Apart from the nature of the self and its relation to the divine, the second
major area of disagreement between the S ́aiva Siddha ̄nta and the Pratyabhijn.a ̄
was over the status of matter or rather the substrate of matter, ma ̄ya ̄. Both regard
ma ̄ya ̄as that which constitutes the cosmos. In the higher levels or pure creation
of the cosmic hierarchy, comprising a number of levels or tattvas, it is called, by
the Saiddha ̄ntikas,maha ̄ma ̄ya ̄or the “drop” (bindu), while in the lower or impure
creation it is called ma ̄ya ̄. For the Siddha ̄ntama ̄ya ̄is an eternal substance (dravya)
as real as the self and the Lord, upon whom the Lord acts through his regent
Ananta and other higher beings (the Vidyes ́varas) to create the cosmos. Ma ̄ya ̄is
thus the material cause of the universe (upada ̄naka ̄ran.a) whereas S ́iva is only the
efficient cause (nimittaka ̄ran.a). For the Pratyabhijn.a ̄, by contrast, ma ̄ya ̄is not a
substance, but is a manifestation of pure consciousness or is, indeed, identical
with pure consciousness. The consequences of these doctrines were the theo-
logical justification of their practices. For the Siddha ̄nta liberation is the removal
of impure substance from the self which, because it is a substance, can only be
done through action (i.e. ritual action). For the Pratyabhijn.a ̄ liberation is not the
removal of substance but the recognition of the self ’s identity with the absolute,
and so is the highest knowledge and not action (see Sanderson 1992: 282–7).
The methods whereby these doctrines were established were generally through
commentary on sacred texts. The doctrinal neutrality of some texts was such that
they lent themselves to both dualistic and monistic interpretations. Much of
the language of these texts is in bad Sanskrit and the commentators, such as
Ks.emara ̄ja on the Svacchanda Tantraand Bhat.t.a Ra ̄makan.t.ha on the Kiran.a Tantra,
excused this “language of the Lord” (ais ́a) as a kind of disruption of language
due its sacredness (Goodall 1998: lxv–lxxi). Through their commentaries the
S ́aiva theologians clarified the doctines of their own schools by drawing upon a
full apparatus of techniques open to Indian philosophical analysis. For example,
as Sanderson and Kahrs have shown, Abhinavagupta and Ks.emara ̄ja use a
method called nirvacana, an interpretive device whereby the name of a thing is
analysed into its component parts to reveal its true nature (Sanderson 1995:
59–65). Through this method Ks.emara ̄ja inteprets the names of deities and their
mantras in an esoteric sense, thereby linking language and metaphysics. For
example, Kahrs cites Ks.emara ̄ja’s analysis of the term “Bhairava” in his com-
mentary on the Svacchanda Tantrato embrace a variety of meanings, such as he
who is the inner nature of yogins, who destroys transmigratory existence and so
on. In this way monistic doctrines could be injected into the text if they were not
there already.
Conclusion
This survey of S ́aiva history, practice and doctrine, shows the diversity of the
traditions. Yet it also shows a distinctive religious imaginairethat sets S ́aivism
apart from other Indic traditions. I have focused on what I would regard as the
224 gavin flood