Talk:Shiva

Brahma Kumaris

Brahma Kumar and Brahma Kumaris follow God Shiva. We have 1,000,000 followers and 8,500 centers and give accurate knowledge, also associated with United Nations and many VIPs come. What is problem?

Our WikipediA homepage has many references.

rudra reference

Unfortunately with the rise of Sanatana Dharma, many mantras and Vedic gods are related to non-Vedic gods that got absorbed into Hinduism. Shiva may have been a non vedic god that had similarities to Rudra and as was custom during those times, Sanatana Dharma kept absorbing more gods into its pantheon until the result is the million pantheon . more gods than people in india

Community reassessment

Shiva

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: GA status retained following recent editing AustralianRupert (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Lots of uncited infromation have found its place in the article. Some of the cites do not adhere to wikipedia policies. For eg [1][2] -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: cleaned up.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, I found the article without its GA icon; an IP had removed it some months ago, and I restored it. Capankajsmilyo, have the reference issues been dealt with to your satisfaction? Are there other issues that would warrant the continuation of this reassessment? (There's one cite book with two "year" parameters—the odd one is 1920-1927—and a couple of different citations that use the same name, but these should be fairly easy to fix and by themselves don't rise to the level of requiring a delisting.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz did the cleanup, but more unsourced statements have swept in. So for the moment, I would like to maintain my GA demotion request till it gets all cleaned up. Further I'll suggest to protect the article for its prevention from further erosion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, I have done a cleanup again. Please point out any specific pending issues.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, the last two entries in the Sources section are out of alphabetical order, but more important, while they seem to be by the same author with slightly different honorifics, and the ISBN is the same, the book title and publisher are different, which definitely shouldn't be the case when identical ISBNs are used. Also, neither is actually used in the References section. If you do retain them, can you please standardize the entries as well as alphabetize them? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, the problem was result of a vandalism. I have cleaned up further and added references. I still do have to reformat the references. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, BlueMoonset: I have done 1 more round of cleanup. Please check. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, The summary opening sentence (ambivalent nature) is supported by the referenced paras ahead of it. The Shambhu sentence is supported by the ref; moved the ref.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Redtigerxyz, and Capankajsmilyo: G'day, from what I can tell, it seems that Redtigerxyz has responded to the issues above and they appear to have been rectified. As such, noting that the review is now about six months old, I think this review is ready for closure as "keep". Before I close it, though, are there any objections to this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No objections to this being closed as "keep". Thanks for going over some of these; it's been awfully quiet in the community reassessment space of late. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No objections to this being closed as "keep". -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Difference Between God Shiva And Deity Shankar.

There is a subtle difference between the Supreme Soul Shiva and Shankar the deity. The Supreme has been worshipped in the oval or egg-shaped form of the Shivalinga. The Linga Purana says that the one who destroys the world and re-establishes the same with Divine Power is called 'Linga'. In Shiva temples throughout India - including at Amarnath, Somnath, Kashi Vishwanath and Ujjain's Mahakaleshwar - and Nepal's Pashupatinath, He is depicted as the linga, an elliptical representation in stone.

According to legend, Rama invoked Shiva at Rameshwaram and Krishna offered prayers to Him at Gopeshwar in Vrindavan. Shiva temples have been erec-ted here honouring that memory. Shiva is worshipped as the Supreme Father of all deities and of Rama and Krishna.

Shiva's representation as linga is to show His incorporeal nature. He does not have any male or female human-like form like the deities; He is the incorporeal point of light. The 12 renowned Shiva temples in India are also known as Jyotirlinga Maths, signifying His form of Light. Incorporeal Shiva is also known as Trimurti, the creator of the three subtle deities - Brahma, Vishnu and Shankar.

The three lines marked on the Shivalinga symbolise His triple characteristics of Trimurti: Trinetri - the one with the third eye of wisdom, Trikaldarshi - the one who sees the three aspects of time, and Trilokinath - the lord of three worlds. Shiva is also known as Shambhu or Swayambhu and Sadashiva meaning that Shiva is the eternal Soul who has no creator above Him.

Swami Dayanand Saraswati says Shiva is the "One who is bliss and the giver of Happiness to all". Supreme Soul Shiva brings liberation or mukti and salvation or jeevan mukti to all.

In south India, Lingayats believe that Shiva is the Supreme God. The Ishtalinga worn by the Veerashaivas on their body is technically a miniature of Linga and is considered to be an amorphous representation of Shiva which also proves that Shiva was worshipped in the oval-shaped figure. It was much later that Shiva and deity Shankar came to be presumed as one. In Vaishik Darshan and Vedanta, Linga is mentioned as the image of the body-less Supreme God. It is free of personal characteristics.

The ignorance about Shiva is on account of confusing Shankar with Shiva. Deity Shankar has an angelic body whereas Shiva is oval shaped and worshipped as Shiva Linga. Shankar has a human form residing in the subtle world region called Sankarpuri; he is responsible for destruction of the old world order. In some paintings and sculptures, Shankar is shown meditating in front of the Shiva Linga, which also indicates that the two are different from each other. Latest Comment Shiv ratri is also considered as the marriage day of lord Shiva. Also, more beautiful information is presented in Srimad Bhagwatam on personality and Supreme Personality where the formless is an aspe.

The festival of Shivratri symbo-lises the divine incarnation of Shiva on this earth. The night indicates the moral degradation in souls that sets in due to the ignorance in this world. The true fasting (upvaas plus close company) on Shivratri is that we link our intellect with Shiva and stay in His company. The true Jag-ran or awakening means to awa-ken from the slumber of ignorance and to protect the self from the negative influence of vices such as lust, anger, greed and ego. Absolute formless God, Sadashiva appeared in the form of Lingodbhav Moorti exactly at midnight on Shivratri.

With all this insight into the Supreme Soul Shiva, let us all celebrate Shivratri and know its spiritual significance. God Shiva and Deity Shankar is not same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitgirigoswami (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Wondering if title should be changed from "Shiva" to "Shiva (Hinduism)"

If "Shiva" is typed into the Google Search Bar, the first result is not this article, but the article about the Jewish holiday. In order to avoid confusion, I feel that this article should be called "Shiva (Hinduism)" instead of only "Shiva." There could be a redirect at the top that says "'Shiva' redirects here, if this is not the Shiva you are looking for, see 'Shiva (disambiguation)'" (I understand that this may not be in line with the style guide so that phrase doesn't have to be copied word-for-word). If you don't feel like this action is necessary, I'm always happy to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeabassTheFish (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a hatnote at the top of this article, but based on pageviews[1] this Shiva is clearly the primary topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Title change would be inappropriate. Sitting shiva, the Jewish mourning ritual, is not the primary topic in tertiary RS, this is. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the input. SeabassTheFish (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sanskrit Marketing Everywhere in Etymology; The reference cited by editors says name "Siva" is originally a tribal word

Kavitha Swaminathan: the websites you cite are non-WP:RS, do you have scholarly or other peer-reviewed reliable sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch: These are verified resources, still i will add more shortly. Every where in etymology i see "The Sanskrit Word Shiva". I do not see a word "Shiva" in any Sanskrit dictionary. Whereas Shiva is a word in Tamil denoting color Red. Also Arya Samaj has disowned word "Shiva" long back. Sanskrit has its own values, we don't have to demolish Tamil identities to grow Sanskrit. Please check Sanskrit and Tamil dictionaries and come back. I look forward to add the contents.

--Kavitha Swaminathan (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there any scholarly article which states Siva is a Sanskrit word?

--Kavitha Swaminathan (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are cited publications by Oxford University Press, etc unreliable? Read the article for sources. Or see page 1007 of this. FWIW, this article is not about Sanskrit versus Tamil, or the wisdom / prejudice / opinion that these languages/people were hostile / friendly / cooperative / related / unrelated or etc. Wikipedia articles just summarize what the mainstream WP:RS state in accordance with the various content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: copying from user's talk page; lets keep the discussion here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I checked your reference page 1007 of this. It says "Siva is not found applied to any God In veda". The page also says "The name Siva belonged originally to the principal god of tribes of India"..Sanskrit spoken by tribes of India? The same reference says Aryans later identified him with their deity Rudra. They gave him the name "Siva". Rudra in old Sanskrit means Color Red. Siva also means color red in Tamil. The lords color is red! You may not find "Siva" word in any vedas as such either to refer god or as a word. Whereas we can see word Siva usage in 2000 year old tamil literature Tholkappiam.--Kavitha Swaminathan (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Kavitha Swaminathan: You asked above, "Is there any scholarly article which states Siva is a Sanskrit word"? That cite and its page 1007 answers that question. It is. What you write now is something different and WP:TE-like. Yes, the word Siva is found dozens of times in the Vedas, such as in Rigveda 10.34.2 (न मा मिमेथ न जिहीळ एषा शिवा सखिभ्य उत मह्यमासीत् । अक्षस्याहमेकपरस्य हेतोरनुव्रतामप जायामरोधम् ॥२॥). For more, please read this article carefully, and also WP:TALK guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Vaishnavism - Reference of Shiva in Bhagavadhgeetha

In Bhagawadhgeetha: Chapter-10 Sloka 23, "Rudranam Shankarachasmi" Lord Krishna refers that among Rudras he is Shiva himself, This gives a basic idea how Lord Vishnu sees himself as manifestation of Shiva. This can be understood as unification of Vishnu and Shiva, where Lord Vishnu is trying to tell us that, they are not two separate entities but one divine force acting as two. I think we should add this sloka ""Rudranam Shankarachasmi" from BG, to this article under existing subtitle Vaishnavism, as this will make a very good reference for the readers. Kindly post your comments. RDKB (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Dhiraj

We can't add blog-like personal interpretations of primary sources in wikipedia, per the content guidelines. We can summarize only what is in mainstream scholarship, reliable sources and what would not be undue. The "one divine essence" etc is already summarized in the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the interpretation in personal blogs should not be added, but you completely misunderstood what I am trying to say. As you have referenced the sloka/text from Skanda Purana in the section Vaishnavism, we can also reference the sloka from Bhagavadhgeetha Chapter 10.23 too. As I see you are able to understand Sanskrit, then the Sloka says "Rudranam Shankarachasmi", means "Among Rudras I am Shankara", any native speaker can understand and even this is not a interpretation, it's just translation. If you want to refer any scholarly translation of the Bhagavadh Geeta, Chapter 10.23, you can refer to " Bhagvat-Geeta, Wesleyan Mission Press, Bangalore, 1849, page 75, section 23 . This is a accepted scholarly translation in wikipedia. RDKB (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This reference should be added.