From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Hinduism / Saivism / Swaminarayan / Shaktism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saivism (marked as High-importance).

Intro: pillar first or phallus symbol first?[edit]

This is quoted for the definition, however, it seems that only selective meanings are presented, in particular trying to hide meaning 10. The genital organ of Śiva worshipped in the form of a Phallus and meaning 8. The male organ of genera- tion. This exclusion seems deliberate and is against the spirit for a neutral debate on the subject. These meanings should be included in the list of definitions, whether it appeases main stream hindus or not. Otherwise this reference should be removed in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit by User:Q_Chris should be reverted. Additionally, his edit summary is completely misleading. He claims,

It is ridiculous that the common practice of most Hindus is ignored because of some "Western Scholar's" psycho-analysis of the symbology

First of all, it is not "Western Scholar's" [sic] who make the claims; it is virtually all scholars, except for a minority of religious conservatives. If you make the effort to read this article, you will see that the most ancient extant lingam is undeniably, and well-sourcedly, a phallus symbol. It is not some perverse fantasy of Western scholars, it is the conclusion of every honest observer. Dozens upon dozens upon dozens upon dozens of reliable, scholarly sources can be arrayed to establish this undeniable fact. The same cannot be said of the pillar interpretation. Additionally, the text which links this pillar interpretation is very misleading — the Linga Purana actually has a story explaining why Shiva is worshipped as a phallus. I just haven't had a chance to write up the appropriate text, largely because I have more respect for this article than to carelessly deface it.

Also, nothing is being ignored, as Q_Chris claims. On my edit, the secondary pillar interpretation is listed in the intro, it's just not listed first. — goethean 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Since it is about a Hindu symbol, the current mainstream interpretation of the infinite Shiva should be first. The phallus is not some "Western Scholar's" psycho-analysis. The explicit phallus motif is also found in Hindu texts. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Since most mainstream Hindus see it as an interpretation of the infinite Shiva this should certainly go first. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Most Christians see Jesus as Lord and Savior, but that's not how he is defined in Jesus. Buddhists see Gautama Buddha as "the awakened one", but the wiki article defines him as "a spiritual teacher from the Indian subcontinent, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded." Muhammad is defined as the founder of Islam, not as God's prophet. Jews see the Tanakh as God's word, but that's not how it is defined in its wiki article. — goethean 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
In both cases the articles say that this is what most adherents believe in the first paragraph though. -- Q Chris (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that a majority (or very a large minority) of Hindus think that the lingam represents a pillar. And I don't think that there are reliable sources saying so. — goethean 19:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I the majority of Hindus see the lingam as an abstract form representing the parashiva, or formless energy of Shiva, and would see the story of the pillar as an illustration. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
You need to start respecting Wikipedia policy rather than edit warring over your personal preferences. The intro to this article will reflect a neutral summary of the majority of reliable sources. If you don't like it, you need to escalate this dispute via the dispute resolution process rather than edit warring. — goethean 14:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The veerasaiva site was working yesterday, I'll monitor it. As for the "citation needed", we already have Burton, saying "For the many the upright standing pillar is not a sexually charged image. The reverse does, though, appear to have been the case originally. For instance an enshrined linga today will be lovingly garlanded and attended by young women and elderly matrons alike, but without any overt suggestions of sexuality. In traditional Indian society, the linga is rather seen as a symbol of the energy and potentiality of the God", and [1] describing how the majority are offended by the phallic description. I am adding the Britannica reference " Since the late 19th century some scholars have interpreted the lingam and the yoni to be representations of the male and female sexual organs. To practicing Hindus, however, the two together are a reminder that the male and female principles are inseparable and that they represent the totality of all existence.". -- Q Chris (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone beat me to the ref - I just added the quote -- Q Chris (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Presuming that it is sectarian, I don't think that the veerasaiva site should be added back in. I have a few issues with Britannica. One, it's a tertiary source and we should be using secondary sources. Two, it is under pressure from the Hindu right that they have changed their entry; it used to be an article by Wendy Doniger. Three, the quoted material is belied by the well-attested fact that the oldest extant linga sculpture is clearly phallic. — goethean 18:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Your link seems to be a lecture by an unknown person? That's not what we need. We need descriptions of the debate by the top scholars on Hinduism, regardless of the country of origin or their religion. — goethean 18:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
His "Essentials of Hinduism in the light of Šaiva Siddhānta" is referenced in many books. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Britannica claim is also directly contradicted by the Shiva Linga Purana. — goethean 21:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that the Linga Purana describes the worship of the Linga as a penis. This is not supported by the reference, which says: "Shiva is sexless and without form". Perhaps you could indicate where in the [Linga Purana] you think worship of a penis is described. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference that I provided contains page numbers. Open the book that I cited to the pages that I reference. Read. If you don't like my summary of the cited material, then write your own summary. Do not remove material which is cited to a reliable source. — goethean 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, I had somehow read "Linga Purana" where you had written "Shiva Purana". I am also using google books for your reference which only gives me the view of paragraphs around the search result, so I did not see the other reference. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I have sent you an email containing a link to pasted images from Google books with which you can view the entire quoted passage. — goethean 14:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I haven't got it yet, but I have seen the story in the Agama. I doubt if many people believe it as literally true, but I'll look for references. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I got my references mixed up. Now I have corrected the reference. — goethean 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference [5] improper[edit]

In this Lingam article, first paragraph, reference [5] quotes the Siva Purana, but references a modern book written by an American author. The sentence is not correct.

A quote from the Siva Purana should include references from the Siva Purana, not from elsewhere.

The Lingam creation story is presented in the Siva Purana Vol. I, Chapter 5, summarized at verse 28, and detailed in Chapters 6-9, with the Lingam creation in Chapter 7 entitled "Siva Manifesting Himself As A Column Of Fire In The Battlefield", specifically at verse 10 and 11.

Quote: "The flames emitted by the two weapons of Brahma and Vishnu burned the three worlds. On seeing this imminent untimely dissolution, the bodiless form of Siva assum­ed the terrific form of a huge column of fire in their midst."

Then from Chapter 9, verse 19: Siva says "0 sons, this column without root or top will hence­forth be diminutive in size for the sake of the vision and wor­ship of the world."

Continuing with verse 20: "The phallic emblem confers enjoyment. It is the only means of worldly enjoyment and salvation. Viewed, touched or meditated upon, it wards off all future births of the living beings."

These direct references are from the Siva Purana Vol I of the 4-Volume Set, English translation, entitled "Ancient Indian Tradition & Mythology", edited by Prof. J.L. Shastri, copyright Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, First Edition 1970, Printed in India at Shri Jainendra Press, Delhi. (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The "phallic emblem"? Gee, I wonder what that could mean? — goethean 19:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I expect that reference 5 is to a book that describes the passage in the Shiva Purana. I think it is referring to the story in Page 50 Section "The reason behind phallic worship" in this translation. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this particular translation - the fact that it does not have chapter and verse references means that it probably is a "readable" rather than "scholarly" translation. I am trying to find out more about this story, some translations of the Shiva Purana don't have it. I have seen references to some translations that do as the "Mahashiva Purana", which makes me wonder whether there are two versions.
I doubt if many people take this story as literally true, for one thing the Shiva Purana also has the "column of fire" story (Page 3 "Analstambh - the pillar of fire"). I am trying to find references for that. BTW, to save you time, it took me a while to realise that you can go straight to a page on Scribd by entering it in the box between the up and down arrows! -- Q Chris (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
In the light of this story, I hope that you will grant that the phallic interpretation was not made up by perverted Western scholars with an anti-Hindu agenda. This story shows the Britannica entry, which holds that the phallic "interpretation" originated in the 19th century West, to be false. The Shiva Purana story shows that the phallic view is as ancient and traditional as the more abstract views now insisted to be the only legitimate view by many gurus, including Vivekananda, as well as by anonymous Wikipedia visitors. — goethean 12:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It shows that it was a view, but by no means mainstream. The puranas are collections stories and some of these stories give contradictory interpretations. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess that you can deny anything that you want, even the most bleeding obvious fact. But this article will not make logical somersaults in order to deny the obvious. Every major scholar of Hinduism agrees that the lingam is the phallus. Some, like Coomaraswamy below, use the terms interchangeably. And yet some gurus like Vivekananda (and a few amateurish authors who are trying to make their name in post-colonial studies by alleging a Western bias with amateurish Hindutva-inspired books like Invading the Sacred), would like to deny this. That is the situation. — goethean 13:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
In this snippet, Coomaraswamy appears to use the term 'lingam' interchangeably with 'penis'. He appears not to have gotten the memo. — goethean 12:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Went through the edit history, and i found that the same text remains most controversial in this whole page. But i have to a few points, just because of it's shape(doesn't match), if it's assumed by some unknown or known scholar in 19th century, why it has to be added here? It's just a misunderstanding. If you want to mention it, you can mention in the rest of article. Capitals00 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources and NPOV[edit]

I and another editor have reverted Apalaria for POV language and using sources that fail WP:RS. This is being discussed at WP:RSN#Western sources on Hindu mythology and Wikipedia policy. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between a "serious mistake" and a "grave blunder?"[edit]

The article contains this intriguing sentence: "This is not only a serious mistake, but also a grave blunder." Could someone give an example of a serious mistake that is not a grave blunder, or vice versa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Any investigations?[edit]

I wonder if there are no investigations of the Lingam as sign of Lord Shiva in connection with his abode Mount Kailash. If this mountain would be identical with the mythical Mount Meru, which in the Puranas is a metapher for the pole of the earth, the Lingam could once have been the sign of the magnetic northpole as that pole, where the magnetic field lines come out of the earth.-- (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014[edit]

Shiva linga is not actually genitals of Shiva. It is pineal gland of Shiva(A part of brain). Pineal gland is at the back of head just exactly opposite to the place between eye brows. Sriraghavatrueindian1 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)