@Kaami_Saamaa @anirdeshyavapu Dvaita as a term has a meaning beyond “Mādhva”. If someone upholds multiplicity of fundamental realities, Dvaita is an apt, if not the best, word to use.
Siddhānta believes in the reality of the Śiva, Pati, Paśu & Pāśa categories. You can call this “Dvaita” if you want.+

@Kaami_Saamaa @anirdeshyavapu + “Śaiva Dvaita” is not “Śaiva Mādhva”. Having said that, I should also point out that Abhinavagupta’s reference to Dvaita is not so much a reference to “Dualism” in a broader sense (let alone the Mādhva school which he predates) but a reference to the purity-impurity duality.+

@Kaami_Saamaa @anirdeshyavapu That’s why, Abhinavagupta & his commentator, Jayaratha, pigeonholes Smārta, Vaiṣṇava & Siddhānta under “Dvaita”. Most Smārtas at that time were following some sort of Bhedābheda & some were following Kevalādvaita. Why would “Dvaita” word be used for them?

@Kaami_Saamaa @anirdeshyavapu It’s because those three (Siddhānta, Vaiṣṇava & Smārta sects) all upheld pure-impure distinctions in social & ritual life (laukika & kriyā). Abhinavagupta saw this as a stain & attacked all three. This is the context. I’m done. //End