While the Vishnuites have a dualistic, as well as idealistic background, they are at present Vedantic, and may be divided to-day simply into intelligent and unintelligent adherents of pantheism, the former comprising the R[=a]ma sects, and the latter most of the Krishnaites.  On the other hand, in Civaism one must distinguish quite sharply in time between the different sects that go by Civa’s name.  If one look at the sects of modern times he will find that the most degraded are dualistic, in so far as they may be said to have any philosophy, and that idealistic Civaism is a remnant of the past.  But he will not find a pronounced sectarianism in any of these old Vedantic aspects of Civaism.  On the contrary, wherever Civaism is pantheistic it is a Civaism which obtains only in certain ancient schools of philosophy; where it is monotheistic it is among leaders who have been influenced by the modern teaching of Islam, and regard Civa merely as a name for the One God.  It is necessary, therefore, as it is everywhere in India, to draw as sharp a line as possible between the beliefs of the vulgar and the learned.  For from the earliest period the former accepted perfunctorily the teaching of the latter, but at heart and in cult they remained true to their own lights.

The older S[=a]nkhya form of Civaism was still found among the P[=a]cupatas,’adherents of the Lord’ (Pacupati) and Mahecvaras (’adherents of the great Lord’), who are mentioned in the epic and in inscriptions of the fifth century.  In the ninth century there was a purely philosophical Civaism which is Vedantic.  But neither in the fact (which is by no means a certainty) that Cankara accepted Civa as the name of the All-god, nor in the scholastic Civaite philosophy of Kashmeer, which in the next two centuries was developed into a purely idealistic system at the hands of Abhinavagupta and Som[=a]nanda, is there any trace of a popular religion.  Civa is here the pantheistic god, but he is conceived as such only by a coterie of retired schoolmen.  On the other hand, the popular religions which spring up in the twelfth century are, if Vedantic, chiefly Vishnuite, or, if Civaite, only nominally Vedantic.  Thus what philosophy the Jangamas professedly have is Vedantic, but in fact they are deistic (not pantheistic) disciples of Civa’s priest, Basava (Sanskrit Vrishabha), who taught Civa-worship in its grossest form, the adoration of the Linga (phallus); while his adherents, who are spread over all India under the name of Jangamas, ‘vagrants,’ or Ling[=a]yits, ‘phallus-wearers,’ are idolatrous deists with but a tinge of Vedantic mysticism.  So in the case of the Tridandins, the Dacan[=a]mis, and other sects attributed to Civaism, as well as the Sm[=a]rtas (orthodox Brahmans) who professed Civaism.  According to Wilson the Tridandins (whose triple, tri, staff, da[n.][d.]i, indicates control of word, thought, and deed) are Southern Vishnuites of the R[=a]m[=a]nuja sect, though some of them claim to be Vedantic Civaites.