SAIVA-SIDDHANTA

THE NATURE OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY. 49
Vainest of delusions !
But, does formlessness imply no boun
in nature are invisible and have no
dary? So many things
form. If, by formless is meant unextended, such as mind etc.,
we know mind as a product of Maya is also limited. But by
formless, they generally mean ArQpi, invisible ;
and invisibility
is no great attribute after all, as matter can also be formless
and invisible. We have elsewhere pointed out the mistake of
taking Form and formless as being respectively equivalent to
Personal and Impersonal. To deny to God that he can take
form is to deny his Omnipotence
and limit his nature. The
distinction is from our standpoint. When we begin to identify
him with anything we know, from the lowest tattva to ourselves
1
(Atma), then this is Anthropomorphic. The distinction does
not rest on calling the supreme, as Siva ,
or Sivdti or Sivam.
He
,
She or It. God has form. The Srutis declare so. God
is formless, so also the Srutis say. He has form and has no
form. This is because, His body is not formed of matter, but is
pure Chit, or Intelligence. It is when we make God enter a
material body, and say that he is born and dies, then it is we
blaspheme Him and humanize Him and our conception becomes
Anthropomorphic. Some of the so-called Vedantists who
are unable to distinguish between what constitutes God s
real nature and Anthropomorphism and Hindu symbolism
mistake the ideal of God according to Saiva Siddhanta. Do
they care to understand why when describing God, they say
neither male nor female nor neuter, neither he, she nor it,
He^is
neither Rupi, Arupi nor Ruparupi, and yet when thay address
God,, He is called Siva, Sivah or Sivam, Rupam Krishna
Pingalam, and worshipped as the invisible air and Akas.
Professor Max Muller points out how with bewildering per
plexity the gender varies frequently from the masculine to the
neuter in the Svetasvatara. Well, in the passage it has feet
and hands everywhere, if the neuter Brahman can have feet,
why could not the Being with the feet &c. be described as He
also. We describe all inanimate creation as it, and when we
proceed to call the Supreme as It also, we transcend from