Talk:Tattva (Shaivism)

Untitled

When finished this article should be quite important to the Kashmir Shaivism topic. The 36 tattvas represent the centerpiece of the system. Without them there can be no understanding of other topics such as malas, jivatman, atman, Siva, Sakti and many other.Visarga 09:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have worked on this page on my home page. There are still 15 tattvas that are in skeletal form (they need to be expanded). The history of edits is up until this version is in my homepage. Unfortunately the article came out very very long but I didn't want to break it in 36 either. Compared to the sister article Tattva, this article wants to be much more in depth.

We need to put links to other topics from all the special words. We need to reformat references from my hand-code. The (!) marks represent words that need proper diacritics in Sanskrit. There is a need for further wikification. Also, the article is close to 32K - might need breaking up into 36(? auch!). Help is appreciated. Let's make this article work! Visarga 00:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the references and some words not yet transcribed in Sanskrit diacritics.

Can anyone help me with a more exact classification of Kashmiri Shaivism in rapport to the phylosophy of the mind? an idealist monistic world view where transcendence is present right in the middle of physical. Thus, there is no dualism between spirit and matter (could we call it transcendental physicalism?). Visarga 08:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What is left of the original article I posted in 2007 is unrecognizable. I don't think I will care much if it is deleted. I wrote it in my fist attempt at contributing to Wikipedia, when I was just learning the ropes. The quantity of information that has already cut out is massive. I am sad that it wasn't improved on, instead, it goes to deletion. This might make me think twice about creating new articles in the future. Visarga (talk)

Use of bold font

Please note, we don't use bold font like that. Almost all the bold text should be changed to italics. Only the subject of the article should be bolded. IPSOS (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I switched bold to italics. Visarga 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've rebolded the subject of the article, which is the one thing that should be bolded. IPSOS (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing the wikify tag

I have finished parsing the article and wikifying. I don't know if I am supposed to lift the tag myself or wait for the one who put it to lift it. If the article is still not ok, please tag and explain so I know what to work on. Visarga 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you believe you have corrected the issue, you may remove tags. At least, that is my understanding of how things should work on Wikipedia. I don't always watch the articles that I tag, and I assume this is true for other editors too. IPSOS (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind, many in Kashmir are Muslim that have a crystallized understanding of 'traditions' of Muhammad {SALALLAHU ALYHE WASALAM}

Dear original author

Your article was being read to increase my understanding and knowledge. It was while reading that the section on androgyny was seen, and over years, there have been many interpretations of ancient stories from India that got distorted over time, such as over thousands of years.

Perhaps it was not proper to conspicuously place an edit in your article, although I tried to minimize impoliteness by pointing out where the starting and stopping points were. Also, I am a new writer in the Wikipedia forum; hence, the edit, hereunder, with some additional points, might have been better placed in the discussion area, ascertained more recently.

The subject of Jammu and Kashmir will bring to light that there are those who believe in the messages spoken by Muhammad {SALALLAHU ALYHE WASALAM} living adjacent those who partake of Hindu knowledges, that are not always commonly recognized on the prima facia as being what was spoken as Islam by Muhammad {SALALLAHU ALYHE WASALAM} in Arabic tongue. And, there are also combinates, for example, those that believe in Islam, and have enough undersatnding to know, what they can partake of knowledge-wise from ancient Hindu knowledge, culture, healing, and more, without being in conflict to Islam belief.

The main thrust to the edit of my edit, is that, meddling with the way that the Lord created us, humans, can adversly effect health. Therein meddling, includes inventing, or as Islam calls, innovating, pertinently ways which humans were created. The Qur'an already set forth clearly how man, as in mankind, was created. In a number of places in the Qur'an, it is explained, the creation of mankind, and the creation of men and women. One of these is the first ayat [translated] verse in the Sura [translated chapter] called AnNisaa, [translated briefly as 'The Women']. When inviable claim to be from the science field, that might be somewhat offtrack to begin with, develops an unstable theory and asserts it as fact, such as about the creation of the human being, when there is a conflict of interest to the theory, the only answer to a [false] solution, is going to be disatrous.

Turners syndrome was mentioned, however, there are different writings on the subject, some of which promulgate that chromosomes are the baseline to the whole differentiation of men and women. The citation of Turners Syndrome was to bring out that wrongful meddling and misapplication of proper balance, often due to misunderstandings of knowledge, can result in illness, as a generality. It was not to state that even the underlying theories of what leads to Turners Syndrome is always correct.

The original edit: Starting from here is an edit, addition to the article, however you want to view it; some may say it is a correction. A citation is recommended for someone, or anyone, to assert that androgyny 'represents perfect equilibrium and completeness'. Perhaps the only backdoor to this statement, is 'represents'. Here is what is being talked about: Promoting having both female and male characteristics simultaneously, is viewed by many holy as what the Qur'an states as 'Mufsid', [an Arabic language term], also of that word group, is 'Fasad', the transliteration, which is the behavioral form, where as mufsid is more applied to the one who engages in the behavioral form. Fasad is looked down upon. Now, also in the Qur'an is discussed that the belief of all the Prophets, such as Muhammad {slallahu ailayhe wassllm}, and those before him, were all one in the same. Just because there are what has been handed down from areas in or near ascribed as India, or Hind, might have been from times earlier than 1400 years ago, which is a numerical reference to about how long ago Muhammad {slallahu ailayhe wassllm} was 'living' in the sense of alive or in the grave, does not mean that Fasad was tolerated in India and Hind during those earlier times. It also does not mean that the messages sent from the Lord, our Creator, {in its pure form} tolerated Fasad. So, we arrive at, androgyny 'represents perfect equilibrium and completeness', is basically something that is subscribed to, not that, that is, the truth, as an absolute. There are twisted messages [that exist 1/19/2010]. There are twisted, distorted, or warped interpretations of someone's claim of what the content of a message was. One could write a dissertation on all the different grades of a content that includes messages that have both truth and falsehood in them at the same time.

Practically speaking, surely there are articles on illnesses such as Turner's Syndrome/Turner syndrome, which indicate that androgyny is not healthy.

What can be gained from this article addition is that standing aloof from the 'system', as in a system of meditation, practices, and so on, as a preclude before taking it as fact, in terms of a truth, or a true knowledge that you use in your everday lives, might be healthier, and take you further in healthy development, in situations like the one in this context. It might well be that the truth, and the fact, is, there are people that take the 'system' as truth or fact, in contrast to, that the object, as in the 'system', might not be truth or fact.

For now, in closing, there is a saying or Hadith of Prophet Muhammad {slallahu ailayhe wassllm}, that, transliterated and paraphrased 'zawj nafs iman'. Zawj is commonly translated as marriage. Albeit not necessarily the only or comprehensive meaning. Nafs, commonly translated as, half, again, however, not necessarily the only or comprehensive meaning. And the third word, iman, with the i pronounced like 'ee', is commonly translated as 'faith'; and again, not necessarily anywhere near the entirety of the meaning of the word. Commonly, [and common used in this paragraph is being used in condescending manner, not extreme though, like the common people, mediocre, such in level of understanding], the translation of the Hadith in English language turns out to be 'marriage is half of faith'. This hurried translation leads to other hurried notions that start to creep in, like a man's wife is his 50%, because it is 'half', etc. This does not mean that a man has to behave, or engage in behaviour reflective of being half a woman. On the contrary, that behaviour was not asked by the Prophet Muhammad {slallahu ailayhe wassllm} of his followers to engage in. Sent in from AenglscriptEnlight

Sincerely, Aenglscriptenlight —Preceding unsigned comment added by AenglscriptEnlight (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading article

It is very misleading to name this article simply 36 tattvas it should properly be namend 36 tattvas in Kashmir shaivaism, since the concept was not developed inside K.S but originated earlier within the Shaiva Siddhanta Philsophy and has been later assimilated into K.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.87.219 (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup article to use Sanskrit terms (with English translation if required) instead of analogies with other religions to describe 36 tattvas

Many terms of Sanskrit are non-translatable into English. There are multiple nuances/meanings for a single word. At many places Apple-to-Orange type of analogies are given, which don't make sense i.e. comparing Holy Water/Holy Spirit to Jala-Tattva. However (as can be expected) the links to Holy Spirit/Holy Water take one to articles primarily based on Christianity. Shouldn't the links take the reader to 'Jala tattva' instead. This is misleading to say the least.

Many of these analogies seem more like opinion of the author than verfiable fact. I suggest removal of these opinions (or at least moving all such comparisons into a different page after vetting for verifiability). Gurudutt (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Horribly Disorganized Page

This should get a cleanup tag. If your article title has a number in it, it is imperative that you have a flattened list and summary first and then proceed to groupings. There is little overarching organization of the subject by any recognizable set of topic progression. 75.94.89.240 (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Notable"

The delete PROD was removed by Redtigerxyz, but I fail to see its notability. Ogress _smash! 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

POV, overly detailed, peacock and tone

Tags added at 2 may 2015

I still have almost no idea what the page is trying to communicate despite it being written like a manual. RTXYZ, can you please clarify very quickly on talk what the page is supposed to be about? Google books are the Wikipedia page turned into books. It definitely needs to be what I call "degaussed": delete jargon and excessive detail and strip it to an encyclopedic basis. However, I cannot help if I read the article, google it and then look at google books and still have no idea what the article is about. Ogress _smash! 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The point of view of this comment is not applied anywhere else in Wikipedia.

For example, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress

On any biology, chemistry or medical topics, NO ONE says "delete jargon and excessive detail".

Kashmir Shaivism has many technicalities and details which require jargon, just like any other academic pursuit.162.205.217.211 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please fix the problems, instead of removing the tags. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: That was a valid observation by an IP editor. Your "please fix" demand is not necessarily polite. — kashmiri ^TALK 13:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to remove tags. If the IP thinks that the tags are unjustified, then they should adress the problems, either by resolving them, or by starting a discussion and explaining why they think these tags are not justified. NB: the reverse of course can also be asked: why were these tags added? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you read your own link? It is says it IS a valid argument. I "explained why these tags are not justified". "Excessive jargon" is not a valid criticism of a technical article.162.205.217.211 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"can you please clarify very quickly on talk what the page is supposed to be about?" It is about the 36 components on which the entire Universe is constructed.162.205.217.211 (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that I've made a start for reorganising this article, which adresses the concerns raised by Ogress, I'll leave your removal of the maintenance-tags unchanged. But you better take care of your style of editing; you don't seem to understand what the problem is with thi article, nor that removing maintenance-tags without proper reason is not constructive editing. The fact that other articles may appear highly technical to you is not a valid reason to remove those tags; they are about this article. And the article does lack a lot of info, which makes it highly uniformative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Kashmir Shaivism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support - this is insufficient for its own page; it's a mess of OR and uncited Ogress _smash! 07:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Much like proposing merge of Aristotle's Categories into Greek philosophy. Article is a currently a mess, I fully agree, but the topic has a stand on its own and I doubt it can reasonably be shortened so much as to not overload Kashmir Shaivism. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 02:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refspam I

How is this WP:REFSPAM? Refspam is:

"Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include the removal of multiple valid sources and statements in an article in favor of a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia."

The quote in question was added at 30 july 2007 by User:Visarga. If we look again at "refspam":

• "the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor." - this text was only added to this article. See also Google;
• "the removal of multiple valid sources and statements in an article in favor of a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source." - Knut A. Jacobsen is not a "typically questionable or low-value" source.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The text I deleted appears to be random paragraphs from Visarga's much longer OR [1] but obviously has nothing to do with Kashmir Shaivism. It deals with Tantrik traditions rather than strictly KS. Visarga seems deeply interested in the concept of Vak (speech) in Tantrik traditions (present also in Spanda) but his essay does not belong to the Tattvas article. Vak is not a tattva. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Refspam II

This isn't refspam either. It appears only one time at Wikipedia, and the source is published by Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's perhaps not spam, but again it does not belong to this article. There have been suggestions to improve the article (see above), so I started working on it and will be happy if able to carry on. — kashmiri ^TALK 17:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me, as long as you provide valid arguments. "Refspam" was not the case here. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As a suggestion: the sequence from pure to unpure, or from Absolute to relative, should be the same in both intro(s) and explanations. And what's the realtion between Ashuddha, Shuddhashuddha, and Shudda on the one hand, and mahābhūtas, tanmātras and karmendriyas on the other hand? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. But... either I am unable to find or there is no article on enwiki that would list the 25 tattvas - ones from Sankhya-Yoga! Having the 25 "aśuddha" tattvas neatly described at a separate article would be of so much help in improving this article. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā and Ms Sarah Welch: any help here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And Google, of course. Including nice charts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: I like your edits so far. On Tattvas: JC Chatterjee's old book, republished by State University of New York Press is a good RS. Others include SenSharma, Chapter 7 and 8 of Shankarananda and a bit in Muller-Ortega. The 25/36 tattvas list and discussion should be part of this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A little late to the party here, but Larson has a book on Sāṁkhya with a full chart of the 25 tattvas. Another nice chart is in Edwin Bryant's Yoga Sūtras translation (although my teacher, Chris Chapple argues against the translation of the tanmatras). As for the 36 tattva system, I belief Edwin Bryant breaks down Madhvacarya's tattva systems in Krishna: A Sourcebook" starting around p.361, but no charts. Harder for me to locate is a śaiva tattva schema relative to the Kashmiris. I guess I need to get some Abhinavagupta in my collection! Hope that helps some. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ramana Maharshi said

FYI - The reknown sage Ramana Maharshi once said:

"Just as it is fruitless for one to scrutinize the garbage which is to be collectively thrown away, so it is fruitless for one who is to know himself to count the number and scrutinize the properties of the tattvas (the principles that constitute world, soul and God) which are veiling oneself, instead of collectively casting all of them aside."

162.205.217.211 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Tag: confusing or unclear

Only a small part of the tattvas are explained here. To clarify the subject, all tattvas and their relations should be described and explained. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please review the article whether it is clear enough to remove confusing tag? If not, please explain in which sections it requires more clarification. --5anan27 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Tattva (Shaivism)

In explanation of the term TATVA: They are usually divided into three groups: śuddha (pure tattvas); śuddhaśuddha (pure-impure tattvas); and aśuddha (impure tattvas).

"Pure" or "Shuddha", should be translated as "UNCHANGEABLE" . Purity is ' removal of impure, inclusions, deviations, negativeness etc. TATVA is the force behind the energy element.

Regards 2405:204:9616:C6A9:A823:E653:63EE:BE82 (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Sujata Vaidya, Pune, INDIA Bhagwat Gita

Prakriti is skipped for some reason

In the list of tattvas with their explanations, it for some reason skips from Purusa to the Antahkarana. Prakriti is never addressed under it's own heading, so only 23 of the 24 tattvas are addressed. This makes it quite misleading.