We have only to notice that the God postulated by Saiva Siddhanta is not Saguna, but Nirguna,* which as we have pointed out above means only above the three gunas, Satva, Rajas and Tamas, i.e., above Prakriti i.e., non-material or Chit.

Nirguna Not To Be Translated Impersonal

We have condemned ever so often the translation of the words Nirguna and Saguna into Impersonal and Personal and play with in His Panchakrityas, just as a cow is tied or released, that it has no wider vision (Agam) and is not master of its self (Anisa) and it is laid by a master, or Isvara, to heavenly regions or other places." - Hence is the soul symbolised as a Pasu. Sri Haradatta says;

"Owing to dependence upon its master, the Atmans are Pasus and independence is the mark of thyself - the Pati and Isvara". The term Mala applied to corrupting element has been more in vogue in classic works.

Thus Patanjali has in his Yoga sutras and, in the Manu-smriti we have

(Manu Chap. 2). And what is Mala? Mala is what intrinsically covers the Chit or the intelligence of the soul.

*These three gunas stand for the three states Jagra, Svapna and Sushupti, and Nirguna therefore means Turiya or Chaturta. "Jagra is Satva, Rajas is Svapna, Tamas is Sushupti. Nirguna is therefore Turiya." Tirumantiram.

thus scare away the Christians from the Highest Conception of the Supreme. Personal is explained to mean 'Pure Being,' the absolute, by Emerson and Lotze and other Christian writers and would correspond to our word Sat. And 1 have shown there fore that God can be both Nirguna and Personal. God neither has form nor is formless as air, ideas all derived from matter, but He can assume any form suited to the conception of his Bhakta and these Forms are not material but as the text says, "His Form is produced out of Divine Grace or Love." God is therefore not to be called Saguna simply because He is spoken of as Uma-sahaya, Nilakantha, Sambhu, Umapati, Ambika Pati etc, Lord of Kailas, as Siva, Hara, Rudra.*

God is neither he, nor she, nor it, but He can be thought of in all these forms, as male, female and neuter; and all specific names of Siva are declinable in all the three genders without change of meaning Siva, Sivah and Sivam,* Sambhu, Sambhavi and Sambhavam, Isa, lsah and Isanam &c

* "It has been said, for instance, that the Svetasvatara Upanishat is a sectarian Upanishat, because, when speaking of the Highest Self or the Highest Brahman, it applies such names to Him as Hara (I, 10), Rudra (11, 17. Ill, 2, 4. IV, 12, 21), Siva (III, 14. IV, 10) Bhagavat (III, 14), Agni, Aditya, Vayu etc, (IV 2). But here it is simply taken for granted that the idea of the Highest Self was developed first, and after it had reached its highest purity was lowered again by an identification with mythological and personal deities. The question whether the conception of the Highest Self was formed once and once only, whether it was formed after all the personal and mythological deities had been merged into one Lord (Praja-pati), or whether it was discovered behind the veil of any other names in the mythological pantheon of the past, have never been mooted. Why would not an ancient Rishi have said; what we have hitherto called Rudra and what we worship as Agni, or Siva, is in reality the Highest Self, thus leaving much of the ancient mythological phraseology to be used with a new meaning? Why should we at once conclude that the late sectarian worshippers of mythological gods replaced again the highest Self, after their fathers had discovered it, by their own sectarian names? If we adopt the former view, the Upanishats which still show these Rudras'of the ancient temples, would have to be considered as more primitive even than those in which the idea of the Brahman of the Highest Self has reached its utmost purity." - Max Muller.

Siva is not one of the trinity. The Pati or Siva of the Saiva Religion is not one of the Trimurtis, Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra and scores of texts could be quoted from the popular Tamil Hymn-books conveying the same idea as in the hymn of Mahimna Stotra quoted above. God is 'Sivam Advaitam Santam Chaturtam.'

God Cannot Be Born In Man

As Siva is Nirguna and Turiya, the Supreme absolute Brahman, it follows that God cannot be born as a man through the womb of the woman. That Siva had no avataras or births is generally known.† This is the greatest distinction of the ancient Hindu Philosophy and of the Saiva School, making it a purely transcendental Religion, freed of all anthropomorphic conceptions. It was the late Mr. T. Subba Rao who in his "Notes on Bhagavat Gita " entered a vigorous protest against the conception of the Supreme Brahman having human avataras and we regret that, in all the mass of current writings, no writer has thought fit to bring this view to prominence. But this absolute nature of Siva does not prevent Him from His being personal at the same time and appearing as Guru and Saviour, in the form of man, out of His Great Love and feeling for the sin and sorrow of mankind, and helping them to get rid of their bondage.

Reason For Creation

And this is the reason as shown in Sutra I, of Sivajnana-bbdham, why God creates the Universe, and resolves it for the purpose of making the souls eat the fruit of the " Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" § (good and bad karma) and attain salvation.

* This noun form occurs rarely in Sanskrit, but in Tamil, it is very commonly used as synonymous with the masculine form 'Siva'.

He has neither birth nor death neither likes nor dislikes. - Vayu'Samhita.

§ Vide pp. 185-201 ante.

The Necessity For A Guru

The necessity for human effort is postulated, but without God's appearance as the Divine Guru, in human form, and His Divine Grace, the final salvation is not possible. Man can but try and get rid of the cataract covering his eye, but that he shall enjoy the light of the Sun (Siva Surya) is independent of his effort; and without the hope of reaching this Light (Sivanubhuti) a man can have but poor inducement to get rid of his cataract (Desire, trishna, the seed of birth), which veils him by making him undergo all the trouble and expense (tapas etc)., if the Doctor were to forbid him to see the Light after he regained his sight; and darkness could not vanish unless Light entered.*