Because there is only the reality of pure consciousness in this tradition, a
practice cannot lead to a goal that implies a distinction between self and object
of attainment. The web of paths (upa ̄yaja ̄la) cannot illumine S ́iva (TS p. 9). The
monistic S ́aivism of Kashmir regarded this as its highest truth. If there is one
reality only, there can be no distinction between knower (vedaka) and object of
knowledge (vedya) and nothing which is impure (SSV p. 8). Abhinavagupta is
certainly aware of this problematic. If the lord is equidistant from all points does
it make sense to also claim that he crowns a hierarchy? But while the tradition
claimed this nondual awareness to be the supreme realization, the tradition
nevertheless cultivated an elaborate ritual structure and sought to defeat its
opponents, the dualist Saiddha ̄ntikas and the Buddhists, in theology.
S ́aiva Theology
S ́aivism developed a sophisticated theology articulated in commentaries on
its sacred texts. The S ́aiva Siddha ̄nta’s most important theologians in its early
years were Sadyojoti (eighth century), Bhat.t.a Ra ̄makan.t.ha (ca. 950–1000 ad),
and Bhojadeva (eleventh century). These theologians through their textual
hermeneutics argued for a dualism regarding the self and Lord which the non-
dualist theologians of the Pratyabhijña ̄ attempted to refute. There was rigorous
debate between these two theologies, although the monists succeeded in sup-
planting the Siddha ̄nta in Kashmir. Debate focused particularly on two issues:
the first was the nature of the self, the second was the nature of matter, both of
which had consequences for practice.
For the Saiddha ̄ntikas the self is quite distinct from the Lord and from matter.
The self is in fact trapped or bound by matter from which it must break free
through its own efforts, but ultimately through the grace of S ́iva, whereupon it
will achieve equality with him and not be reborn again. In his Nares ́varaparı ̄ks.a
Sadyojoti argues against his theological rivals to establish this position regarding
the self. The self is the knower and actor who experiences the fruits of his action
(Nar 1.2) and is constituted by cognition itself. The self knows sense objects (he
uses the typical Sanskrit expression “such as blue and so on”) as distinct, and
does not perceive an undifferentiated field (Nar 1.13). He thereby argues against
the monists from a pragmatic perspective of common experience as well as
against the Buddhist view that there is no self but only a series of momentary
perceptions. Sadyojoti also goes on the argue, against the Mı ̄m.a ̄msa ̄, for the
authorship of the Veda by the Lord, arguing that the Veda is a sound which is a
product and so must be produced from one whose knowledge transcends the
human for it takes effort for us to understand it (Nar 3.76). This view of the self
as distinct is constantly refuted by the nondualists of the Pratyabhijña ̄ who sys-
tematically present a nondual interpretation of sacred scripture and argue their
position in independent treatises. Perhaps the best introduction to this theology
is Ks.emara ̄ja’s Pratyabhijn.a ̄hr.daya(“the Essence” or “Heart of Recognition”), a
commentary on his own verses arguing against other theological positions.
the s ́aiva traditions 223