@tskrishnan “Śaiva” refers to a doctrinal inclination/initiatory identity (Dīkṣā). There is literally nothing mutually exclusive about being a Śaiva & worshiping other Gods & practising Yajñas. So why say RRC is not Śaiva?
RRC was a Śaiva with Śaiva Gurus &, as a result, a great Hindu.

@tskrishnan Not to mention, is it necessary to superimpose an Advaita construct of “Ṣaṇmata” on Rājarāja to show his worship of multiple Gods.
The Siddhānta of RRC’s time was functionally polytheist & Kings did participate in the worship of all major Gods.

@tskrishnan No need to disown RRC’s being a Śaiva in order to emphasize that he was a Hindu. What are we trying to suggest here??
If someone says, “RRC is a Śaiva, not Hindu”, we must respond, “RRC is Hindu precisely because he is Śaiva.”

@tskrishnan Among those 6, there is literally one sect whose Ācārya he identifies as his master. Īśānaśiva. And you know the heritage of Tirmuṛai Kaṇḍa Chōzhan better than me.

@tskrishnan Also, see this: Kāmikāgama instructs a King to allot land in certain Diks for Viṣṇu ityādi Paradevata temples & even Bauddha & Jaina Gurus. Does this make Kāmika a non-Śaiva text? No, same logic for RRC. 🙏🏾