Talk:Kaśmir Śaivism/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
- 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)
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)
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)
