ChAlukya syncretism

I don’t deny:

1. the existence of royal lineages consecrated by bhairavAchArya from early on (e.g., well known for the puShabhUti-s);
2. Throughout the Indosphere, certain saiddhAntika initiates also practiced bhairavIya/kaula practices.
3. There was bhairavAchara/kulAchara alongside siddhAnta in the Deccan (have done some “fieldwork” in pratyakSha to confirm that) or the Tamil country (where we have hybrids like tirumUlar).

But given the priors of numerous saiddhAntika officiants associated with the chAlukya-s, my null hypothesis is that the x-shiva-s are such (Further, there is another tatpuruShashiva a siddhAnta bhAShyakAra). Could they have adopted bhairavAchara? possible.

Moreover, in the above rAichuru inscription, the word bhairava is used metaphorically rather than doctrinally (like the vainateya). Further, the Agama mentioned there could equally apply to any part of the shaivashAsana.

Hence, I don’t see a diagnostic feature ruling against them being saiddhAntikas.

If you notice the pUjAvidhi performed by the chAlukya rAjan, he first begins with the worship of the shrIkaNTha-li~Nga:

“shrIkaNTha-liNgaM panchAmR^itaiH sugandhi-salilaiH snApayitvA chandana-harichandana-karpUra-mR^iga-mada-rasena vilipya…”

A saiddhAntika-style li~Nga worship.
The ensuing self-visualization of svachChanda bhairava suggest he might have subscribed to the “syncretic” tradition already noted by Sanderson as being followed by bhojadeva and vimalashiva deshika which incorporates svachChanda with kalottara.