Shrauta śaiva siddhānta is based on the śaivāgamas:
śrautāśrautavibhēdēna dvividhāstu śivāgamāḥ |
The śaiva āgamas are twofold: śrauta and aśrauta. śrauta are those following the śruti, and are again of two kinds:
1. Svatantra
2. Itara
Svatantra is again of ten kinds [svatantrō daśadhā purā]:
tathāṣṭadaśadhā paścāt siddhānta iti gīyatē |
Siddhānta is of eighteen types.
itaraḥ śrutisārastu śatakōṭipravistaraḥ ||
Though several śaivaite scholars have tried to propose śrauta śaiva siddhānta as the pure representation of the śruti or that it faithfully adheres to the śruti, the claim has been refuted by several others. Now, the same is true with Tantra as well, as also some aspects of purāṇa which are reflective of such ideas. Smārtas many times have remained quite possibly because of the use of the words śrauta and śaiva, but Vaiṣṇavas (especially the Mādhvas) have refuted the claim of many of these āgamas for śrutiparatva rather well! Now call it vitaṇḍavāda or whatever, Mādhvas know their tarka well!
The Vedic origin of śaiva siddhānta is not really acceptable to even several śaivaite scholars today. There seem to be four different views regarding the origin of śaiva siddhānta, in a broad sense:
1. Shaivaites like Kanda Pillai etc. maintain that śaiva siddhānta or path of worship of a deity named Shiva has its origin in saura siddhānta or worship of the Sun.
2. Another group relates the following story: Ages before the emergence of the Himalayas, the Mahendra Mountain in Kumari Nadu, now under the ocean, was the seat of the Tamil sages. It was here that the marais were bestowed upon four of them. These marais were four in number and dealt with virtue, wealth, pleasure, and bliss and came to be known as nānmarais. To distinguish these from Sanskrit works that came only much later, they were called pāṇdya nānmarai. So, this is one view.
3. Some trace the origin of the siddhānta to the period of 28 śaivāgamas and 108 upāgamas and this indeed seems to be the currently popular view.
4. Some believe the siddhānta to be a later form of the Vedic worship of Rudra. The vrātyas who re-aligned their faith from the mainstream practice of yajña, developed practices that gradually led to the evolution of what is known today as śaiva siddhānta.
The siddhāntins are not always unanimous in ascribing to Vedas the importance that they attach to the śaivāgama lore. The differences between the siddhāntic school and other popular schools on the key concept of mōkṣa or liberation are what can give a quick and precise look at the essence of the somewhat imperfect but soulful teachings of this path. Srīkaṇṭha bhāṣya is a valuable source of reference here.
On account of its theories, siddhānta contends with the following schools of thought:
1. Lōkāyata, Bauddha, Jaina
2. Sāṁkhya, Vēdānta, Mīmāmsā and Pāñcarātra
3. Shaiva schools such as Pāśupata and Aikyavāda
4. Shaiva schools such as śivasamavāda, Bhēdavāda, Pāṣāṇavāda, Pariṇāmavāda etc.
According to materialists of the Lōkāyata school, the perceptible external world is real and there is no mōkṣa external to sensory enjoyment. This clearly conflicts not only with śaiva siddhānta but also with other schools like Vēdānta. The theory of Cārvāka has been dealt so thoroughly with by our ācāryas like Shaṅkara and Rāmānuja that nothing remains to be said here. On similar grounds, various sub-sects of this school such as Dēhātmavāda, Indriyātmavāda, Sūkṣamdēhātmavāda, Prāṇātmavāda, Tattvasamūhātmavāda, Antahkaraṇātmavāda, etc. are refuted.
To the Bauddha, nirvāṇa simply means a blank of non-existence attained by dissolution of the skandhas, which is marked by end of suffering. Siddhānta hopes not merely for the ending of suffering but for everlasting bliss as well. The Sautrāntika, who believes neither in jīva or īśvara, is heavily criticized by the siddhāntin.
Jaina school improvises on Bauddha concepts and does not try to escape altogether from existence, but rather from bodily existence. Here, the attainment, apart from the cessation of suffering, is peace. While Jainas hold that the soul can achieve emancipation by its own efforts, siddhānta does not view the soul, covered by mala-traya, as being capable to achieve mōkṣa by itself.
Sāṁkhya again proposes that the puruṣa can achieve salvation that can arise out of the knowledge on the part of the puruṣa that he is not prakr̥ti. Siddhānta rejects this to be mere paśu jñāna and states that attainment of pati jñāna alone can grant higher deliverance. Siddhāntin also rejects the ārambhavāda theory of the Naiyyāyikas and tends to agree with Satkāryavāda.
Mukti of the Mīmāmsākas can be crudely explained as the attainment of the heavens of the devas, attained through ceremonial sacrifices. Siddhānta, like other schools, points out that such a state is short-lived for the soul resumes its earthly existence when the rewards have been reaped. Mōkṣa, once attained, is everlasting. Mīmāsā upholds apauruṣēyatva of the Veda which is both agreed upon and contested by the siddhāntin for he believes Shiva to be the author of the Veda and at the same time does not regard shiva as a mere puruṣa. The Vaidika rituals and ceremonies are of negligible significance and serve the purpose of some purification in preliminary stages, according to the siddhānta. Many saints held highly by the siddhāntins never performed any Vedic ritual and this point is stressed by the siddhāntins.
Pāñcarātra holds that the universe of jīvas and material things is a transformation of the paramātman. The jīva here, instead of being an integral being, is a phenomenal manifestation of the unmanifest and its release lies in losing itself in the substrate. As the individuality of the soul is denied here, siddhānta rejects this school. Vāma and Bhairava schools of śaivāgama express concepts similar to Pāñcarātra and insists that the universe, consisting of both intelligent and non-intelligent beings, is a transformation of Shiva. Siddhānta refutes both these schools on similar grounds.
Pāśupata sees no difference between jīva and śiva in mukti and jīva can perform the pancakr̥tya of īśvara. Pāśupatas use this analogy to illustrate their point: when a father decides to undertake vānaprastha, he entrusts all his duties as a gr̥hastha to his son. Similarly, Paśupati entrusts all his duties to the jīva when mukti is attained. Clearly, this does not agree with the siddhānta. Kāpāla and Mahāvrata schools have identical concepts of mōkṣa and rituals are the main ways to attain liberation. Siddhānta refutes these schools as well.
Aikyavāda, again a śaivaite school, holds that jīva and śiva are equals, and as water joins water, jīva merges in śiva losing its individuality and that is mukti. Siddhānta does not agree with either of these concepts. Moreover, an aikyavādin accepts only two malas, māyika and kārmika.
Sivasamavāda holds the same view as siddhānta regarding malas or impurities but explains jīva to be equal to śiva after the removal of malatraya. Siddhānta however sees a jIva free from mala as only fit to experience śiva but not his equal as jīva is viewed to be incapable of performing pancakr̥tya. An associated school, Sivasaṅkrāntavāda holds that the material karaṇas used to perceive the world, transform into śivakaraṇas at a certain stage and that these can be used to know śiva. Siddhāntin refutes these with the claim that śiva is above the category of karaṇas.
Dualists or Bhēdavādins maintain that jīva and śiva are different at all points in time. They hold that the jīva, after the cleansing of the malas, is still inferior and separate from śiva even in the state of mukti. While siddhānta agrees about the inferior state of jīva, it has its own arguments on jīva not being withdrawn from śiva at mukti.
Pāśāṇavādins hold that āṇava does not leave the jīva even on mukti, and jīva, covered by āṇava, remains like a stone. Thus, the jīva is described to be stone-like at mukti, unconscious and experiencing neither suffering or happiness. But a siddhāntin propounds removal of āṇava mala and rejects a mere painless existence as mōkṣa.
īśvarāvikāravāda maintains that there is no change in śiva and in the process of attaining mukti, śiva remains as he is. He serves as a goal that is attractive and satisfying to the jīva but there is really no activity on his part in this whole mukti thingie. The move towards mukti is solely made by the jīva. Siddhāntin thinks that this concept refutes the freedom of śiva to act and hence rejects this concept.
Pariṇāmavāda, also known as śivādvaita, my favorite among its peers, holds that śiva transforms into the world and the jīvas. On mukti, jīva loses its transient individuality and becomes śiva. Siddhāntin sees this loss of identity of jīva as baseless. While a Pariṇāmavādin can refute the siddhāntin ceaselessly, we shall not get into those details for the subject of this post is siddhānta and not śākta pariṇāmavāda.
Finally, Vēdānta or Ekātmavāda accepts only one ātmā, who is the paramātman. When avidyā is dispelled, mukti occurs here. Though siddhānta places both śiva and jīva in the same category of beings, there is a clear nīcōcca bhāva here and thus never complete identity between them. Siddhāntin, who observes the jīva to be undergoing births and deaths and other limitations, objects to it being termed as the Supreme One at any point, be it after mōkṣa. Several Vēdantins including ācārya Bhagavatpāda have refuted the siddhānta using śruti as mukhya pramāṇa rather than āgama. That āgama is considered as an aṅga of śruti has been explained later, which automatically grants a higher priority for śruti pramāṇa over that from the āgama, according to some votaries.
Some believe that shiva incarnated as Lakulīśa and dwelt at Karohana in the Lāṭa dēśa and trained four disciples Kuśika, Gargya, Maitreya and Kauruśya, and from them originated the four branches. Some believe that Lakulīṣa reincarnated as Maṇinātha to resurrect his doctrine. Commentators on the Vēdānta sūtras speak of four associated schools, śaiva, pāśupata, kārukasiddhānta and kāpālika. Vācaspati Miśra calls the third, Kāruṇika siddhānta. Rāmānuja calls it Kālāmukha. It is evident that the word Kāruka is a corruption or a colloquial form of Kauruśya. The five tenets of Pāśupata are:
1. Kārya: the effect
2. Kāraṇa: pradhāna or Paśupati
3. Yoga: contemplation
4. Vidhi: rites, mainly bhasmasnāna
5. Duḥkhānta: the deliverance
A related verse from the vidyāpāda of Pauṣkarāgama describing the six padārthas is as below:
patirvidyā tathāvidyā paśuḥ pāśaśca kāraṇam |
tannivr̥ttāviti prōktāḥ padārthāḥ ṣaṭ samāsataḥ ||
Some details of vidhi and charya from Nakulīśāgama and Pāśupata sūtra are reproduced below:
“One should besprinkle the body at the three sandhis of the day and lie down in the ashes. The six definite practices are laughing, singing, dancing, huḍukkāra, prostration, and japa. With these, one should worship Paśupati. Laughing means making the sound Ha Ha Ha by the forcible stretch of the throat and the lips. Singing is the contemplation of the attributes of Paśupati. Dancing should be resorted to by contracting and stretching forth hands, feet, etc. Hudukkāra is a sound resembling that of an ox, made by striking the tongue on the palate”.
Nature of paśu or jīva, of pati, the malas, mantra and mantrēśvara, lakṣaṇa of a mukta, categories of paśus such as vijñānākala, etc., the concept of rōdhaśakti, etc. need to be understood to have an idea of this system. One can refer to Pāśupatāgamas or works like Shaivasiddhāntasāra to get a deeper understanding and we shall not discuss them at length here. That said, Pāśupata is certainly one of them and more extreme schools among the other relatively more moderate branches of śaivism, and hence is classified correctly as Atimārgika. Kāpāla and Kāḷāmukha sects fit this category as well. Most scholars studying and writing about these sects underplay the actual caryā pāda or the practice part and elaborate endlessly on the Paśvādi theory which really makes no sense as rituals are indispensable here. And there is also the effort to underplay the “wild” part. Many works published by Kamaraj Universities are good examples of this trend.
Kāpālika siddhānta states that the one who knows mudrikā rahasya attains the highest bliss by concentrating his mind on the soul seated in the generative organ of the female. The six marks or mudras are necklace, chest ornament, ear ornament, crest jewel, ashes and yajña sūtra. He, whose body bears these marks, is said to be free from transmigration and this aspect is severely attacked by the later ācāryas. Kāḷāmukhas propose the following six tenets as the path of attaining desires, whatever they may be: eating the food in a skull, besmearing the body with bhasma, eating citā bhasma, holding lagula, lakula or lakuḍa, meaning a club, keeping a pot of liquor, worshiping Shiva as stationed in surā, etc. As stated in one of the āgamas, brāhmaṇya can be attained by all by the performance of certain Kāpālika rites:
“One becomes a brāhmaṇa immediately after the process of initiation. He becomes a saint after undertaking the vow of Kapāla”.
To get a historical perspective, one can examine Bhavabhūti’s Mālatīmādhava, where śrīśaila is described as the primary seat of the Kāpālika sect. A female member of this sect, Kapālakuṇḍalā, who wears a garland of human skulls, carries way Mālatī and places here before an image of Karālā Cāmuṇḍā to sacrifice her, as ordered by her preceptor Aghōraghaṇṭa. Such pictures of Kāpālikas visible in most literature does seem to showcase the actual practices of this sect in those times. Kālāmukhas are described as Mahavratadhārins by some authorities including Rāmānujācārya. However, Jagaddhara and others interpret Mahāvrata to mean Kapāla vrata undertaken by the Kāpālikas. Early commentators and scholars have referred to different śaiva sects commonly as Pāśupata. It is quite apparent that there is a deliberate effort made by the later schools, especially the Pratyabhijñā and Spanda schools of Kāśmīra, to distance themselves from this older and traditional aspect of Shaivism. It thus is no surprise that Vasugupta claimed a fresh revelation for his school, though the tenets of older and more sober schools of Shaivas were indeed preserved in the Spanda system.
The five srotas of Shaiva Agama, or Tantra to be more precise, are defined as below:
srōtāmsi kāmikādūrdhvaṁ asitāṅgādi dakṣiṇam |
sammōhāduttaraṁ prācyaṁ trōtalādi suvistaram ||
These five are considered to be mukhya srotas and the secondary streams or anusrotas, eight in number, are listed below:
śaivaṁ māntrēśvaraṁ gāṇaṁ divyamārṣaṁ ca gauhyakam |
yōginīsiddhakaulaṁ ca srōtāsyaṣṭau vidurbudhāḥ ||
While some speak of śākta tantra as being associated or subsidiary to śaivāgama, the śaivāgamas themselves do not accept vāma, dakṣiṇa and other śākta margas as śuddha or pure from the śaiva perspective:
śāstraṁ caturvidhaṁ jñēyaṁ vāmadakṣiṇamiśrakam |
siddhāntēna samāyuktaṁ caturdhaivaṁ prakīrtitam ||
siddhāntaṁ sarvasāraṁ hi śuddhaśaivamiti smr̥tam |
vāmaṁ ca dakṣiṇaṁ caiva miśrakaṁ ca trayō hyamī |
shaivabāhyāḥ samākhyātā tē tu śaivē’pyapūjitāḥ || [Suprabhēdāgama]
The same seems true when the classic Vedic tradition is considered. Some āgamas undermine the classic āśrama system in preference to śaiva dharma, projected as a superior and universal āśrama:
sarvēṣāmēva varṇānāṁ śivāśramaniṣēviṇām |
śivadharmaḥ śivēnōktō dharmakāmarthamuktayē |
brāhmaṇaḥ kṣatriyō vaiśyaḥ strī śūdrō vā śivāśramī || [Mr̥gēndrāgama]
The four gotras for a śaiva, siddhānta śaiva to be specific, are described thus in the caryāpāda of the same āgama:
śivagōtraṁ śikhāgōtram jyōtirgōtraṁ tr̥tīyakam |
sāvitrīgōtramityētat śaivagōtracatuṣṭayam ||
But there is pramāṇa within the āgama itself to identify as a derivative or limb of the Veda:
na vēdaḥ praṇavaṁ tyaktvā mantrō vēdasamanvitaḥ |
tasmādvēdaparō mantrō vēdāṅgaścāgamaḥ smr̥taḥ ||
I would suspect that this rule would practically apply to those āgmas and tantras which fall within the category that is not considered vēda bāhya by some sāmpraḍayikas.
That vāmādi ācāra bhēda is not limited to śākta tantra becomes evident from the following āgamōkti, specific to śaivāgama:
upāsanā tridhā prōktā śrēṣṭhā tatra tu sāttvikī |
tasyāṁ na mānasau pūjājapau mukhyatamau smr̥tau ||
rājasō dakśiṇō mārgaḥ pratimāyāṁ prapūjanam |
bāhyōpacaraiḥ puṣpādyaiḥ tadādyānāṁ viśiṣyatē ||
tāmasōnpāsanaṁ prōktaṁ pīṭhādau balidānataḥ |
vāmamārgēṇa taccādyaṁ varṇaṁ hitvā praśasyatē ||
Though not specific to śākta tantra, this division is extremely similar to the three divisions outlined by Lakṣmīdharācārya, someone who is referred to reverentially and quoted even by Bhāskararāya, as samaya, dakṣa, and vāmācaras.