Wikipedia:Peer review/Chhinnamasta/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chhinnamasta[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Chhinnamasta is a self-decapitated Hindu goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound. A GA since 2010, the article was recently expanded with a dream of being a FA. Request for reviwers, who are unfamiliar with Hinduism so that we can know if a non-Hindu understands the article, which has some jargon. Thanks a lot, Redtigerxyz Talk 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heavy going, but I think ready for an FAC run, on a not very thorough look. The jargon level seemed good, given the subject. Might Cephalophore be brought into the text from SA? Good, if gory, illustrations. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, Thanks for your comment. I found no source that explicitly links Cephalophore and Chhinnamasta. IMO, Moving that in text may be OR.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. There's this thing called Google, that can be very useful. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I found this book when I googled. It simply states that the "motif of the decapitated body and its heads" exist in various cultures. However, it does not say that Cephalophores influenced the iconography of Chhinnamasta or vice versa. The headless goddesses of Buddhist and Hindu culture, noted in Origins, are explicitly linked to Chhinnamasta. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I expect they didn't. But it is taking a very narrow view imo to exclude other occurrences of the same very distinctive feature, even if they are not directly related (which after all, we would not be very likely to be able to establish under the circumatances, even if it were the case). Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, added a link.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - for FAC a ref would be needed - that book should do, plus maybe one from the other article with more on them. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Johnbod, anything else that needs to be fixed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None that I noticed, but I only did "a not very thorough look". Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

  • How are you ordering References?
Author (Anon, then Name); then date. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case some rearranging is needed - for example, McDaniel should be before McDermott. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed citation throughout.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but there are still inconsistencies that would be flagged at FAC. For example, some books include locations but others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a world renouncer?
Linked. Generally sannayasi is generally translated as renouncer or world renouncer in English. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a hundred-name hymn?
Linked namastotra (name-hymn).--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a milk ocean?
Linked Kshirasagara.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a subtle channel?
Retained nadi; removed his English translation.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Thanks for your crisp comments.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ms Sarah Welch

@Redtigerxyz: Thanks for inviting me. I can see the hard work you and other editors of this article have put in this. Cheers. Now some comments:

  • Please state in the main, and mention in the lead, that Chinnamasta is part of Shaktism, one of the many traditions in Hinduism. (See, for example, Sharma's page 64-65, Oxford University Press)
Mentioned Shaktism explicitly.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention that she features in the Vāmācāra which is left hand sub-tradition of tantra found in east India (not Sri sub-tradition - the right hand tantra found in parts of south India). (See, for example, McDaniel's page 91, Oxford University Press)
"Chhinnamasta is considered a fearsome aspect of the Divine Mother and is included among the Kalikula ("family of Kali") goddesses" mentioned in "Destruction, transformation and recreation". His Vamamarga/Vamachara connection and geographical presence are noted in Worship. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved Kalikula to worship.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify how significant a goddess is she, outside of the Vama sub-tradition of Tantra, and Shaktism. Mention her absence, or evidence of any presence, in Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Smartism, etc.
Worship para 1 deals with this.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs more clarity in the article. Left hand Tantra is a minority group in Hinduism. The statement in the article and lead that she is popular with yogis and sannyasis, is not consistent with the texts and history of Yoga/Renouncers in Advaita/Vaishnava/Shaiva Hindu traditions. I do not see Benard or Kinsley implying this universally (though they discuss yogis/renouncers within the Tantra tradition). Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"heroic Tantric worship by Tantrikas (a type of Tantric practitioner), yogis, and world renouncers" in the main text is probably clearer? In lead, "a popular Tantric deity, worshipped by Tantrikas, yogis, and world renouncers" - I thought the Tantric in earlier part of the sentence is sufficient to convey the same.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@R: I feel that both those phrasing are troublesome and misleading. On page 164 of Tantric Visions, Kinsley writes, "In fact, however, worship of Chinnamasta, at least at the public level, is extremely rare. It is probably also uncommon at the private level. (...) She has exceedingly few temples and shrines, and it is often said that those who do worship her must be either yogis or world renouncers or of a particularly heroic nature." I don't get this sense from lead or the main article, when the article reads, "However, she remains a popular Tantric deity, worshipped by Tantrikas, yogis, and world renouncers." I would suggest you reword it as, "She is a Tantric deity, extremely rarely worshipped in public, probably uncommonly even in private, and the few who worship her are probably yogi, renouncers or heroic personality types", or equivalent. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Sarah Welch, Bhattacharya Saxena says "Chinnamasta is quite well known among tantrikas (...[explanation what a tantrika is]), but she is not well-known among lay worshippers of the Mahadevi". Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism defines her as "Particular manifestation of the Goddess, one of the Mahavidyas (a group of ten powerful goddesses), and an important deity in the esoteric ritual tradition known as tantra." In McDaniel, while defining Kali-kula, the Kali-Kula adherent is said to "worship the ten wisdom goddesses (Mahavidyas), especially Kali, Tara, Chinnamasta and Bagala..." Storm says that the goddess is "actively worshipped in eastern India. There are shrines in Nepal, Orissa, west Bengal, Bihar, and eastern Uttar Pradesh." Benard writes "Since I visited Bengal very briefly, I was unable to visit any Chinnamasta temples; however, I was assured that Chinnamasta is a popular goddess in Bengal." p. 146. In Chintapuri, Benard learnt that p. 47 "householder worshippers visualize Chinnamasta as Mata Durga when they are at home. ... Only yogis or sadhus could meditate on Chinnamasta with form." Encyclopedia of Goddesses and Heroines p. 166 says her worship is "relatively rare".--Redtigerxyz Talk 19:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Redtigerxyz: None of that implies that she is a significant/popular deity among all or most or many or some of yogis or world renouncers, and the article should not imply that anywhere – this is by far my biggest concern, and a major weakness of this fine article. All it is saying is that "Only yogis or sadhus could meditate on Chinnamasta with form". She can be "actively worshipped" by a few esoteric tantrikas, yet remain "rare" generally among tantrikas. Important does not mean "popular", as the start of the Origins section currently declares. The page 146 of Benard a hearsay WP:Primary that is uncertain, but it may be okay to quote the primary part from Benard exactly, instead of "In Bengal, Chinnamasta is a popular goddess" which appears certain. Are you okay if I copyedit a few places to tie up some loose ends? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ms Sarah Welch, please go ahead. The essence of "an important deity in the esoteric ritual tradition" and "Chinnamasta is quite well known among tantrikas", which is explicit IMHO. I agree "Popular" was a bad choice; but IMO "significant" is a good replacement for "well known" and "important deity". --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ms Sarah Welch, Thanks for the rewording. Looks fabulous. I have just readded the part about collective worship of the Mahavidyas; she is not excluded in that. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments to follow this week, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Redtigerxyz: The authors such as Elisabeth Anne Benard and David Kinsley are extensively cited. Good. But identify who they are, state their expertise/qualification relevant to this topic. Ideally in an FA article, every author you name in the main article should have info on "who he or she is", when first mentioned, so we know why a specific scholar/writer's thoughts matter. For example, Elisabeth Benard, a professor of Asian Studies and Religion at University of Puget Sound,... or something appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hopefully I have not missed anyone.--Redtigerxyz Talk 20:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we do better than "the author of..."? That is obvious from the cite check, which has the title of the book, and it does not clarify why her or his views matter. Please introduce Elisabeth Benard by her academic credentials in Asian Studies and Religion, or something more appropriate. Same with late David Kinsley who was McMaster professor of religious studies. Please check others too. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ms Sarah Welch, For Benard - she is a visiting Professor (a recent position), mainly known for her books. I have added a note from a review of the book. The book is referred to as "the first monograph to examine the rituals, symbolisms, and iconographic conventions" of Chhinnamasta. Same with Kinsley, he is known for his books on Hindu goddesses, rather than his professorship, which is also noted. Similarly, Shankaranarayanan is known for his book on the Mahavidyas; Sukumari Bhattacharji known as an Indologist and Sanskrit scholar and her 34 books; H. Bhattacharya for his much-cited Bengali book Hinduder Debdebi. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Redtigerxyz: His or her expertise / qualification is more relevant from reader's perspective, than what they are famous for. @BlueMoonset: your words of wisdom would be most appreciated here, along with any relevant wiki guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article mentions Paraśurama - Chinnamasta link, please add in the other version of the mythology: Paraśurama was the son of Renuka, and Renuka was equated to Chinnamasta in texts such as Kalyana (page 6-7, Benard). Either in text or as a note. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 12:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is she a minor or a major deity? only in left hand Tantra?, or all Shaktism? or Hinduism in general? (is she as common as Krishna or Shiva or Lakshmi, for example?). I see the "rare" language in article, but the "popular" language that is included is confusing. Which is it: is she rare or popular? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"... lay worship are rare. However, she remains a popular Tantric deity, worshipped by Tantrikas, yogis, and world renouncers." In general (lay worship - rare); in the Tantra, she is popular.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Redtigerxyz: Kinsley, in my read, is saying is that she is not popular. See above. Did I miss something? Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the article titled Chhinnamasta, when Kinsley as well as Benard sources spell it Chinnamasta? I get more search results on google scholar and citation index for Chinnamasta. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Chhinnamasta#Requested_move. Tried moving, but there was no consensus to move. However, both Kinsley and Benard use IAST; we don't. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahhh, I see. The voting occurred in 2010, and "right great wrongs" camp won. FWIW, a quick search of publications since then has favored the Chinnamasta spelling by a landslide. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ms Sarah Welch, you are free to start a RM. I will accept whatever is the consensus. Both who opposed in that move are well-respected admins.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @R: That may be some work, might slow you down on the road to FA. I do not have a strong preference either way, glad that you have included both spellings in the lead. Suffices for now. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ms Sarah Welch for honouring the invite. I will comment under specific comments, once I address them. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ssriram_mt

  • The Chinnamasta temple at Nepal seems to be very prominent - I saw a few references pointing to it.
There are some temples of this Chhinnamasta; however Chinnamasta Bhagawati temple is very prominent (I suppose you are reffering to it). This goddess icon actually has a broken head; thus is called Chhinnamasta (one who severed head) but is unrelated to the Tantric goddess.Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.Ssriram mt (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation for terms like nadi, siddhi, yantra in brackets might ease people without no background on Hinduism.
Siddhi, yantra explained in text. For Nadi, a note is added. For others, explanations added too. Please let me know if any more terms need explanation. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see if Benard's explanation on origin from Sakta Mahabhagavatha Purana can be included - it has contrasting views compared to the views listed - JSTOR link.
Benard says in Hinduism, the goddess first appears in Sakta Mahabhagavatha Purana; but supports the Buddhist origin theory.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Korravai aspect is handled only by Daniel. Korravai is a symbol of death and destruction locally in ancient desert regions called Palai. Leaving the feminine part and ferocity, there are no other comparable parameters - the section may need a relook.
(edit conflict) Kinsley notes that Jagdish Narain Tiwari, Goddess Cults in Ancient India refers to it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part of nakedness vs sensual desire in other symbolism section can be moved up to paradox para.
Ssriram mt, can you please quote the sentence(s) (do you mean the whole 1st para?)--Redtigerxyz Talk 19:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - whole of first para.Ssriram mt (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lotus part has contrasting views (purity against life to urge to create life) - can be continued in one section.
Purity was kept out from life part; as the latter relates to the "Destruction, transformation and recreation " aspect; while former does not.--Redtigerxyz Talk 19:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The view on lack of worship because of ferocious nature is debatable comparing the likes of Kali and Durga. Some of the references quote tribal origin in North East, which seems to be a practical explanation.
"The Shaktisamgama-tantra says that only brave souls (viras) should follow Vamamarga worship to the goddess. The Shakta-pramoda warns that improper worship will have severe consequences: Chhinnamasta would behead such a person and drink his blood." - ferocious in this context; not in the categorization of devis as rudra (fierce like Kali, Durga) v/s saumya (Lakshmi, Sita). Please provide the references where Tribal origin is given; I will add it too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reference of Sree Padma is already there in the article - it compares the tribal origin and "lesser known" (not having popular worship practices) inference. I see it is being discussed as a part of other reviewer. We can take it over there.Ssriram mt (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sree Padma, as I understand it, only speaking about the Rajrappa shrine; not the goddess as a whole. I have included in that context: "Though well-established as a centre of Chhinnamasta by the 18th century, the site is a popular place of worship among tribals since ancient times."--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will send a few more comments later in the week. Thanks for inviting me.Ssriram mt (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ssriram mt for helping out. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see other comments are addressed. Let me check the other parts again and come back.Ssriram mt (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - in ship shape (esp with the lengthy explanatory notes). A minor one - alt is missing in some pic, you may wish to add. Ssriram mt (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added alt text.Redtigerxyz Talk 17:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will try to read it and make some comments in the next day or two. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments
  • The caption on the first image in the Origins section could be clearer as to the age and origins of the image - perhaps it could be something like this A 14th C. Nepalese illustration of the Buddhist Chinnamunda, who is believed to be the antecedent of the Hindu Chhinnamasta.
  • I also note that the link (Google books?) for that image is not working, which will need to be fixed for FAC
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think MOS says to link the first occurrence of a word, so the link in the first paragraph of Origins to Vajrayogini should be earlier, in the definition where it is used.
Added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a suitable link for Krishnacharya?
An article is needed about this important mahasiddha. Currently, a red link. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the scholar Shankaranarayanan has only one name, shouldn't s/he be identified by both names the first time s/he is mentioned in the article? While Bhattacharyya's view is mostly undisputed,[6][7][8] some scholars such as Shankaranarayanan...
Added S. Shankaranarayanan as given in his book. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antecedent of "her" is unclear in Hindu literature first mentions her in the upapurana Shakta Maha-bhagavata Purana (c. 950 CE) and Devi-Bhagavata Purana (9th-12th century). - assume Nirrti is meant?
Made explicit. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Legends... section, is there a missing "the"? The Guhyatiguhya-Tantra (unknown date) equates [the] god Vishnu's ten avatars with the ten Mahavidyas ...
Corrected. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth pointing out here that Parshurama is the son of Renuka AND the one who decapitates her? A similar list in Mundamala Tantra (pre-16th century) equates Chhinnamasta with Parshurama.[28][b]
Currently note b has the info.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illustration with Chh's body black cites the "Pranotasani Tantra", but this is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. The "C as individual goddess" section mentions the Pranatoshini Tantra twice and the first time mentions a goddess turning black - is one of these incorrect?
Typos corrected. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Destruction, transformation and recreation section, should "several" be "severed"? The skull and several head garlands signify her victory over Time and fear of Death.
Typos corrected. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparent contradiction - the first paragraph in Worship section says Temples and public worship of Chhinnamasta are extremely rare ... but the next paragraph says She enjoys "active worship" in eastern India and Nepal... and (as of a 2000 book) ...is a popular goddess in Bengal.
Sarah and I had a discussion on this topic above. We concluded that "active worship" just means she is worshipped, but by how many devotees? is unanswered. In Bengal, she is depicted in many temples and known to people, so "popular"; but rarely worship her in public or temples. She is popular in esoteric traditions and rituals are secretive. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more detail on the corpses (!) used in A shrine dedicated to Chhinnamasta was built by a Tantric sadhu in the Durga Temple complex, Ramnagar, near Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, where tantrikas worship her using corpses.
No details in ref. Probabaly shava sadhana, but ref is not explicit. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 51 appears to be mal-formed
Removed *.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments help. It is not the easiest article for someone who is not that familiar with Hinduism to read, but I can't imagine it being much clearer - there is so much background that it is always going to be a difficult topic to write / read about. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Chhinnamasta/archive1&oldid=1089814219"