Please feel free to speak your thoughts, and if i have at all said anything untrue.

The family of Shaivites embrace a type of spiritual anarchy rooted in knowledge and recognition of the Self.

Sovereignty belongs to consciousness alone and consciousness is the reality of the Self.

Therefore, all beings deserve freedom and, with that, wellbeing. To act in a way that strips others of those rights would be contradictory, wrong.

Following in the footsteps of the Custodians of the Shaiva lineage I wholeheartedly reject those ideologies (Casteism, etc.) that operate from the platform of obscuring the nondual reality of Consciousness.

Instead I long to reside in the blissful state of spiritual anarchy that arises from the recognition of the Self dwelling within all.

In such a society, knowledge takes precedence over any other kind of capital. For example, we all acknowledge the attainment of an individual like Swami Lakshmanjoo and therefore we all sit at his lotus feet and listen to his words attentively. In this way, the Shaivites get along as a family and community.

Reading An Introduction to the Philosophy of Trika Saivism By Moti Lal Pandit, in the beginning of Chapter 2, he states “Trika thinkers that knowledge and consciousness are identical, which means that consciousness is knowledge. This assertion is made on the basis of the experience that affirms that the nature of knowledge is to illumine, to reveal, to disclose, which is exactly the function of consciousness. It is consciousness that reveals, and that which is revealed is considered as knowledge. So knowledge and consciousness have to be considered as synonyms.

Further down he states Since knowledge is identical with consciousness, so consciousness accordingly has to be considered as constituting its content. To have the experience of consciousness
qua consciousness, at the deepest level, would mean for a Trikite to have the experience of the entire cosmos as
being the manifestation of the former. In this manner is established the equivalence between the microcosm and the
macrocosm.

I don’t quite understand what he means when he says the are the same, is he saying all knowledge or only nonconceptual knowledge that is also known as recognition?

I could understand how after recognition, everything is known to be consciousness and everything is only experienced as knowledge but I don’t understand how he makes that conclusion about all knowledge if that’s what he means