Śivasaṃhitā 4.70

The observation that Amaraṇī and Sahajolī have the same kārya (function, action) but differ by saṃjñābheda (difference of nomenclature) is a metadiscursive moment in the text: it acknowledges that classificatory language can create divisions where practice is continuous. This principle of identity beneath different names reflects the non-dual epistemology of Śaiva tantrism.

Kāryaṃ tulyagati — ‘function of equal movement’ — employs gati (movement, path, course) to describe the effect of both techniques as a common flow. Saṃjñābheda (from saṃjñā, name, recognition + bheda, division, separation) establishes that the difference between the two practices is conventional (vyavahārika) not essential (pāramārthika). This epistemological distinction is fundamentally advaitic.

The unit of practice (yāma) is here the minimum daily requirement: three hours of sustained practice. Nityam (‘daily, always, eternally’) transforms abhyāsa into a permanent commitment, not a seasonal or episodic discipline. The Śivasaṃhitā defines regularity not as compulsive rigidity but as the structural condition for changes in the subtle body to be permanent rather than fleeting: energetic transformation, like any chemical transformation, requires sufficient exposure time.