Talk:Kashmir Shaivism/Archive 1

message: I felt that the section on Muktananda was a mischaracterization of his school, and removed the material.  There is a complete article on Siddha Yoga that defines it more fully.
TheRingess 10:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor cleanup of section on Muktananda and Siddha Yoga 

message: I removed this section.  It used way too much passive voice and cited no references.  To me it read like an essay.  With no scholarly references it seems to be original research.  Perhaps someone could rewrite it to make subsections for each religion/path that kashmir shaivism is compared to, and provide scholarly references for readers wishing more information. TheRingess 01:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaivism in relation to other religions or spiritual paths 

message: I removed this section also.  It contained a lot of information already present in the previous section.  Also, without scholarly references, statements like "strictly speaking, kashmir shaivism is the oldest...." seem to me to be original research TheRingess 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Kashmir Shaivism 

message: It's my thought that links to specific schools belong on their article pages.TheRingess 02:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I reverted this material, for several reasons.
#Basically it seemed like too much original research.  For example, simply making a statement like "Person A influenced Person B", is not enough.  You need to answer questions such as:  how did they influence them? to what extent did they influence them?, to name just a couple of questions.  You also need to provide sources and quotes.
#Also, an article about Muktananda and Siddha Yoga already exists.  Doesn't the material about Muktananda belong on his article?  And sources provided.  Ditto for chidvilasanda.  It seems like the material about every person mentioned belongs more on articles about them and not here.  Otherwise, this article runs the risk of becoming too lengthy.   Likewise for Lakshmanjoo.  If he doesn't already have an article, shouldn't there be one about him, since he seems to be a significant teacher in Kashmir Shaivism.
Its just my opinion, that the section about current teachers, can remain brief and readers can read further about teachers they have an interest in.  
TheRingess 01:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material About Current Teachers 

message: some theories we should add: paravak (theory of speech), matrikacakra (theory of the alphabet), pratibimbavada (theory of reflection), the thirty six tattvas, prana/cit kundalini, pramatrin, turya, ...
Saiva suj 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories of Kashmir Shaivism 

message: There should be an article on mind-birth, for lack of a better term. As Shri Durvasa Rishi had borne Tryambaka out of his mind, I'm fairly certain Zeus of Greek mythology had done the same for Athena. Does anyone have any clues?
ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 21:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind-born 

message: I have been looking at the complex of articles Shiva, Rudra, Shaivism, History of Shaivism, Six Schools of Shaivism, Shaiva Siddhanta, etc., and see quite a bit of forking and overlap.  It would be great if as many editors as possible could watchlist all of these articles and help out with an effort to figure out what should go where.  Sharing effort across multiple articles may help with sourcing for all of them. Buddhipriya 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help in identifying forking 

message: Would there be any object to converting the article over to use the standard sections for Notes and References as given in Wikipedia:Guide to layout?  In that setup, books that come up in actual footnotes appear in the list of References.  Currently the article is basically sourced from one one text on the subject, and it may be good to expand the range of sources used. Buddhipriya 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of standard reference formats 

message: I have reduced this section to a list of schools and scholars.  It's my opinion that many of the statements made in the section as previously written were very non neutral.  I think it is beyond the scope of this article to try to classify individuals contributions to Kashmir Shaivism.   Also, I think any material about the scholars or teachers belongs on their articles, with a brief, neutral summary here. TheRingess 01:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop link spamming by continuing to post a web site for a non-notable practitioner.  Continued spamming of that site may result in it being proposed for blacklisting.  See WP:EL for guidelines on what sorts of links are appropriate for Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not an advertising service or link list. Buddhipriya 00:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For information on Wikipedia's policies on notability, please see: Wikipedia:Notability, which provides various standard tests for how one would determine if a person or topic is notable.  For information on Wikipedia link policies please see: WP:EL. Your goal appears to be to drive link traffic to an external web site, which falls under WP:SPAM. Buddhipriya 05:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Buddhipriya if you want another opinion.  Please read the links on notability and spam that he has provided.  That will help you understand.TheRingess (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user appears to be trying to threaten me and has vandalized my user page, by the way.  See these diffs, which I am not sure I understand.  They do suggest some sort of bad faith, I think.  Diffs related to creation of the above content:  () and associated vandalism of my user page: .  () 
Buddhipriya 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spamming continues, this time from User:200.117.225.42 . Buddhipriya 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibilities of learning and practicing Kashmir Shaivism today 

message: I think that the Notable proponents section should be deleted entirely because it is a spam magnet, and issues of notability are not clear.  If someone is important, they should be mentioned in the article text in a cited manner and not just put into a link farm for promotional purposes.  I have removed all of the redlink gurus and have tagged some of the blatant spam articles into AfD.  We are basically down to just Joo, whose prolific efforts have been the main source for this unreliable article, and the work of Nityanada and Muktananda, whose vague connections with Kashmir Shaivism have recently been the subject of discussion on Siddha Yoga.  I think both of them meet notability tests but I do not think they are particularly notable with regard to Kashmir Shaivism, as their chief claims to fame seem to rest upon other accomplishments.  I propose removing the section entirely.  How do other editors feel about this strategy? Buddhipriya 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has objected to removing this section, so I will remove it. Buddhipriya 18:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable proponents 

message: We need to organize this article better, put more information in and an outline of the main philosophical points of Kashmiri Shaivism. I am starting to work on this article slowly. Please review. Visarga 02:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: I concur with the above notion regarding improvements; there are some major aspects of the philosophy of Kaśmir Śaivism that are absent from the current article. This point was also made some time ago. In particular, the article lists the history and origins as it should, but the treatment of the actual philosophy and practice is diminished in comparison. This should instead form the central focus of an article on the subject while the other might better be placed in an article describing 'The History and Origins of Kaśmir Śaivism'. Recent effort to include The 36 tattvas is a significant step forward, but I do not agree that it should be confined to the See Also section. Several major features still remain absent, including but not limited to:
:*The Malas, The Kanchukas and The Upayas
:*Matrika
:*The Pratyabhijnahridayam (as distinct from the Pratyabhijna school)
Another aspect of the Kaśmir Śaivism article which is absent concerns the living tradition. The original sages lived and taught from their immediate and direct experience of consciousness. In other words, they did not simply expound the philosophy as an abstract idea (though I am not seeking to diminish the importance of academic translations to westerners like myself). Their students were engaged and compelled to learn from these teachers in a real and practical sense. A living transmission from teacher to disciple is central element in other eastern modes of spirituality. So it is with Kaśmir Śaivism. A recently created living person's bio article on Swami Shankarananda Saraswati is directly concerned with this living tradition. The article has been though two seperate wikipedia review processes and has emerged as being accepted for meeting the requirements of notablility and verifiability set out in WP:BLP. In one of Swami Shankarananda Saraswati's recent books Consciousness is Everything - The Yoga of Kashmir Shaivism he provides an significant original perspective on the subject and brings this ancient eastern philosophy to light in a number of practical ways. This serves to make Kaśmir Śaivism both accesible and relevant for western spiritual practitioners. So to my point. The english Wikipedia article on Kaśmir Śaivism should not just list the history and origins or cite the body of teachings, the article should also include coverage of the relevance and practice of the philosophy of Kaśmir Śaivism in the west. I am looking to extend the current article along these lines, and I am seeking input from existing contributors on how this might be most agreeably acheived. Yogidude 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A concern may be that what one person claims is a "living tradition" someone else may regard as a New Religious Movement, with terminology and ideas borrowed from various sources.  I do not know much about these modern groups.  However I do know that in most scholars agree that the active practice of this school died out hundreds of years ago.  Close study of the actual practices at that time indicate that the school was heavily involved with certain traditional orthodix Brahmanic ritual practices that have nothing whatsoever to do with some of the modern descripions I have read.  There is a cultural gulf between orthodox Hindu practice and Western "new age" practices that puts the current interest in this subject into a different category from the original teachings.  Close reading of the Shiva Sutras, for example, shows many technical points that make sense within a Brahmanical context but which probably are not familiar to modern Western practioners.  So any claim that modern practices are a "continuation" of the tradition need to be carefully examined.  I am not aware that there is any authentic teaching lineage for this tradition that can be documented to exist in modern times.   Buddhipriya 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that according to WP:LAYOUT the References section should include a list of works that are actually cited in footnotes.  Once a book is cited (hopefully with a page number) then it goes into References.  Buddhipriya 05:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure and Content 

message: I made a number of minor edits and added references where requested, thus I removed the Unreliable tags.
Please add more tags where you feel they are needed. The whole article is incomplete and needs serious expanding but as to the accuracy of information, I think it is OK so far.
Also I started a new section about important concepts in Kashmir Shaivism. The user needs to know what it is all about, not just a few historic references. This section is where I envision the expansion of the article. Visarga 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should remove all material from the article that does not have strong inline references.  Currently the article includes quite a few statements that are unsourced and which read like devotee material, not an encyclopedia article.  We need to take care not to accept in an uncritical manner statements of a religious nature that appear in some sources.  I have replaced the Unreliable tag in one section that is particularly devoid of citations and placed a "Confusing" tag on another section that is written in non-encyclopedic tone. Buddhipriya 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the "Unreliable" tag 

message: I am concerned that some of the recent additions, e.g., , are going overboard in the amount of metaphysical detail.  This sort of detail, which is being sourced mainly from one book, seems out of place for an encyclopedia article.  I think the material should be removed, and more emphasis should be given to high-level third-party sources discussing the general issues of this tradition, not these details. The general label "Kashmir Shaivism" in fact covers a family of different traditions, and we should not be giving WP:UNDUE weight to any one source from the collection. Buddhipriya 08:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Concepts of Kashmir Shaivism is ridiculously overwhelmed with esoteric details. I suggest removing the subject entirely, and expanded the section on the Four Schools of Kashmir Shaivism, including the notable works and authors associated with each school. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 03:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As the editor who contributed with the Concepts section, after seeing the complaints here I have decided to move the Aham section in a separate article. Maybe I should to the same for the Anuttara section too. I hope significant detail is not ridiculous, as it is relevant to this difficult subject. The fact that references come from a few books alone is due to the very limited number of publications that exist in the field. Unfortunately the Kashmir Shaivism system has been forgotten for a thousand years almost and only recently a few people dared  make studies in its field. The level of difficulty of the text is just the same as any respectable publication on the topic. Unfortunately, you can't make it easier unless you want to sacrifice key insights. Visarga 10:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about excessive detail 

message: I went on and updated some sections (Kaula, Spanda and Abhinavagupta) which lacked proper citations and in some cases were undeveloped. 
The Abhinavagupta section is now leading to a full blown article on Abhinavagupta I completed a few days ago. Please have a look and add your critique and ideas to the mix :-)
Step by step we are getting closer to a proper Kashmir Shaivism article. We still need to include the "Shiva Sutras" section with the "Classification of the written tradition" because they are both on the same subject. Also, the "Anuttara" section needs to become a separate article.
As the Kashmir Shaivism articles are growing in number, we will need to have a side panel like they have on Hinduism. At the moment we can count: 
* Kashmir Shaivism
* Abhinavagupta
* Kaula
* The 36 tattvas
* Prakasa
* Tantrasara
* Tantraloka
* Svatantrya
* Turya
* Aṇḍa
* Trika
* Shaktipat
* Aham (Kashmir Shaivism)
* Vasugupta
* Utpaladeva
* Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta
Visarga (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important updates to Abhinavagupta, Krama and Spanda sections