1225-1275 CE), is discussed while also contextualising the process of philosophical rationalisation in the history of Trika Śaivism. In this chapter, a short example from his magnum opus tantric manual, the Tantrāloka (9.1-44) and its elaborate commentary titled -viveka by Jayaratha (fl.c. 925-975 CE), is struggling to interpret the philosophical question of Causality that rests in the analysis of cause and. In order to strongly withhold the Trika doctrinal principle of non-duality, Abhinavagupta like his predecessor Utpaladeva (fl.c. 975-1025 CE) is a tantric philosopher whose rigorous epistemological discussions are deeply rooted in his Śaiva metaphysics. Putting all these points together, this paper concludes arguing that the Śaivas initially saw sin or the unseen force of merits and demerits as innate impurity, but later, under the pressure of criticism, they introduced the idea of innate impurity as a separate abstract substance affecting all souls with its multiple powers.Ībhinavagupta (fl.c. In search of the roots of these Śaiva conceptions of innate impurity, this paper then goes over some Vedic passages which speak of the removal of sin during the initiatory rite and identify it as the internal impurity. It examines the Buddhist logician Dharmakīrti’s criticism of the Śaiva idea that initiation removes sin, and discusses the Pāśupata concept of sin-cleansing and two different concepts of innate impurity found in two early Śaiva scriptures: the Sarvajñānottaratantra and Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha. Since innate impurity is regarded as one of the three bonds fettering bound individual souls, this paper begins with the Pāśupata and early Śaiva views on these bonds. This paper tries to trace the roots of the Śaiva Mantramārga concept of innate impurity. For this reason it might seem more appropriate to speak of Kalamukha, Pasupata and Kapalika 'monastic orders' rather than 'sects' Since however, the term 'monastic order' does not usually imply a separate doctrinal or philosophical position, we will remain content with the word sect. Often, in fact, persons supported priesthoods of different and even hostile 'sects' without feeling unduly disloyal. An ordinary farmer or merchant might have called himself a Buddhist, Jain, Vaiava, or Saivite, but probably not a Kapalika, Kalamukha or Pasupata. It is doubtful, however, whether any of the three sects had its own exclusive laity. Several major Kalamukha monasteries(mathas), each under a single head (matha-pati), controlled temples in the regions surrounding them. That of the Kalamukhas appears to have been the best organized. The Sanskrit words most often used for the Kapalika, Kalamukha and Pasupata 'sects'-the groups discussed in this study are darSana, samaya and the basic meaning of these words is 'doctrine' Each of the three sects also had its own priesthood. In most cases more emphasis is placed on doctrine and mode of worship than on organization. The structure of Hindu sects is in general much more amorphous than that of Christian ones.

A sect, in a Christian context, embodies three essential features: a specific doctrine (including a prescribed mode of worship), a priesthood, and a well-defined and exclusive laity. Since the connotations of the word 'sect' are rather different in the contexts of Hinduism and post-Reformation Christianity, some preliminary analysis of it is needed. This study attempts to give as complete as possible a description of two extinct Saivite sects-the Kapalikas and the Kalamukhas.

Skaia ad infinitum