> A basic difference between this vedanta and Saiva Siddhanta is that
Vedanta considers Brahmam as the only Reality, and Siddahanta considers Siva
(Brahmam) and two other entities, Souls and Pasam (materials of bondage), as
Realities. That is, it considers three entities as real. If we accept this
glaring difference, I am unable to think how we can accept Vedanta as Siddhanta.
> Ganesalingam




The Upanishads encompasses both monism and dualism. It is through and through
dipolar. Trying to bring together these 'unbridgeable dipolarities' is what led
to the writings of the many philosophical schools of thought - the shad
dharsanas, all of which has been deconstructed.

Any conscious 'Reality' that is not independent, is not really a 'Reality'.

Any Independent Reality apart from Siva would restrict Him by their very
existence, an unthinkable proposition. He would then no longer be 'Ekan', one
without a second.

Any Reality that is an 'integral part of Siva' would indeed be a 'Reality'
(purnamadah, purnamidam), nothwithstanding that they have no Power.

So we have to acknowledge that Siva/Brahman is the only independent Ultimate
Reality.

Siddhanta without Vedanta is the 'common saiva's lot'. Tirumular was aware of
two groups of siddhantins even back then.

Anyway, we'll deal with these issues in depth as we go along in our discussions.

Regards.

Pathma