Talk:Kashmir Shaivism/Archive 1

Minor cleanup of section on Muktananda and Siddha Yoga

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)

Shaivism in relation to other religions or spiritual paths

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)

History of Kashmir Shaivism

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)

External Links

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

Material About Current Teachers

I reverted this material, for several reasons.

1. 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.
2. 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)

Theories of Kashmir Shaivism

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)

Mind-born

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)

Request for help in identifying forking

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)

Use of standard reference formats

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)

Possibilities of learning and practicing Kashmir Shaivism today

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)

Gabriel Pradiipaka is a genuine master belonging to the Triká tradition. He is a disciple of Swami Muktananda in fact. And he is a contemporary "alive" teacher. Hence I added him to the list of teachers. There is no link-spam as the user Buddhipriya insists on stating. If Buddhipriya has something personal against Gabriel Pradiipaka, he should push that aside and behave objectively. I am calling for other moderators in order to show the reason why Gabriel Pradiipaka cannot be considered a genuine contemporary Kashmir Shaivism teacher, because Buddhipriya insist on removing his name without giving any valid point 200.82.62.166 23:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

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)

Dear friend, tell me where is "in my last posts" the link in my adding Gabriel Pradiipaka as "disciple of Swami Muktananda" and that's it (no link to anywhere)? Of course, people will see that name, google it and find the site. This is out of Wikipedia's control, no doubt. Besides, who are you to say that he is a non-notable practitioner? Do you know him personally? Just behold his website and think to yourself, "Who the hell am I to deny him to enter as a Kashmir Shaivism teacher?". Are you a renowned Trika scholar maybe? Now, listen up because this is serious: I am calling for other moderators because you seem not to have the necessary objectiveness and scholarship to work as one in this important section. This is a formal reclamation to Wikipedia for a change in the moderator. If the notable teachers are to be "only" from India (your country, btw, Buddhipriya), so put the title "Notable Indian teachers" and that's it. Your behavior just show a tendency to promote your own country, Buddhipriya, and there is certain ridiculous conceit in your statements regarding a teacher you don't know an iota!!! Thus, I want the opinions of other moderators who are not from India. Show valid points and I won't keep on adding the name of Gabriel Pradiipaka as a notable Kashmir Shaivism teacher. Besides, he is "alive, up and running", while the other teachers are "generally" dead 200.82.66.194 04:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: [1] (201.252.222.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) and associated vandalism of my user page: [2]. [3] (200.117.55.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log))

Buddhipriya 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Spamming continues, this time from User:200.117.225.42 [4]. Buddhipriya 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable proponents

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)

No one has objected to removing this section, so I will remove it. Buddhipriya 18:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

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)

Structure and Content

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)

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)

I'm currently doing research on dozens of Kashmir Shaivism books in order to identify and compile a list of fundamental concepts like:

• everything is consciosness (Siva is identical to Nara)
• everything is reflected in everything else(bimba-pratibimba)
• spontaneous recognition of the divine
• Siva, at the same time transcendent and immanent
• maya does not create an illusory world (but rather creates the illusion of duality inside the limited beings)
• Siva is not a remote God, he is involved in every aspect of the world
• consciousness is more than an static witness, but a dynamic self-reflecting awareness
• Siva as light and self-relfection(prakasa-vimarsa)
• absolute freedom (svatantrya) - the condition of Siva and the liberated beings

Visarga 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am building up a list of references that are to become useful in writing Kashmiri Shaivism articles - initially for personal use but it might be used by anyone who researches for articles or for personal curiosity. I have even more books on the subject and I will be adding more references. User:Visarga/Research_References The reference list in itself can become a good starting point for more in depth studies. Most of the fundamental subjects are touched, some more than once. Visarga 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Swami Shankarananda Saraswati

Buddhipriya, I think you have an interesting and intelligent point of view, though I disagree with some of your conclusions. Let me clarify my position and make my case more clearly:

Swami Shankarananda distinguishes two contemporary traditions of Kaśmir Śaivism in his book, Consciousness is Everything (the Indian edition is called The Yoga of Kashmir Shaivism, from Motilal Banarsidass in Delhi, ISBN: 81-208-2699-X) see especially pages 47 through 52. He calls one the “scholarly tradition”, whose main figure is Lakshmanjoo, and the other the “Shaktipat tradition”, whose main figure is Muktananda. Shankarananda’s classification describes the present situation regarding proponents of Kaśmir Śaivism. In other words, scholars or purists might have their own opinions or judgments about historical authenticity, but the fact remains that there are a significant number of people in the world today who practice Kaśmir Śaivism due to the work of these modern teachers. They would not think of themselves as followers of a “New Religious Movement”. Nor do I think you would get universal agreement in branding them thus.

The central point I am making is that there is an important distinction to be made between the guru/yogi/practitioner on the one side and the scholar/historian/academic on the other. While there can be an overlap, these groups have different methods and different goals. I also think it is fair to say that neither would seek to deny the existence of the other, and that their may even be something to be gained from mutual acknowledgement. Both advocate the value of Kaśmir Śaivism.

Swami Shankarananda believes that if it were not for the contribution of Swami Muktananda, Kaśmir Śaivism would be of interest to only a few dozen scholars around the world. Muktananda introduced the ideas and practices of this form of Śaivism to thousands of meditators. He urged Motilal Banarsidass to publish Jaideva Singh’s translations of significant scriptures in the tradition and they did so. That these texts continue to be published is in no small way due to the interest among Muktananda’s followers.

Shankarananda agrees that Muktananda is not in any recorded lineage of Kaśmir Śaivism, as Swami Lakshmanjoo may or may not be. Instead, he claims that Muktananda’s relationship to Kaśmir Śaivism is very similar to Ramana Maharshi’s relationship to Advaita Vedanta. Ramana undertook no formal study with any historic school of Vedanta and attained his realisation independently of that. Nonetheless, after realisation he found that the Vedantic texts best expressed what he had experienced directly.

Ramana is widely regarded as the premier exponent of Advaita Vedanta in modern times. It would be extremely pedantic to question this because he was not in a formal lineage from Shankaracharya.

Muktananda, similarly, came to Kaśmir Śaivism after his own powerful realisation. Like Ramana, he found that the texts of Kaśmir Śaivism best expressed what he had experienced directly. For many years after this discovery he promulgated the teachings of Kaśmir Śaivism with great energy and enthusiasm. No one can deny that he put Kaśmir Śaivism “on the map”. Moreover, others might claim that as a Self-realised master he is more truly in the lineage of Vasugupta than is a scholar, in the same way that Ramana more truly reflects the spirit of Shankaracharya than a pundit. Yogis who live the teaching and practice the methods follow in the pursuit of the original goal of Kashmir Shaivism, and by way of analogy, historians could be said to follow in the pursuit of acacdemic goals.

Furthermore, a number of Muktananda’s disciples have continued to emphasise the teaching and practice of Kashmir Shaivism (see page 48 of Consciousness is Everything) and thus are continuing to spread the philosophy and the yoga of the Trika. Yogidude 04:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was inserted here following a comment of mine regarding what WP:LAYOUT says about what should go into a References section. I assume you are referring to some other comment I made on my talk page, ([5] or[6]) but I am unsure what your specific suggestion is regarding what to do with this article. For the benefit of other editors, I suggest that you briefly restate your issue as you would now forumulate it. As I understand it, you think that a link to Swami Shankarananda should be added to the See also section. Is that correct? As I said on my talk page, since I have never heard of that teacher I am not well-qualified to assess him. He appears to be the founder of a New Religious Movement, which I do not consider as anything bad. I would be interested to hear from other editors what they may know of this teacher, so I may learn more about him. Buddhipriya 05:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of completeness and fairness you should know that there are more modern Kashmir Shaivism schools besides the Muktananda and Swami Lashmanjoo branch. For example in Romania an initiatic school of Kashmir Shaivism has been in existence for the last 10 years. The head of this school is the somewhat unknown Romanian yoga instructor Nicolae Catrina. The level of this school is quite high and at times better than can be found anywhere in both the other 2 modern traditions. The number of attendees is in the hundreds. There is both practical application and philosophical study. Maybe we need a separate article for all these schools. I think there is also a group in Argentina ([7]) Visarga 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to extend current article
I am looking for some kind of consensus in extending the article. I suggest extending it so that in addition to the present treatment of the history and origins of Kashmir Shaivism, it includes:

a) the essential features of the teaching itself

b) the renewed interest in the study and practice of Kashmir Shaivism in recent times

There is at least one other editor who has already started updating the article as per a), I would like to start extending the article to cover b).

To this end I think an inclusive and accurate view is presented by Swami Shankarananda in his book 'Consciousess is Everything, the Yoga of Kashmir Shaivism'. He describes two distinct traditions that exist in the world today. These two traditions or lineages are associated with two 20th century teachers: Swami Lakshmanjoo and Swami Muktananda. I also propose to start a list of the schools in all lineages where the teachings of Kashmir Shaivism are currently studied and practiced, the Shiva Ashram in Melbourne Australia being an example of one such place.

It is neccessary to distinguish the 20th century traditions from the original schools of Kashmir Shaivism. This is an important and accurate distinction and it should be plainly stated in the discussion of 20th Century lineages. But I am unsure of the purpose or the accuracy in classifying the followers of Swami Shankarananda as constituting a New Religious Movement.

Swami Shankarananda promulgates the spiritual practices and teachings he learned under the guidance and direction of his guru Swami Muktananda. In this he is completely traditional, except perhaps in terms of his race and country of birth. Beyond this, he has made a profound study of the Indian scriptures and yogic traditions and is considered both learned and a traditionalist among his peers.

He is a guru from a recognised lineage who runs an Ashram where he promotes the practices of meditation and self inquiry. Kashmir Shaivism forms the central doctrine of his teachings. He is an official representative for Hinduism in Australia and he does not isolate or distinguish himself from other Australian Hindus, regardless of their descent, in any way that I am aware of. In all these things he is a recognisable and traditional figure (except, once again, in his being a westerner). Furthermore, he was recently acknowledged for his work by the mahants and mahamandaleshwars of Haridwar, that most traditional of Hindu centres, by being given the title of mahant (spiritual leader). Yogidude 09:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would object to inclusion of material on Swami Shankarananda (Andrew Cohen) because I do not see how he can be regarded as a WP:RS for the subject. There are a great many gurus in modern times, and I am sure that many of them are notable and teach worthwhile things. They are not very reliable, for the most part, on questions of history and tradition. It is clearly a New Religious Movement and should be handled as such. It is new, it is religious, and it is a movement. I would agree that if various modern groups exist that claim to be teaching Kashmir Shaivism, that fact is probably notable for purposes of this article, if it can be sourced by some WP:RS of a solid nature (not just promotional material from web sites). However the trick is how to mention this in ways that do not require this article to get into a long list of schools, with attendant promotion. Perhaps a separate article is the best place for this type of material on the New Religious Movements of this type.

With regard to Swami Lakshmanjoo, while I am aware that under his guidance some good publications of the source texts were made, I also have heard him referred to as a crank by others who disparage his work, particularly with regard to uncritical acceptance of some mythic components in this material as fact. The guideline on Wikipedia:Notability may be helpful to try to determine if there is any clear criterion for including or excluding a particular guru. Wikipedia should not be used to advertise or promote any particular sect. I do not doubt in any way your sincerity in bringing forth this particular teacher. However some basis for evaluation of teachers of modern schools will help us determine what to do with "Swami X" when someone else suggests that he be included as well. Every "Swami X" has adherents, and in most cases there is a "Swami Y" who refutes everything said by "Swami X" as patent nonsense. For purposes of this article we need to first determine what WP:RS have to say on the subject. If various personages are mentioned in academic reviews of the subject, that would be one way to determine their notability. With regard to tests for notability, according to the Wikipedia article on him, his book Consciousness is Everything: The yoga of Kashmir Shaivism apparently got a good review from Georg Feuerstein, and since Feuerstein is often cited in the literature, his endorssement is worth something. Of course Feuerstein himself is not universally held in high regard. However despite my personal opinion that Feuerstein is over-rated, it cannot be argued that he is prominent in the field and thus an endorsement from him may be regarded by some as proof of notability. Can any other proofs of notability be put forward? Buddhipriya 00:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, I have been puzzled by your last comment for a few days, but I have recently come to see a misunderstanding, if I may respectfully use the term. In your comment above (I would object...) you appear to have identified/associated Swami Shankarananda to be the same person as Andrew Cohen. They are infact different people. Andrew Cohen has himself authored a number of articles published independently of Wikipedia, some of which are cited as a references in the article on Swami Shankarananda. Andrew Cohen is also the subject of a Wikipedia Biography.

In Wikipedia terms, the relevant requirements for the Swami Shankarananda article have already been met. In the article the Reliable Sources requirement that you mention above is fully met. This, and the notability requirement have been established beyond dispute. There is nothing to more prove in this regard, and even if there were, an article on Kaśmir Śaivism is not the place to include it.

I agree that the Kaśmir Śaivism article should not include an arbitrary list of teachers who claim to teach Kaśmir Śaivism. Their authenticity should be established prior to inclusion in the article. This is absolutely in line with Wikipedia requirements. The Reliable Sources and Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria can and should be used to establish if a teacher is eligible to include in the list. I also concur that is a good idea to avoid a potentially contentious editing war involving statements of who said what about whom (Swami's X and Y above). To this end I think it would be sufficient just to include a simple breif statement saying Swami Muktananda is a Hindu Guru that re-ignited interest the in teachings and practice of Kaśmir Śaivism in the 20th Century and that Swami Shankarananda is one of Muktanandas Western-born disciples who continue his Gurus work.

In the Wikipedia article on Swami Muktananda Siddha Yoga is referred to as a New Religious Movement. This is apparently accepted as an appropriate classification or description of Siddha Yoga. If a similar article were written on Swami Shankarananda's followers, this might also be an appropriate term. However I am not aware of any such article and the Kaśmir Śaivism article is not the place for this. I merely want to include a mention as per the above.Yogidude 14:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed the "Unreliable" tag

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)

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)

Concerns about excessive detail

I am concerned that some of the recent additions, e.g., [8], 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)

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)

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)

Important updates to Abhinavagupta, Krama and Spanda sections

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)