14

3. His divine and supreme glory is revealed through such names

as Bhava, Śiva, Mahādeva, Rudra, etc. which are synonimous
and bring out each one of His great attributes. 15

4. He grants the fruits desired by the upāsaka-s who are His

parts as it were inhering in Him, whom He graces according
to their devotion. 16

In the bhāṣya on the second sūtra, janmādyasya yataḥ, Śrīkaṇṭha clearly

establishes that the six supreme divine qualities—sarvajñatva, nityatptatva,
anādibodhatva, svatantratva, aluptaśaktimattva and anantaśaktimattva—
that are required for the Brahma to create, sustain and dissolve the universe
are present only in Śiva. Śrīkaṇṭha adduces so many śruti passages as
support for his thesis. The eight names—Bhava, Śarva, etc.—are used in the
Veda-s to denote that supreme Brahma. Śrīkaṇṭha uses the compound
‘aṣṭābhidhānādhikaraṇam’ often to drive home that Brahma is Śiva
possessing all auspicious qualities and it is Śiva denoted mainly by these
eight names. What is more, Śrīkaṇṭha clearly states that Brahma is never
‘nirguṇa’—without quality or qualifications--which view is another
differentiating mark from Śaṃkara.

 Samanvayādhikaraṇa

13
sakalacidacitprapaṭcākāraparamaśaktiviśiṣṭādvitīyavaibhava. . . ibid.
14
sakalanigamasārasāmarasya . . . ibid.
15
bhavaśivaśarvapaśupatiparameśvaramahādevarudraśambhuprabhṛtiparyāyavācakaśabda-
sāraprakāśitaparamamahimavilāsa. . .
16

svaśeṣabhūtanikhilacetanasamupāsanānuguṇasamuditanijaprasādasamarpitapuruṣārthasārtha
...
 9

After having thus put forth the knowledge (and eventual realisation) of Brahma as
the only means of attaining highest human goal and also giving its distinguishing
features and the source of knowing It the fourth sūtra proceeds to establish that Śiva
and Śiva alone is the purport of the entire text of the Vedānta . After repudiating the
view of the Mīmāṃsakas who consider that action alone is the purport of the entire
śruti text and not Brahma, as it is an established entity, Śrīkaṇṭha firmly proves that on
the basis of the six purport-deciding factors (tātparyaliṅga)--upakrama, upasaṃhāra,
abhyāsa, apūrvatā, phala, arthavāda and upapatti--one can clearly know for oneself that
Śiva is the purport (tātparya) and the connected meaning (samanvaya) of the entire
Vedānta literature. Commenting on the passage "ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo
mantavyo nididhyāsitavyaḥ" (Bhadāraṇyakopaniṣad. 2. 4. 5) Śrīkaṇṭha explains that
śravaṇa (hearing) in this context is but ascertaining by the application of the deciding
factors such as upakrama, etc. that the purport of the entire Vedānta texts is Śiva; by
extension then, it also means, according to him, meditation on the essential nature of
Śiva. Śrīkaṇṭha demonstrates as to how the above mentioned six factors are to be
applied in various śruti texts and concludes that the Vedānta texts not only present
Brahma as their purport but also enjoin meditation on It. Śrīkaṇṭha sums up by citing
suitable śruti texts that in the present case all the four types of injunction---utpatti,
viniyoga, adhikāra and prayoga---are applicable. He dismisses the objection that Vedānta
texts cannot be both injuntive and at the same time present Brahma as their purport by
arguing that such cases are noticed in those passages that enjoin both the performance
of sacrifice and its sequence. Thus Śrīkaṇṭha is of the firm view that the Vedānta texts
present Brahma as the object of knowledge as well as enjoin the knowledge of and
subsequent meditation on Brahma (upāsanā) that leads to its direct realisation17. For,
according to him, mere information about Brahma is incapable of bringing about
liberation, the highest human goal promised by Vedānta.18 Śrīkaṇṭha substantiates his
view by citing a number of Vedānta passages that clearly enjoin meditation on Brahma
and he takes the opportunity here to establish also that no other god than Śiva is

17
vākyena parokṣatvena jñāte brahmaṇi tatsākṣātkārāya jñānavidher upapatteḥ 
(Śrīkaṇṭhabhāṣya, I. 1. 4.)
18
yac chabdajñānaṃ na tat sākṣātkārahetuḥ  upāsanāpūpaṃ jñānam eva  (ibid)
 10

denoted by the word Brahma in the Vedānta texts19. For, the very name Śiva denotes
that supreme reality which is the repository of unsurpassed goodness and is free from
any trace of impurity and, naturally, Śrīkaṇṭha argues, this highest reality is the only
source of the highest bliss which is liberation.

In summing up we may say that the first four sūtras of the Brahmasūtra-s present
Brahma which is Śiva as the only purport of all the Vedānta texts and as the only source
of the entire phenomenal world which can be known only from the Vedānta texts by
the application of six purport-deciding factors. This, in a nutshell, is the burden of the
entire Brahma-sūtras and the sūtras that follow are the elaboration of the above views.

In the same samanvayādhikaraṇa Śrīkaṇtha establishes again with more

supportive passages from Śruti that Śiva is the brahma taught in the entire
Vedic corpus; He states the six purport-deciding marks (tātparyaliṅga)—
upakrama, upasaṃhāra, abhyāsa, apūrvatā, phala, arthavāda and upapatti--
at each instance, quotes the Vedic passage for every one of them and proves
how the entire gamut of Veda proves conclusively that Śiva is the Highest
Brahma and that the Veda also enjoins meditation on that supreme Śiva.

Śrīkaṇtha sums up by citing suitable śruti texts to prove that all the four types of
injunction---utpatti, viniyoga, adhikāra and prayoga---are applicable. He dismisses the
objection that Vedānta texts cannot be both injunctive and at the same time present
Brahma as their purport; he argues that such cases are noticed in those passages that
enjoin both the performance of sacrifice and its sequence. Thus Śrīkaṇtha is of the firm
view that the Vedānta texts present Brahma as the object of knowledge as well as enjoin
the knowledge of and subsequent meditation on Brahma (upāsanā) that leads to its
direct realisation20. For, according to him, mere information about Brahma is incapable
of bringing about liberation, the highest human goal promised by Vedānta.21

19
jñātvā devaṃ mucyate sarvapāśaiḥ (Śve. Up. 4. 16)
śambhur ākāśamadhye dhyeyaḥ (Atharvaśikhā, 3)
śiva eko dhyeyaḥ śivaṃkaraḥ sarvamanyat parityajya ( ibid.)
20
vākyena parokṣeṇa jṭāte brahmaṇi tatsākṣātkārāya jṭānavidherapapatteḥ । (Śrīkaṇṭhabhāṣya,
I. 1. 4.)
21
yacchabdajanyaṃ na tat sākṣātkārahetuḥ . upāsanārūpaṃ jṭānameva । Ibid.
 11

On the contrary, Śaṃkara refutes the view by saying that Brahma can never be
enjoined even for meditation; for him, Brahma cannot even be considered as a special
attainment (sampadrūpa). For, he opines that in that case it will jeopardise the actual
meaning of those passages establishing identity of Brahma and Ātmā—tattvamasi, etc.22
Śaṃkara also states that Brahma cannot be an object of the meditative action
(upāstikriyā) on the basis of the Kenopaniṣad passage 1:4:

yadvācānabhyuditaṁ yena vāgabhyudyate . tadeva brahma tvaṁ viddhi nedaṁ

yadidamupāsate /

Śrīkaṇtha substantiates his view by citing a number of Vedānta passages that clearly
enjoin meditation on Brahma and he takes the opportunity here to establish also that
no other god other than Śiva is denoted by the word Brahma in the Vedānta texts23. For,
the very name Śiva denotes that supreme reality which is the repository of
unsurpassed goodness and is free from any trace of impurity and, naturally, Śrīkaṇtha
argues, this highest reality is the only source of the highest bliss which is liberation.

For Śrīkaṇṭha Brahma is Śiva; The Ajitāgama, one of the 28 mūlāgama-s of

the Śaivasiddhānta, clearly says:

sa eva sarvagaḥ sadbhirbrahmaśabdena śabditaḥ .

Therefore Srīkaṇṭha is right in interpreting Brahma as Siva according to

Srutis, Puranas and Agamas.

As the famous Kasi Vasi Sentinatha Iyer, the Tamil translator of Śrīkaṇṭha’s
bhāṣya would put it, it is known from Mahābhārata and Śaivapurāṇa that the
meanings of Vedas should be expounded with the aid of the Itihasas and
Puranas. The Vāyusaṃhitā again says that Puraṇa-s construe the Vedic
meanings with great effort, whereas the Saivagamas expound them with
great perfectness. Therefore the Upaniṣad-s, Purāṇa-s, and the Śaivāgama-s

22
ato na puruṣavyāpāratantrā brahmavidyā .
23
jṭātvā devaṃ mucyate sarvapāśaiḥ । Śvetāśvataropaniṣad, 4:16
śambhurākāśamadhye dhyeyaḥ । Atharvaśikhā, 3
śiva eko dhyeyaḥ śivaṃkaraḥ sarvamanyat parityajya । Ibid.
 12

are respectively entitled to be called the Sūtras, annotations, and vast

commentaries. “As the Vedas and the Āgamas stand in relation as Sūtra and
Bhāṣya, Vedas are called the general scripture (sāmānyaśruti) while the
Āgama-s, the special scripture (viśeṣasruti)” so says the Mohaśūrottarāgama,
one of the Śaivāgama-s.

Creation as Self-manifestation of Śiva

In the atradhikaraṇa of the Brahmasūtra-s Śrīkaṇṭha states that it is one of the defining
characteristics of Brahma that it is the enjoyer of the entire created world and that the
individual self or any other entity cannot be so because of its limited powers. In fact,
the Atharvaśiras24 and the gVeda25 clearly explain that Parameśvara is the all-devourer
and that He offers as oblation the entire universe unto Himself which is the fire, as it
were, of His eternal existence. Now, this power is totally absent in the individual self
who is one among the objects of offering by Parameśvara referred to above. The
passage of the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad (4. 18)26 states how at the beginning of creation only
the supreme reality, Parameśvara, remained without any second possessing everything
in Himself and how there was complete absence of the world characterised by time,
name and form appearing as though it was full of darkness (tamas). The phrase "na san
na cāsat" in the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad (4. 18) only points out the complete absence of gross
manifestation of name and form, of the sat and asat--paśu and pāśa--the former standing
for the conscious creatures and the latter for the material world. Though Śiva, the
eternally shining Reality, is there, the external world in its gross form does not exist
before creation and the selves do not at all perceive Śiva because of the veiling of their
consciousness due to mala. Accordingly, Śiva is said to be kevala--existing alone--
without any second. At the time of creation the Lord accompanied by His own Śakti
which is His first manifestation (prathama-śakti-parisphuraṇa) and without any other
external cause and through His own free will brings forth from Himself the world of
name and form, which existed in Him in a subtle undifferentiated form. Explaining
further, he says that the Lord is completely free from inertia of any form and possesses

24
tasmā upasaṃhartre mahāgrāsāya vai namaḥ /
25
ya imā viśvā bhuvanāni juhvat (gVeda, 8. 3. 16)
 13

ten divine qualities.27 He, like a young man, enjoys for Himself and by Himself the
nectar of His own Śakti which manifests as the entire objective universe28 and who,
possessing the desire to manifest the world and thereby to become many, first takes
that aspect of His own Śakti (māyā) which is the supreme Will (icchā); then with the aid
of jñāna-śakti He thinks about the world to be manifested according to the previous
karma of the individual selves. After that the Lord manifests the entire universe as a
picture on the wall of His Will29 with the aid of His kriyā-śakti--the power of action. It
may be noted here that the maṅgalaśloka of the Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary expresses the
same view.30 Having thus manifested the world, Parameśvara enters into each one of
the created beings--both conscious and inert--and due to His association with the three
Śaktis--Icchā, Jñāna and Kriyā--He takes the form of Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra. Śrīkaṇṭha
also drives home the point that He who destroys of the entire world is the Creator of
the same world.31

Brahma is ānandamaya

In the next topic (adhikaraṇa) known as ānandamayādhikaraṇa the discussion is on

the śruti passage that begins with "tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśas sambhūtaḥ" and
ends with "anyo'ntara ātmānandamayaḥ" (Tai. Up. 2. 1.5.) in which, according to some
commentators, the compound "ātmānandamaya" may mean the individual self because
of the context wherein there is a discussion about the self that remains enclosed inside
five sheaths (pañcakañcuka) made up of matter, vital air, mind, intellect and bliss--

26
yadā tamas tan na divā na rātrir na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ 
27
jñānaṃ vairāgyam aiśvaryaṃ tapas satyaṃ kṣamā dhçtiḥ 
sraṣṭçtvam ātmasambodho hy adhiṣṭhātçtvam eva ca 
avyayāni daśaitāni nityaṃ tiṣṭhanti śaṃkare 
28
aśeṣaviṣayāmoghaśuddhabuddhivijmbhaṇaḥ 
ātmaśaktyamtāsvādapramodarasiko yuvā 
29
. . . saṃkalpitasakalakaraṇavidagdhayā kriyāśaktyā idaṃ sarvamasjata itīcchāśaktibhittau
nikhilajagaccitramunmīlayati (Śrīkaṇṭhabhāṣya, I. 2. 9.)
30
nijaśaktibhittinirmitanikhilajagajjālacitranikurumbaḥ 
31
tataḥ sarvabhūtānāṃ yatra saṃhārastata eva sarveṣāmutpattiriti . . . (Śrīkaṇṭhabhāṣya on B.S.
I.2.9)
In fact this is also the established viw of the Śaivasiddhānta as expressed in the very first sūtra
of Śivajṭānabodha:
strīpuṃnapuṃsakāditvājjagataḥ kāryadarśanāt/
 14

annamaya, prāṇamaya, manomaya, vijñānamaya and ānandamaya. For, annamaya can mean
the physical body which is made of food (in other words, nourished by food); prāṇamaya
the vital air that reside inside physical body; manomaya the mind which lies still inside;
vijñānamaya the intellect lying still inside, and finally ānandamaya of which ānanda
denotes Brahma and the suffix mayaṭ denotes the individual self that supports all and
which is a modification and a product of Brahma. The opponent's theory is further
supported by the ritual of purification in which the practioner prays for the
purification of all these sheaths32. Now this ritual of purification, the opponent opines,
would be meaningless if ātmānandamaya meant Brahma that is ever pure. Śrīkaṇṭha
dismisses this view arguing that the bliss (ānanda) referred to in the śruti passage cited
above repeatedly refers to the unsurpassed bliss33 of Brahma. The compound
"ānandamaya" is to be explained as "Brahma possessing unsurpassed bliss". Śrīkaṇṭha
refers here to another view which he seems to agree with: By ānandamaya only the
material cause of the world which is also called supreme ākāśa (paramākāśa) is meant
and not Brahma the instrumental cause, which is beyond the phenomenal world and is
denoted by such passages as "satyaṃ jñānam anantam brahma". That the paramākāśa
gets itself transformed into the world is attested to by the scriptural passages such as
"tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśas sambhūtaḥ"34. Thus the paramākāśa is denoted by
ānanda, and it is the dharma of Brahma which is the dharmī and therefore its support35.
One more viewpoint referred to by Śrīkaṇṭha here makes Brahma--Paramaśiva--the
cause of those deities, namely, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Rudra, Īśvara and Sadāśiva which are the
higher selves serving as the causes for each of the five kośas referred to above.
Śrīkaṇṭha winds up his commentary on this topic by saying that in all these
interpretations ānandamaya certainly refers to Brahma and not to the individual self.

Śaṃkara’s interpretation of this topic (ānandamayādhikaraṇa) is first of all, unclear

and confused. Though he states that the ānandamaya, referred to in this topic is only

asti kartā sa htvaitat sjatyasmāt prabhurharaḥ//

32
annamayaprāṇamayamanomayavijñānamayānandamayā me śuddhyantām
(Mahānārāyaṇopaniṣad, 57)
33
Tai. Up. 2. 8.
34
Ibid.
35
brahmapucchaṃ pratiṣṭhā (ibid.)
 15

the Brahma, he hastens to add that it does not at all refer to the highest Brahma, which,
according to him, is the attributeless (nirviśeṣa) one. In order to prove his view of
higher and a lower Brahma, Śaṃkara has to resort to unnecessary explanations, which,
in the end, do not make the explanation clearer. Whereas, as we have seen earlier,
Śrīkaṇṭha seems to capture the actual sense of this adhikaraṇa and explains it in a
direct and unambiguous way.

In the antaradhikaraṇa while interpreting the Upaniṣadic passage “ya eṣo’ntarāditye

hiraṇmayaḥ puruṣo dśyate hiraṇyaśmaśrurhiraṇyakeśa . . . puṇḍarīkamevamakṣiṇī”
(Chāndoyopaniṣad, I:6) Śrīkaṇṭha clarly states that in order to arrive at the actual
meaning of this passage that decides who the divine person is that resides the
sūryamaṇḍala, it is but logical to interpret it on the support of clear and unambiguous
passages. Consequently, he cites the long passage from the Mahopaniṣad “ādityo vā eṣa
etanmaṇḍalaṃ tapati . . . ”36 which at the outset points out the brilliance (prabhā) of the
sūryamaṇḍala, then refers to the controlling person, namely, the sun (sūrya), then it
points out the golden person (hiraṇmayaḥ puruṣaḥ) that resides inside the sun
(ādityāntaryāmī) whose manifestations are the entire universe and who controls
everything by residing as their inner controller. Further, the passage states clearly that
“all these are indeed Rudra” and describing this divine person, the Mahopaniṣadic
passage goes further by saying “this person is of golden hue, golden handed, He is the
Lord of Ambikā, the Goddess Umā”.37 Thus Śrīkaṇtha says this passage at the end
conclusively states that the golden person residing inside the sun is none other than
Rudra-Śiva, the blue-throated Lord of Goddess Umā. Śrīkaṇṭha also states that Śiva is
the highest God expounded in the greta Gāyatrīmantra (sāvitrī).38

In the commentary of Śaṃkara we find that the mention of an abode (the

sūryamaṇḍala), the form such as the eye, the hand, golden hue, etc. for the Lord which
He assumes out of Māyā and are only for the sake of meditation while actually the
highest Brahma is beyond all these.

36
Mahopaniṣad, 14-22.
37
sarvo hyeṣa rudrastasmai rudrāya namo astu / namo hiraṇyabāhave
hiraṇyapataye'mbikāpataya umāpataye paśupataye namo namaḥ// Mahopaniṣad, 25-26.
38
Śrīkaṇṭhabhāṣya on BS I.1:22
 16

Brahma is always with quality

After discussing some of the important features and qualities of the individual self
Śrīkaṇṭha proceeds to discuss some of the important features of Brahma. There arises in
the opponent's mind a doubt whether Brahma remains untainted and pure in spite of its
being the inner self of everything. Śrīkaṇṭha clarifies by saying that, based on the firm
and unambiguous utterances of the Śruti,39 Parameśvara is absolutely pure, and He
never comes into contact with any type of impurity or limitation. He is the storehouse
of all the auspicious qualities and the indweller of one's consciousness, evershining and
absolutely existent; He is omniscient and enjoys supreme bliss directly in His own mind
without the aid of any sense organs40.

The Vedic passage that says "Brahma has two features with form and without form"41
and the other one following it saying "the instruction is: it is not so it is not so”42 seem
to be contradictory according to the opponent. Śrīkaṇṭha answers that the latter
passage does not negate or deny different forms of Brahma, but only denies limitation
(prakta iyattā) with regard to different forms taken by the Lord. For, immediately after
this the śruti enumerates many qualities of Brahma such as "satyasya satyam" that He is
the highest among the reals, namely, the selves. Here there is no superimposition of the
reality pertaining to Brahma on the world. Brahma by Itself exists in different forms--
one and many43--just as a snake exists coiled up at times and also exists in the normal
form. It also does not mean that Brahma is an object of direct sensory perception. It is
manifested and realised only in intense meditation. Further, the daharavidyā, that is,
meditation on Brahma residing in the inner most space of the self, is described and also
prescribed in the Chāndogya, Taittirīya, Bhadāraṇyaka and the Kaivalya Upaniṣads. As
explained in the case of other vidyās the attributes mentioned in one and left out in the

39
eṣa ātmā apahatapāpmā vijaro vimçtyrviśoko vijighatso`pipāsaḥatyakāmaḥ satyasaṃkalpaḥ
asti kaścid aparyantaramaṇīyaguṇāśrayaḥ 
sarvalokavinirmātā paśupāśavilakṣaṇaḥ 
40
ākāśaśarīraṃ brahma satyātma prāṇārāmaṃ mana ānandam śāntisamçddham amçtam 
41
dve vāva brahmaṇo rūpe mūrtaṃ cāmūrtaṃ ca
42
athāta ādeśo neti neti
43
sarvo vai rudraḥ
dyāvāpçthivī janayan deva ekaḥ
 17

other do not make the daharavidyā different in each text. On the contrary, they all point
to the same Brahma that is Śiva, the Nīlakaṇṭha and is the consort of Umā, the Goddess
and who resides in the inner most space (daharākāśa) of the self to be meditated upon.
Śrīkaṇṭha then argues that the qualities of Śiva such as possessing blue throat
(Nīlakaṇṭha), the third eye (Trilocana), the golden hand (Hiraṇyabāhu) and being the
consort of Umā are all absolutely real, and they are not prescribed only for the sake of
meditation alone.44 For, the Veda repeats many times these qualities with regard to Śiva
in many places with utmost reverence (ādarāt). In other words, according to Śrīkaṇṭha,
the Advaita Vedāntic notion of an attributeless Brahma is not at all the purport of the
Veda. On the contrary, it points to Parameśvara, the Consort of Umā, the three-eyed
God, possessing all the auspicious qualities, Omniscient, Omnipotent, endowed with the
eight divine qualities such as nitya-tçptatva, anādiprakāśatva, aluptaśaktitva, etc. as
enumerated and explained in the commentary on the second sūtra. What is more,
Brahma to be attained by the realised self is the one explained as above and not an
attributeless and actionless one. For, those passages such as "niṣkalaṃ niṣkriyaṃ
śāntaṃ niravadyaṃ nirañjanam", etc. only deny the presence of inauspicious qualities
in Brahma and not the auspicious ones as enumerated and explained above.

 Conclusion

Thus we have seen briefly the difference of approach and difference of

interpretation between Śaṃkara and Śrīkaṇṭha in some of the fundamental
concepts such as Brahma and the connected sequence (samanvaya) as
propounded in the Brahmasūtra-s, that how unlike Śaṃkara, Śrīkaṇṭha takes
the entire Vedic corpus as a single unit and as authority without omitting
any section or over-emphasising one at the cost of the other, and that how
Śrīkaṇṭha conclusively proves that Brahma denotes only Śiva and Śiva alone.

44
In stating this Śrīkaṇṭha most probably has the commentary of Śaṃkara on the sūtra
“bheadavyapadeśāccānyaḥ” (BS. I.1: 22) of the antaradhikaraṇa referred to earlier in his mind.