EPISTEMIC RIGOUR
Research & Sources
Epistemic transparency: every claim sourced, every score explained.
0
Siddhis Catalogued
0
Evidence Sources
0%
Avg Authenticity
Epistemic Transparency
Six Evidence Categories
Every siddhi in the Archive is tagged with one or more evidence categories. These are not hierarchical — they describe the nature of the source, not its rank. A practitioner testimony can be as valuable as a textual attestation, depending on the question being asked.
Traditional Source
Direct from scriptural or oral tradition — Upaniṣads, Tantras, Āgamas, and lineages with traceable transmission.
Historical Evidence
Verified through historical records, epigraphy, and archaeological correlation.
Academic Research
Peer-reviewed publications, scholarly analysis, and cross-disciplinary academic work.
Experiential Tradition
Living practitioner lineages and verified testimonies from contemporary sādhakas.
Editorial Synthesis
KALKI editorial team cross-referenced analysis, clearly flagged as interpretive.
AI Interpretation
Machine-generated connections and pattern recognition, always flagged as non-traditional.
Six categories. Zero ambiguity. Every claim traced.
The Archive does not rank sources by prestige — it classifies them by epistemic character. A practitioner's testimony and a palm-leaf manuscript are different kinds of evidence, both valued.
Coverage
Traditions Represented
The Archive draws from multiple darśanas and lineages. Each tradition contributes a distinct epistemic lens — some emphasize textual precision, others emphasize direct experience. We preserve both.
Vedānta / UpaniṣadicVedic (Ṛgveda)Haṭha / Rāja YogaVedānta / NāthUniversalVedic (Smārta)Nāth / TantraTantra / HaṭhaTantraŚrī Vaiṣṇava (Pāñcarātra)Śākta (Daśa Mahāvidyā — tenth)Śākta / Ṣaṭ-karmaŚrī VidyāŚākta (Daśa Mahāvidyā)Śaiva (Kashmir Śaiva / Siddhānta)Śrī Vidyā (Śākta)Śaiva-Śākta (Bhairavī strand)Śākta-Kālī (Mahākāla Saṃhitā)Śākta (Daśa Mahāvidyā — first)Śākta (Daśa Mahāvidyā — fourth)Śākta (Daśa Mahāvidyā — fifth)Tantra / Aghora / KaulaBuddhist Tantra (Cakrasaṃvara cycle)Śākta (Atharvaṇa / Aghora)Śaiva (Pāśupata)Nāth (Śaiva-Yogic)Tantra (Universal Preliminary)Tantra / JyotiṣaŚākta / Ṣaṭ-karma / AtharvaṇaŚākta / Folk TantraAghora / ŚaivaAghora / SaivaAghora / AvaghadSakta (Aghora)Sakta (Aghora / Atharvana)Sakta / KaulaSakta / Atharvana / Bhairavi Tantra
Multiple darśanas. One rigorous framework. No conflation.
Where traditions overlap, we note it. Where they diverge, we preserve the distinction. The Archive is not a synthesis — it is a map.
Methodology
How We Score Authenticity
Authenticity is not a single judgment — it is a composite of three measurable dimensions. Each siddhi receives a score from 0 to 100, calculated from weighted factors that reflect different forms of epistemic support.
40%
Textual Attestation
How many primary and secondary sources reference the practice. Upaniṣads and Tantras carry the highest weight; commentaries and modern interpretations carry less.
35%
Lineage Continuity
Whether the practice has an unbroken living tradition — from documented historical lineages to verified contemporary practitioners who report results consistent with textual descriptions.
25%
Experiential Verification
Whether contemporary practitioners report results consistent with traditional descriptions. This is the most subjective factor, so it receives the lowest weight.
HIGH CONFIDENCE
Primary Textual References
Upaniṣads, Tantras, Āgamas — the root textual corpus of the tradition. These carry the highest epistemic weight in our scoring model.
MEDIUM CONFIDENCE
Secondary Scholarship
Commentaries, historical records, and academic scholarship that interpret or reference primary sources. Valuable, but interpretive.
LOW CONFIDENCE
Oral & Modern Interpretations
Oral traditions without textual corroboration, or modern reinterpretations without traditional grounding. Included for transparency, scored accordingly.
EDITORIAL INTEGRITY
We never blur the distinction between traditional knowledge and our editorial interpretation. When KALKI synthesizes or connects material, it is flagged as editorial synthesis, not traditional source. The AI interpretation category exists specifically to ensure that machine-generated connections are never mistaken for scriptural authority. This is the epistemic boundary that makes the Archive trustworthy.
Three dimensions. One composite score. Full transparency.
Every authenticity score is calculable from its component parts. We publish the formula, not just the number. Question the score — that is the point.
Explore the Archive
The sources are mapped. The claims are scored.
Every siddhi in the Archive carries a full provenance chain — from primary textual references to contemporary practitioner reports. Browse the evidence yourself.
RESEARCH & SOURCES — EPISTEMIC FRAMEWORK