Talk:Sauwastika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Sauwastika, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated Start-class)
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

[[Untitled]

is there a general discussion anywhere about the custom of 'inverting' symbols to signify their opposite? I looked on Tarot, but the concept is not mentioned. Afaik, there is no early attestation of this, either for Tarot, or for runes, but it would be interesting to know how the concept originated. dab () 09:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


you did clarify the opening, I suppose, but why slap the cleanup tag on it now it is clarified? I think the article is concise and well put as it is. dab () 20:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "Debunking..." page leads to some bona-fide white-supremacist material...

yes, it does. Someone added it to the Swastika article and I just copied it here. Still, it gives a sense of the struggle over the meaning of the motif Paul B 11:54, 2 MAY, 2005

"seems" is a word to be avoided at all cost in encyclopedic articles. could someone fix that? -zf

unsourced claims[edit]

The claim that the two variants can represent "masculine vs. feminine energy" in modern Hinduism, and the claim that they represent "good vs. evil" in Neopaganism are unsourced, and I'll dump them here for now (feel free to add them back with sources). The claims may well be true, but the topic is too steeped in urban legend to keep them around unsourced. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless the notion of a distinction between the two orientations swastika can be found in modern Hinduism: various meanings have been ascribed to this difference in orientation, including the notion that the anti-clockwise symbol and represents masculine energy, whereas the clockwise one represents feminine energy.
The distinction has acquired significance in some forms of neo-paganism in which it is claimed that the right-facing swastika has a sunwise rotation whereas the left-facing sauwastika has a widdershins rotation. These rotations are said to have traditional opposite associations:
  • Sunwise - toward God, lucky, good
  • Widdershins - away from God, unlucky, evil

Comment moved from article[edit]

Note: this article (and the one on the swastika) are malformed. While the sauwastika (suavastika) is the 'left facing' one, 'left-facing' should mean an apparent counter-clockwise (unlucky) rotation, not 'arms bent to the left'.

This picture, and the one on the swastika page, make it appear that the western misinterpretation of this symbol is the accurate one.

The western Nazi party symbol was actually the eastern sauwastika, and westerners (because the Germans misidentified it as the swastika) were none the wiser.

The good luck version is the one you see over Buddha's heart, the real swastika, the one that spins clockwise.

The bad luck version is the one the Nazi's used, the suavastika (sauwastika) that spins counter-clockwise (to the left).

I'm not sure how you fix something like this (two words with opposite meanings used for their opposite meanings in different places).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.233.172 (talkcontribs) --Niels Ø (noe) 20:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Provide evidence. Paul B 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Noe, the question over "bad" and "good" luck is cheap, let's keep that out of the question. Then, I don't get at all what you're saying: good luck version over Buddha--->real swastika---->clockwise? Nazi the other way around? Please, take a look again at the Nazi flag and the Buddha statues and then start the conversation over again. Nazroon 15:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Swastika in Buddhism; Nazis and bad luck...[edit]

In the article Swastika, in the Buddhism section, it reads:

When facing left, it is the omote (front) manji, representing love and mercy. Facing right, it represents strength and intelligence, and is called the ura (rear) manji. Balanced manji are often found at the beginning and end of Buddhist scriptures (outside India).

Later on, we read:

Because of the association with the right facing swastika with Nazism, Buddhist manji (outside India only) after the mid-20th century are almost universally left-facing.

Compare with the beginning of this article:

The "left-facing" variant is current in Buddhism, while Hinduism uses both variants, with the "right-facing" one more common.

And later:

the symbol is used in both orientations for the sake of balance in Hinduism. Buddhists almost always use the left-facing swastika.

So, first, it should be noted that the "left only" swastika is not per se buddhist, but only arised as a consequence of historical issues. Then, and more importantly, in China the concept of "balance" is as prominent as in India, to say the least (see Yin Yang). So they have the swastika pointing the two directions.

Which takes me to the "bad" and "good" swastikas. I think it shouldn't have very much importance here, since in the vernacular cultures it is not seen like that. As it is said in the article, both are considered "good". To say that the left side swastika ("sawastika") is "bad" is like to say that "yin" is bad and "yang" is "good", which is not correct. So, I propose that the section here entitled "Claims concerning the Nazi swastika" be edited out. Its source is very questionable (it assumes thing not proved), personal, conflictive with evidence and ultimately wrong. I will delete it in a few days if nobody objects. Nazroon 15:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your argument. The section states that there is a widepread view that the left-facing swastika is evil, or alternatively that the Nazi version is "evil". Such views certainly exist and are worth discussing. Paul B 15:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The only source of that section comes from one Servando González. Is he the mainspeaker of this view? Do you consider him representative of an academic scholar? In any other case, please tell me how much "widespread" is that view, in any form. Anyway, the problem with a "widespread" view is that it is usually admittedly wrong by the scientific community. Would you mention the vision that the world is flat just because it is widespread (if it were)? Possibly you'll be right to do so. But, would you mention it as if it were an option to the current theory? Nazroon 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The view that the world is flat is not widespread. If it were, we would discuss it in the relevant articles. The passage on the left/right issue is not just cited to Gonzales. It's traced to Burnouf and linked to several other writers. Here are some of many many websites discussing it. [1][2] [3] [4]. Paul B 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?[edit]

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Very Confused Re Sauwastika Vs Swastika[edit]

Confused, is one the RIGHT facing Swastika or The LEFT facing Swastika Considered 'GOOD LUCK"?PMEVE.TUNOV30921STCENT.DECDPALMFLYFOT.rEF FOR MY RECORDS!NONDEPLUME (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)DR.EDSON ANDRE' JOHNSON D.D.ULC.

read the article. There is no distinction in any tradition. The alleged distinction was an artefact of 19th century scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Suavastika[edit]

Sauvastika is a possible Sanskrit word, and it is in fact attested as a theoretical formation by Sanskrit lexicographers, although it does not exist in any classical Sanskrit text. By contrast, "Suavastika" is not a possible Sanskrit word. The article fails to establish that it is anything other than an accidential misprint of the correct sauvastika. We have references claiming that Max Müller usese the term "Suavastika",[5][6][7] but we do not have any direct confirmation that this is Müller's spelling. My suspicion is that the references actually refer to Müller's use of "Sauvastika", and that there was a misprint (probably Wilson's, whose work I take it was rather influential in spite of its shortcomings) that somehow got perpetuated because people were copying from one another. --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)