was re reading Gopinath Rao - Elements of Hindu Iconography. In his introduction about Shiva he writes as under
Again, someof these Saivacharyas became rajagurus or the preceptors of kings, and appear to have wielded such great influence and power that they have sometimes set aside even the royal commandments and acted on their own authority. For example, Kulottuhgacholadeva III appointed two Saivacharyas for the service of the temple at Tirukkadavur, but Svamidevar, the king's gum, cancelled the order and appointed two others, in recognition of their hereditary rights. (2) AH the Agamas declare that the Saivagamas flourished to the south of the Vijidhya ranges, which is corroborated by the statement made by Aghorasivacharya ; and it therefore appears quite certain that Hajendracholadeva implanted in the south a large colony of Saiva Brahmanas of Middle India. These Saivas should be carefully distinguished from the Vedanta Saivas, who base their philosophy on the Vedas and the Upanishads. These two schools are diametrically opposed to each other
(1) S.I.I. , Vol. II, Part II, p. 153. (2) No. 40 of 1906 of the Madras Epigraphist's collection. http://www.poetryinstone.in Here the language of stone surpasses the language of man
Since the mention of vedic saivam and siddanta saivom
1. Basically both follow the basic prinicple of oneness of adavitha
2. Wheer as the siddanta saiva says thatthe supreme brahman is siva himself. ( there are upanishads saying so and the s
3. Where as adavita's Brahman is nirguna but can take all forms, The Advaita Siva ( or Vishnu or sakthi) is a form of brahman, and by worshipping them with the knowledge of brahman, Siva or Vishnu or Sakthi or Muruga - will help us in realising the oneness. Here Saivam is realising the brahman through siva.
4. Since Vedas contain both Vishnu and Siva, accepting one and not accepting the other is not acceptable to Advaita and Advaita accepts all forms equally. This is wheer Advaita differes from Siddanta. Agamas show one as a supreme ( Siva or vishnu), to Adavita both are equal, same and form of Brahman.
Many western scholars confuse the above, and write vedic,agamic etc etc w.o understanding the concept.
According to advaita, vedas should be accepted in totallity ( ie both siva parts and vishnu parts) where as Agamas accept one part and leave the other part.
5. Sivachariyars references were found even earlier. Sundarar himself is a sivachariyar.
6. I remeber reading a Kaveripakkam inscription where a siva brahmana of the thirupparkadal siva temple representing to the kaveripakkam sabhai - Parantaka chola period. ( could not locate but will try)
There were Siva acharyars before.
7. To give one more info - Kanchi Mutt is running a agama patasala at Allur to train Sivachariyars.
8. Kanci Mahaswami at Ilayathangudi conducted a massive agama, silapa sadas, which revived the dying agama /silapa schools and with his initiative many agama stapatis were trained.
9. hence advaita is not against agama as such and differes on the declaration of supreme.
Dear Vijay, Does this middle India Saiva group have anything to do with Lakulisa of Karvan GUJ, sect? similar to Kapalikas? I'm having trouble wording my question. Kathie
Dear Sankar, thanks for clearing that up. No "Madam", please. Hope we can get to know ea other through Ponni. emails. Teach me. Take any photos you'd like from Picasa albums [injamaven] kathie