Hi Ram,
No worries; happy to answer questions, and I enjoy discussing this. It seems Maheshvaranath does do, and I certainly invite him to add to anything I say here, as well.
If indeed the bhutas (aka the material world that we experience minus the other tattvas upto Maya) are “perceived” differently by different pseudo-selves, aren’t we saying that the material world is unique to each limited-perceiver (i.e. perceiver under the spell of maya)? If so, what is the source of the seeming commonality and concomitant experience. (dummy example: i experience a rose or a jar more-or-less in similar way as the person next to me). How does KS explain the objective commonality of phenomenally individuated subject?
I roughly remember the propositions from buddhist vijnanavadins of how even material objects are just part of a large stream of consciousness (of course they claim this without any subject) - is KS explanation similar to this plus the supreme subject?
Please feel free to instruct me to “go read the basics” if im just confused - definitely respect your time.
Thanks and Pranams,
Ram
Yes, I’m definitely holding onto my towel 
Regarding what I wrote about Prthivi, please simply consider what I wrote about Maya and the Kancukas (the specific coverings of limitation).
Unbound Awareness, the supreme subject, Shiva, plays the game of self-limitation via the veils - Unbound Awareness becomes, it thinks, an Anu; an individual, thus creating the primary illusion, Anavamala; the illusion of partiality.
From this fundamental illusion, which arises in 1:1 correspondence to the learning of language by a given body-mind, everything below Maya, Purusha, Prakriti and outward ... Buddhih (Intellect), Ahamkara (ego; "I-maker"), Manas (thinking), and so on ... is colored with a specificity of perception based on the specific kancukas conditioned into that body-mind.
For instance, it's said that Native Alaskans (aka Eskimos) have at least several dozen words for snow. And so, let's say a traveler from Africa, who has never seen snow, visits Alaska; his experience and perception of snow will be different than the experience and perception of snow on the part of an Eskimo body-mind who has dealt with snow, and its many nuances, for his or her entire life.
And so, while both parties agree there's snow there (the commonality that you speak of), the specific experience of snow will be quite different.
Even your example of a rose is pertinent; five people sitting around a rose and looking at it, may generally see something that they agree should be called "rose", but that's just the lowest common denominator; dream-agreement by committee, if you will.
The exact, individual nuances of perception, based on everything from color clarity in one body-mind's vision, to sentimentality associated with roses in another, to disinterest in roses on the part of another ... causes the unique nuances of illusion to be quite different).
However, that's not really the main point of the teaching. The main point of the teaching is: the specificity of the kancukas is illusory; it is distortion.
Our experience of a rose in the wholeness of thoughtless awareness is far different that our experience of a rose when it is filter throught the lenses of the five senses, thinking, ego and intellect (Puryastaka; the "city of eight" which transmigrates from life to life; the very faux-self that is dissolved in liberation).
As Kashmir Shaivism teaches simply yet elegantly: caitanyamatma ... experiencing self as liberated awareness, is our original, non-distorted essence .... always here, just not consciously experienced by all of us.
A great quote I read recently on enlightenment, spoken by an enlightened teacher (Jed McKenna), to someone who had not yet opened into enlightenment:
"I don't have anything you don't have; you just believe something that I don't."
That's the essence of Kashmir Shaivism, and every other non-dual, practices-centric system: to shed distorting beliefs by the most efficacious means possible, and so, to, as Abhinavagupta so eloquently said, release the idea that "the luminous one shines not."
In releasing the distortions of conditioning, we return to our original awareness, where we can consciously live in-as the utter freedom of Shivo'ham (I Am Shiva).
Shiva is the "beneficient One" ... the "One Who Blesses" (that's what the name Shiva means). Original Awareness blesses; as Yogani has said, the natural state is one of outpouring divine love; all form is body/receptacle; when we let go of the false idea that we are only form (be it thought, emotion, body, etc.), we relax into the fullness of our original wholeness, and are thus, liberated while living, as Kashmir Shaivism says.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
:slight_smile: