In the first lecture of Foundational Śaiva Philosophy, Āchāryaji began by describing the origin and divisions of the Āgamas including the the association of the Śaiva Āgamas with Dvaita, the Rudra Āgamas with Dvaitadvaita, and the Bhairava Āgamas with Advaita. Rather than perpetuate a polemical view by asserting the superiority of one position over another, he instead presents them as complementary perspectives emanating from the singular source of Āgamaic revelation, like the three spokes on Lord Shiva’s Triśula. He stated,

“What about the division of the Trika and Siddhanta or Dvaita and Advaita? We are now bogged down by philosophical notions, keeping it on top of the practices that constitute the core. What you need to pay attention to is these all are different commentaries, different approaches or outlooks to fathom the depth of the practices and the Absolute is considered beyond Dualism or Non-Dualism, or Dualism versus Non-Dualism, and all these Isms incorporate. These three Isms are within three spokes of Lord Shiva’s Triśula.”

This perspective is at odds with my previous exposure to Advaita Vedanta, which seems to elevate itself to the status of the supreme mode of knowledge pertaining to the Absolute. To attempt to gain more insight into the differences between these perspectives as well as their reconciliation and practical consequences, I turned to K.C. Pandey’s Outline of History of Śaiva Philosophy where he provided the following formulation:

“A group is called dualistic, because it deals with such aspects of the Reality as pre-suppose diversity; namely, action, knowledge and will, (Kriyä, Jhäna and Iccha). Another is called dualistic-cum-monistic, because it is concerned with the self and the self-awareness (Cit and Ananda) as essentially identical but logically and formally different. And the third is called monistic, because it presents a spiritual level, which is beyond the reach of will, knowledge and action, where logical and formal diversities disappear, where the Real shines in itself, by itself and to itself.”

While this description is succinct and clear, it also seems that it may be overly schematic. I would appreciate everyone else’s thoughts on the unique nature and differences of these Āgamaic perspectives and additional insight into their practical consequences. I have also seen these terms substituted with Bheda, Bhedabheda, and Abheda, and would appreciate insight into those distinctions as well.

Take Care,

Desmond

[Image: Worship of the Trident, the Symbol of Shiva. Jaipur. 1775-1800, Private Collection]