The piece nobody has written yet because they'd need to have read all five of Selvalingam's Kashmir-Shaivism lectures and the vault's own world-affirming Śaiva corpus in the same week is:
Why every "the world is God, enjoy it" teaching eventually has to smuggle "renounce it all" back in — and what that tells us about the difference between a metaphysics and a path.
The essay would take Selvalingam's own confessed contradiction — he affirms the world as God and tells you to renounce it, calling them "two moods" and refusing to reconcile them — and argue that this isn't sloppiness, it's structural. A pure world-affirming non-dualism is, by its own admission in World-Affirming vs Worldly, self-undercutting: the doctrine that abolishes all judgment cannot, from inside itself, distinguish the Śiva-yogi from the hedonist. The thing that distinguishes them — sādhana, the felt transcendent — is extra-doctrinal. So the renunciation register isn't a contradiction of the world-affirming one; it's the smuggled-in discriminator that keeps the world-affirming teaching from collapsing into a permission slip. The piece would then turn the lens outward: every "embrace everything" framework in the wellness/non-dual marketplace (the ones that drop renunciation as life-denying) has this hole, and the absence of the second mood is exactly why so much of it curdles into spiritual bypassing. The Ramakrishna lineage keeps both moods live on purpose. That's the craft. Pairs with the two-moods collision.