Talk:Kashmir Shaivism

Reduction
These edits removed about 12k of sourced info, with the simple edit-summary "clean-up." I've reverted them all; I don't see why such a drastic "clean-up" is necessary. The edits also added some info, and I don't doubt they're good additions; I've tried to revert while including the additions, but I think that the cleaning editor can do a better job in this regard than I, knowing better what they had in mind when editing. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am using Sanderson's recent works, which are the top sources on this subject. Please explain how self-published books by *this guy* are reliable. VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Was that the only source you removed? Maybe you can start with adding reliable info, and there-after removing and explaining, or discussing, info you find unreliable or irrelevant (or the other way round). When you do this in smaller chunks instead of large chunks, it's easier to follow for others. As it is now, it's too much. Regarding Shankarananda: he's got a fancy name, and he's wearing an orange robe; how couldn't he be reliable? ;) Ah, read the first chapter of "AfterZen" by Janwillem van de Wetering, for some hilarious stories on self-styled gurus. The article on Shankarananda seems to be in need of some copy-editing too.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These are the sources I am replacing, and why:
 * Moti Lal Pandit, The Trika Saivism of Kashmir - Self Published
 * Dyczkowski, Mark (1987), The doctrine of vibration. An Analysis of the Doctrines and Practices of Kashmir Shaivism - Outdated book from 1987
 * Flood, Gavin (2003), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Malden: Blackwell. pg. 212 - Outdated chapter based on Sanderson's old work
 * Muller-Ortega, Paul E. (2010), Triadic Heart of Siva - Famously panned by Sanderson in his book review
 * Sanderson, Alexis (2005a), Saivism: Saivism in Kasmir, in Jones, Lindsay, MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol.12: Rnying Ma Pa School - Soul, MacMillan - A reprint of an outdated article from 1987
 * Singh, Jaideva, Spanda-Kārikās, The Divine Creative Pulsation, page XVII - Primary source
 * Singh, Jaidev (translator), Vijnanabhairava verse 109, dh 85, p.98 - Primary source
 * Swami Lakshman Jee, Kashmir Shaivism: The Secret Supreme - Indigenous primary source
 * Swami Shankarananda, Consciousness is Everything, The Yoga of Kashmir Shaivism,  - Self-published advertisement for a Sex Cult
 * VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * wauw, thanks! So, some homework for me to do then, right? I'll go through your edits again.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Dyczkowski, Mark (1987), The doctrine of vibration
This book was published by SUNY; what's outdated about this book? Except for the author maybe too involved? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence, David Peter, Kashmiri Shaiva Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Why was 'group of traditions' removed? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I propose the article name should 'Trika Shaivism' instead
Christopher Wallis says in Tantra illuminated chapter 2: "If you hear the term “Kashmīr Shaivism,” it is generally referring to the philosophy of the Trika school of Śaiva Tantra. The Trika school is often associated with Kashmīr because its greatest exponent, Abhinava Gupta, was from Śrīnagar in the Kashmīr Valley. In fact, though, the Trika was pan-Indian, like most of the Śaiva groups. We have evidence of this from an early period in both Orissa and Mahārāṣṭra, and it seems that the latter may have been its homeland. It is certainly the case that Abhinava Gupta’s guru’s guru came from Mahārāṣṭra (in west-central India). The founder of the Trika is said to be a sage named Tryambaka, who might have been associated with Tryambakeshwar, a beautiful power-site in rural Mahārāṣṭra where there is a temple still in operation today."

So really, this is a misnomer, because the Trika school was not just a Kashmiri school nor did it start in Kashmir, not only that, but there were and are many forms of Shaivism in Kashmir, not just the nondual tradition of Abhinavagupta et al. This is noted also by Mark S. G. Dyczkowski in his Doctrine of Vibration, page 12, in which he notes that Abhinavagupta's teachers of Trika were not from Kashmir. Mark also notes that Abhinavagupta names the tradition as Anuttaratrikakula in his "Light of the tantras" which is "also known simply as Trika". So Trika Shaivism is I think a better title for this tradition. Javierfv1212 (talk)


 * Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME - "Kashmir Shaivism" is more commonly used than "Trika Shaivism". — kashmiri  TALK  01:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if this is the case, the name is misnomer. Here is a video of the leading scholar in the field, Alexis Sanderson, and in the beginning he makes the argument that the name Kashmir Shaivism is misleading and should not be used. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 13:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ramana Maharshi
IP 162.205.217.211 three times diff diff diff removed sourced info on a difference between Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta in the interpretation of the Supreme, or Brahman, replacing it with a quote of Ramana Maharshi, sttaing that "Both schools mean the same thing":

The rationale for this was given as follows:

Shankarananda may indeed not be the best source, but what he states does not sound weird to me. And Ramana Maharshi was not "the premier modern exponent of AV"; that's how some of his devotees picture him. As for the 10 years, I've been studying Buddhism and related subjects for 30 years now; but I'd suggest we just stick to the sources, and a disussion on WP:RS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added a SUNY-reference and a small correction for niṣkriya. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with . While RM was a renowned practictioner and surely a great guru, he was not a scholar and his knowledge of both AV and KS (and of Sanskrit in general) was fairly limited. He is absolutely no authority on any system of philosophy. — kashmīrī  TALK  05:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Swami Shankarananda's own Guru, who introduced him to Kashmir Shaivism, agreed that Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta were essentially the same. However, everything in on paper (due to the Copyright owning organization wanting to keep other competing disciples - like Shankarananda - from utilizing that material :smh: ) so it will take me some time to find the quote so I will just put that here for now.

The 10 years that I studied KS was with Shankarananda's Guru btw, I studied Tantric Buddhism for a different 10 years, and Advaita Vedanta for over 10 years, a total of 43 years of both Hinduism and Buddhism combined.

Also, while Wikipedia's desire for references makes a lot of sense, it is also true that every false statement in existence (such as the earth is flat) can be referenced is some statement in a book, so references do not prove anything other than some human being said that. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right. If this is your modus operandi, just stay away until you've learned the basics of Wikipedia. Personal opinions are not to be preferred above WP:RS. could you please provide a third opinion here?  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no personal opinion except in the Talks comments. The main page edits are now double referenced by a variety of full-time scholars of Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta does not believe that the world is not real, because the world is Brahman. Brahman is not inactive because all actions are Brahman. That is what nonduality means - not two. Every word typed by Joshua was typed by Brahman.

Either you can disprove the text or your deletion is NOT NPOV. Shankarananda is not NPOV on Advaita Vedanta.

Someone whose sense of identity hinges on the idea that AV and KS are substantially different, is not NPOV. Don't be that sort of person.162.205.217.211 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's see:


 * Basically, you've provided three persons here as sources for your personal contention of the statement that KS and AV differ on their perception of mundane reality as real or unreal. You may have a point here, but the way you're using "sources" - YouTube and blogs - is not how Wikipedia works, nor is the repeated reinstatement of contested text. You first try to reach agreement at the talkpage, discussing the contested text, and properly referring to sources. Some proper sources:
 * N. V. Isaeva, Shankara and Indian Philosophy
 * Arvind Sharma, Advaita Vedānta: An Introduction


 * I suggest to first break down and discuss the first alinea:


 * 1. Source? Here starts WP:SYNTHESIS c.q. WP:OR.
 * 2. Check source?
 * 3. "However"? Development of argument, which starts in 1.
 * 4. Check source?
 * 5. "But"? Synthesis.
 * 6. Check source?
 * 7. "While"? Synthesis.
 * 8. Check source? Synthesis? Does the source juxtapose KS and AV?
 * 9. "And"? Synthesis.
 * 10. Check source? Synthesis? Does this source juxtapose KS and AV?
 * 11. Unsourced.

The whole section may as well be synthesis... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You are making this whole thing, far more complex than it needs to be.

It all started when I came across this false sentence by Shankarananda on the page. It is a famous misunderstanding. Many people misunderstand "Maya" as saying "everything is illusion, you and I don't exist, nothing matters so just launch the nukes". A lot of the marketing material for other Hindu sects - including Kashmir Shaivism - use that as part of the reason that you should not be an Advaitic Vedantist.

I assumed that - in this case - if someone who is universally well regarded (Ramana), pointed out that KS and AV were substantially the same, and that the difference was a matter of personal taste, that would settle the issue. Personal taste is easily the biggest component of choice of religion, so no one is saying they are "identical", just not in disagreement.

However, it's also reasonable to just leave the "2+2=3" false statement by Shankarananda, and then add an explanation of "2+2=4" and so that was my latest attempt.

I don't know of any prohibition of web-based references on Wikipedia, I have seen many of them. And, in fact, someone can post an out-of-print paper book and say "pg. 57" and no one else can verify the reference. Whereas all 7 billion humans can verify web content easily.

The most solid reference which clearly disputes the misunderstanding of Advaita Vedanta is:

https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/19930/world-is-real-even-according-to-advait-vedanta

It provides opinions and references at least on the level of the Shankarananda.

--> One source of problems is that the whole section is inherently not NPOV. Imagine a Toyota page where Toyota fans write about "Advantages of Toyota cars over Honda cars". It's inherently contrary to the "encyclopedia" aspect of Wikipedia. Deleting the whole section would be preferable, but only allowing KS fans to characterize Advaita Vedanta is not neutral. The fact that the conclusion of the section on which the whole section revolves - what you have labeled as "11" - is unsourced, could also be support for deletion.

11 - The reality and very divinity of every aspect of the phenomenal world

is the avowed difference, something that is being claimed for KS and denied to AV. But it is true for AV, which is the point of all my references.

I included Swami Sarvapriyananda's analogy because it is easily understood, and I don't see why anyone who reads it could not understand that "The reality and very divinity of every aspect of the phenomenal world" is also a part of Advaita Vedanta.

“What does Maya say: Things are not what they seem. This world is an appearance. But “appearance” of what? Of Brahman. The snake is an appearance. Appearance of what? The rope. If the snake is false and the rope is true, let me ask you, where is the rope? Right where you see the snake.” - Swami Sarvapriyananda

The charecterization of Advaita Vedanta by other sects is that the concept of "Maya" is saying that the world is like a mirage, i.e. not really there at all.

So, Swami Sarvapriyananda says that it is not like a mirage, and so he uses the snake/rope analogy, because in the case of the snake, there is something there, it is just not being recognized as its real identity, Brahman. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have removed part of the contested content. Jaideva Singh, Pratyabhijnahrdayam: The Secret of Self-recognition, p.22-26, contains an explicit comparison of Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism. He may be usefull, in the format of "According to Jaideva Singh...", etc.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Door


 * That's agreeable to me. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned earlier, Ramana Maharishi is no authority on Kashmir Shaivism (nor on Advaita Vedanta to be honest), and your claim of "universal acclaim" is totally unproven. At least I haven't found any references to RM in the works of such renowned authorities on KS as Singh, Kaviraj or Dyczkowski.
 * For your information, the main criticism of AV by KS on the philosophical ground is the problem - of which Advaita Vedantins have been well aware - that Maya is supposed to be a non-element (i.e., it is not counted among the 25 tattvas) even as it shapes the phenomenal world (the other 24 tattvas) and is able to obscure Brahman. Advaita Vedanta tried hard with various explanations, the most common being that Maya cannot be called an entity (tattva) because it is a "non-existence" (abhava, of knowledge). But philosophically this still did not make up for a consistent system, something that other schools were keen to criticise. Kashmir Shaivism, on its part, went to expand the number of tattvas to 36, adding Maya and the entire superstructure of the relationship between the perceived object(s) and the perceiving subject, which was elaborated mostly in the Pratyabhijna school.
 * Anyhow, a statement that "both schools are essentially the same" is in my opinion ignorant and inacceptable in a modern encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī  TALK  06:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * All of that is - unsurprisingly - entirely from the specific viewpoint of Kashmir Shaivism. For example, Advaita Vedanta is entirely uninterested in the idea of "tattvas".  The Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada is the first major test of Advaita Vedanta, and it says in Chapter 2:

pañcaviṃśaka ityeke ṣaḍviśa iti cāpare | ekatriṃśaka ityāhurananta iti cāpare ||

"Some say that the Reality consists of twenty-five categories, others twenty-six, while there are others who conceive It as consisting of thirty-one categories and lastly people are not wanting who think such categories to be infinite."


 * Also the following gives the position of Advaita Vedanta more clearly:

"Sankara was criticised for his views on maya without being understood. He said that (1) Brahman is real, (2) the universe is unreal, and (3) The universe is Brahman. He did not stop at the second, because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self[Brahman], and unreal if perceived apart from the Self[Brahman]. Hence maya and reality are one and the same." - Ramana Maharshi

By the way, no one was claiming Ramana Maharshi to be an authority on Kashmir Shaivism. He is considered to be an authority on the nature of reality. But, obviously, we cannot expect those who have not read and understood his works to agree. However, I should point that the quote does not say "both schools are essentially the same" it says "There is agreement on all points except in words and the method of expression."

Anyway, as I mentioned above, Joshua's current revision is fine.162.205.217.211 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "I think Japanese and Chinese languages are essentially the same. They just differ in script. I have no idea about Japanese, but I was told a few things about Chinese, so I think so, and I should be quoted in an encyclopaedia article on Japanese language. I am an expert on the nature of things." That's much about your pushing RM's quotes on KS to this and other articles. — kashmīrī  TALK  10:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Kashmiri shaivism was never influenced by Vijnanavada and Dharmakirti.
Kashmiri shaivism was never influenced by Vijnanavada and Dharmakirti while people like Joshua Jonathan and other people Venlata Tl show such things. As world is real in Kashmiri Shaivism. 2409:4061:4E96:EFE7:8CCB:C711:A8E4:30E (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you share academic sources in support of your opinion? — kashmīrī  TALK  12:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There's a Zen-anecdote: a Zen-master teaches a student that the world is created by mind. Okay, thinks the students, and doesn't go out of the way of an approaching vehicle. Badly injured, he goes to the master to complain that his teachings are wrong. In response, the teacher says "Yeah, the world is created by mind, but it doesn't mean the vehicle won't hurt you!" Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Kashmiri Shaivism not Kashmir Shaivism
I propose the article be renamed as 'Kashmiri Shaivism' rather than Kashmir Shaivism. Gen8Master (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)