Talk:Kashmir Shaivism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article name

Why has this article been named Kaśmir Śaivism instead of simply "Kashmir Shaivism?" I understand the former might be the technically correct way to spell the latter, but it truly is a pain in the neck while wikifying other pages that link here!

Of course I do not mean any offense to whoever has done so, as I might just be naive in this regard. It's just that the current title can be rather frustrating.

Would a change to the simpler version be inappropriate?
- idunno271828 (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it is fine to wikify to a redirect page, i.e., to Kashmir Shaivism. The thing that I think needs fixing is the inconsistency between the spellings in the article. Someone whoe didn't know could easily think that they were supposed to be two different things. At the very least, make a note of the alternate spelling in the first sentence of the article! Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 01:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Daśāvatāra which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Kaśmir Śaivism → Kashmir Shaivism — As discussed on Talk:Daśāvatāra#Requested_move, non-diacritical spellings were preferred in general, but the discussion concentrated on the particular article title. For this article that case is Kaśmir Śaivism is an amalgam of 2 words: Kaśmir - a geographical region with a standardized English spelling Kashmir (infamous for India-Pakistan dispute) and Śaivism with standardized spelling Shaivism. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Obvious. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. — AjaxSmack 01:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed Updates

I propose to introduce the following to the Concepts section:

• Chiti (Consciousness), per the Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta, I.1
• Mala (impurity), the three being: anava mala, karma mala and mayiya mala
• Upaya (yogic means), listing five: anavopaya, anupaya, gururupaya, shaktopaya, shambhavopaya

References: 'Consciousness is Everything, Shankarananda, 'Doctrine of Vibration, Dyczkowski' and 'Kashmir Saivism, Mishra'.
Yogidude (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just do it - there is a huge amount missing from the page, the above is just an outline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.196.195.124 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I updated this article

I updated this article with scholarly info, including recent sources.LhunGrub (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits Reverted

I take issue with recent edits by SaivaAdiGuru on the following points:

• It is not good to remove the discussion of the philosophical point of view of Kashmir Shaivism. KS did not arise because the sages were reading different scriptures than the Vedantins were, although the two philosophies agree on many points, it arose from a vision of reality which differed from that presented by Shankara Advaita. Where Shankara’s Advaita says the world is an illusion and only Brahman is real, KS says the world is real and is a play of Brahman (Shakti, chiti). This is the essential difference between the two philosophies and has profound implications that should not be overlooked nor removed.
• The KS sages were keenly aware that they were teaching amidst a background of Shankara’s teachings, and sought to oppose or clarify his ideas. A comprehensive dialogue went on between the sages of both traditions. So the diaglogue between AV and KS is not only historically significant it is philosophically significant. Because of this, the discussion of this fact should appear at the introduction of the article. As far as Wikipedia content is concerned this distinction is verifiable. It is discussed in some detail in highly significant modern texts on KS for eg p24-25 Pratyabhijnahrdayam Jaideva Singh, Moltilal Banarsidass, 2008.
• While it is important to mention the scriptural backgrounds of Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, scriptural basis of KS (ie Kaula Tantras) was already mentioned in the Origin section. Scriptural facts, while significant should not be repeated in the article without the addition of significant detail.
• Given that this appears to be the first time SaivaAdiGuru has edited wikipedia, I recommend that it is best to follow wikipedia ettiqutte for new editors and discuss/propose changes on this (talk) page before updating the article directly.

Yogidude|Yogidude 13:15, 22 April 2012