embodiment of this tradition and who is the channel of divine grace (anugraha)
to the community of disciples. The guru lineage or santa ̄nais therefore an expres-
sion of S ́iva’s power (s ́akti) (SSV: p. 60) and the guru, at least in monistic S ́aivism,
is identified with S ́iva as one who liberates beings through bestowing initia-
tion (dı ̄ks.a ̄) and giving power to mantra (mantravı ̄rya) (SN: pp. 52–3). Even in
dualistic S ́aivism, S ́iva enters the guru for the purposes of initiation. The guru
becomes the embodiment of tradition, reveals the supreme, liberating truth
(tattva) to the disciple (SSV: p. 59) and reveals the structure of the hierarchical
cosmos. The Ma ̄linı ̄vijayottara Tantradefines the guru in these terms:
He who knows the meaning of the all the levels of the cosmos (sarva-tattva ̄ni), is
the guru equal to me (matsamah.) [i.e. S ́iva] who has taught the illumination of the
power of mantra (mantravı ̄ryapraka ̄s ́ah.). Men who are touched, spoken to and seen
by him with a delighted mind (prı ̄tacetasa ̄) are released from sin (pa ̄pa) even in seven
lifetimes. (MVT 3.10–11)Because of this emphasis on tradition as a stream flowing through the
generations from a divine source into the guru, the distinctions between S ́aiva
and S ́a ̄kta traditions become blurred. Some texts such as the Yoginı ̄hr.daya, which
forms part of the root text of the S ́rı ̄ Vidya ̄ cult, are clearly S ́a ̄kta in orientation.
What has becomes known as “Kashmir” S ́aivism, a nondualistic tradition
developing from at least the ninth century, identifies S ́iva with undifferentiated
consciousness and also identifies this condition with a form of the Goddess Ka ̄lı ̄
called Ka ̄lasam.kars.inı ̄ (see below). The more esoteric the S ́aiva traditions are, the
more there is a tendency to focus upon the Goddess.
The implications of this for understanding not only S ́aiva traditions but the
wider field of Hinduism are great. Firstly, this understanding of tradition and the
emphasis on the guru indicates strong decentralizing processes. While the texts
of revelation are important, it is above all the revelation as the living tradition
of the guru lineage that animates the tradition and through which the grace of
S ́iva is believed to flow. Here text becomes performance and the texts’ teachings
embodied in the human guru. Secondly this structure which places such great
emphasis on the teacher–disciple relationship, allows for a kind of particularism
or individualism which is yet impersonal, insofar as tradition is designed to
transcend personality or limited sense of ego (aham.ka ̄ra). It is in this relationship
that the transmission of tradition (and the grace of S ́iva) occurs. The boundaries
of the S ́aiva and S ́a ̄kta traditions are therefore sufficient to ensure transmission
through the generations yet are also porous in allowing the influence of other,
related traditions. This can be seen by S ́aiva theologians quoting from a range of
sources and borrowing from different traditions. Abhinavagupta, for example,
was initiated into a number of S ́aiva systems and the Kashmiri theologian
Utpala ̄ca ̄rya quotes with approval a text of the Vais.n.ava Pa ̄ñcara ̄tra tradition, the
Jaya ̄khyasam.hita ̄(Span dı ̄p: pp. 6–7). This is not to say, of course, that the S ́aiva
theologians regarded all revelation as equal; they did not. Rather each new
revelation incorporated the earlier within it at a lower level and so, while a text
the s ́aiva traditions 203