Namaste,

Shaivism and Vaishnavism both claim its own god as the 'supreme' (paramatma). While there are offshoots of Vaishnavism that view Lord Shiva as an expansion of Vishnu. And there may be variants of Shaivism that might view Vishnu to be an offspiring of or an expansion of Shiva.

If I am given the wonderful opportunity to express myself on this apparently controversial principles, I think that the supreme is in essence 'dual' (or even 'triple') in nature (when also including 'Brahma').

The 2 different natures of supreme might be i) that which is ever manifest, the omnipotent, the omniscient ii) that which 'arose' out of self-effort, out of a combined result of penance, sacrifice, and love. (The 3rd aspect may be iii) that which became worthy of praise due to deserving 'luck' even though being neither the un-manifest nor the one with the best effort - and I think Brahma, sitting on a Lotus might be this 3rd principle, as Lotus symbolizes eternity, purity, divinity, etc - the 'deserving qualities' ).

The reason thus, of why we may have the duality in Hinduism may be thus to teach us all that humans are a part and parcel of god and thus humans have the potential to raise up to the same level of god out of his efforts and can exist in nature, as 'another form of divine' with the same potential as the un-manifest in all ways. The idea that humans can be the same as god or act as god at various levels of spiritual ascension are confirmed in Hinduism from stories such as the 'Trishanku swarga', 'the eternal devas' and various other forms of divine. At the highest level, humans must be able to identify himself one with god, the un-manifest, in all ways, and becomes 'equal' to him and thus becomes, 'eternal'.

Thus, there may be 2 principles in divine to indicate the above idea. Who is who, might be flexible depending on one's wish, based on his affiliations. But the point to ponder, or the 'take home' message is that, both are equals and both are supreme principles.

PS: The above might be the reason why god supposedly takes 'avataras' as per Vaishnavism. That is, although equal in status and power, their capabilities might be different. Can be thought of as a doctor vs. the President of a company. Both are equals in status and power, but they both function 'uniquely', in their own ways. Therefore, for the un-manifest to earn the same potential of the manifest, he takes human births and realizes himself. On the other hand, Lord Shiva might be the un-manifest, but he is eternally a 'yogi' or in 'tapas' because he wants to realize himself as a manifest would do, that is, out of penance and self-sacrifice.

PS2: Kindly do not take to sides as a response to this message. This is to present a neutral view for stimulating the thought only. Also kindly be gentle in criticisms, as I really only shared this thought for presenting a novel view, not for any ulterior, bad motive.

Thank you,

Viraja