Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:57, 29 April 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lingam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Sivalinga as phallus was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Lingam. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Hinduism: Shaivism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Shaivism task force (assessed as High-importance). Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Nepal Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Shvetashvatara Upanishad

I am not happy that the entire subsection is based on Kramrisch's work. See these two reviews: 1 and 2. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, the part. Upanishada is accepted to be ~5/6th century creation. Why is it placed right after IVC? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There is some not-so-subtle POV pushing accompanying this over reliance on Kramrisch. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe WikiLinuz will explain why the self-published works of Sivananda Saraswati - a Yoga Guru and not an academic - would be used to critique scholars like Doniger. Or the works of Swami Vivekananda who predated Doniger by about a century, in what is a light-year for the field of Indology.

Balagangadhara is another strange personality from the decolonial lands of Hindutva. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Please quote me the line from Kramrisch (p. 14) that supports her rejection of Doniger. All I see is her interpretation of the Pashupati Seal, which is now rejected by most scholars. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Please quote me the line from Kramrisch (p. 14) "The phallus or Iiṅga pointing upward and pressing against the abdomen is a visual convention rendering the concept of ūrdhvaretas or the ascent of the semen" (line 4). Also see p. 107 "The liṇga of Śiva has three significations. They are liṇga as sign; liṇga as phallus, and liṇga as cosmic substance". On the other hand, Doniger is far from denying that Lingam represents more than a 'mere' phallus(you can also see on the Appendix C Glossary on p. 324 on Doniger's Siva: The Erotic Ascetic, 2009 work.) although other scholars cited does mention the Purusha nature of the Lingam.

a Yoga Guru and not an academic - would be used to critique scholars like Doniger We're talking about the Purusha rendering of the Lingam, which was explicitly states by Saraswati supported by later scholars. who predated Doniger by about a century, in what This is from the source that mentions about Vivekananda's critiques about Western Indologists who 'merely' considering Lingam to be a phallus and nothing more. Wiki Linuz (Ping me!)

Also, on Doniger's On Hindus, 2013, she is didn't mention of the rendering of Urdhva Retas even once when that's the whole concept of Lingam as phallus's significance comes into context. She mentioned Urdhva-Medhrva on p. 193 and once on Siva: The Erotic Ascetic, 2009 on p. 25 with a vague explanation without going into the spiritual nature of Brahmacarya and Urdhva Retas, although multiple other scholars does go into more detail in explaining. There is also no mention of Brahmacarya or practice of celibacy which the phallic iconography of Lingam represents on Doniger's works. Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 14:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I still can't find that quote on that page of the book. Are there different editions perhaps? Either way, the quote you provide here from Kramrisch is not a critique; it is a thesis. So, that citation as it is presented is erroneous. I think this citation should instead be included where the theory of Linga as phallus is introduced perhaps? :-) FaresM (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Shivling as a phallic symbol is a post-Vedic ideology centered to discredit The actual representation. A lot of people get the wrong idea because of this misinformation when in reality, the Lingam is a pillar of fire according to Linga Puran. The correlation to phallus narrative should be changed with accurate information. SanatanScriptures (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Please provide WP:RS, and take note of WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I did provide the source, it was removed stating summary of information SanatanScriptures (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a common claim, but the evidence of early representations such as the Gudimallam Lingam, not to mention early images of Shiva with an erect penis, is pretty unequivocal as to at least the origin of the linga as a phallic symbol. Scholarly sources agree. Those so set against this should ask themselves what is so terrible about this. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Gudimallam lingam is being confused for a circumcised penis in a civilization where penis is left uncircumcised. You are demonizing Hindu gods. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Phooey! Who says it is circumcised? Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The original source such as Linga Puran does not cite such texts. These are post Vedic claims that have no accuracy. Isn't the purpose of Misplaced Pages to provide accurate information? When I am provide source, why are admins here pressed on providing inaccurate information? SanatanScriptures (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The origin of Linga dates back to the formation of universe as cited in the Linga Puran. The Linga was originally a pillar of fire and does in no way represent the phallus. SanatanScriptures (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Why does my information on the accuracy of Shivling not being a phallic symbol keep reverting?

I have edited multiple times with better reference than most cited here and even then the changes are reverted. Why is that? SanatanScriptures (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Because you add a specific point of view, from a non-scholarly source, to the lead; the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, which gives an overview of what relevant scholarly sources (WP:RS) have to say about the topic. Please familiarize yourself with those policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Non Hindus and non Indians will now say that they know more about Hinduism than it's practitioners? Dont talk rubbish. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Shivling is not phallus

this is just pure demonization of Hindu gods. We all know what will happen to the writer who is blaspheming against islam. And we also know hindus won't do that. But that doesn't mean you just abuse Hindu gods without repercussions. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Buddy need to removed false notion of wendy dongier like scholars which are far from any traditional sources and using colonial standard and psychoanalysis regarding the text and misinterpret it. She is same scholar which also psychoanalysis the ganesha god which is very derogatory in nature and also called the bhagavad geeta text which promoting violence and ridicule the bhagavad geeta. Cite such controversial scholar which is far from authority over hinduism show biasedness of this article. 223.233.83.34 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wendy dongier is controversial for her psychoanalysis of hindu text and concept which extremely problematic and denigrated. As view of scholar cannot taken as authority over text which entirely opposite of traditional scholars and text. So I request pleased removed the her citation and shivlanga is not phallic symbol from any stretch of imagination. So better removed this citation and reference of her to stop spreading wrong strerotype regarding shivalingam. 223.233.83.34 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Doniger says nothing that many others scholars have not said. To quote myself above: "the evidence of early representations such as the Gudimallam Lingam, not to mention early images of Shiva with an erect penis, is pretty unequivocal as to at least the origin of the linga as a phallic symbol. Scholarly sources agree. Those so set against this should ask themselves what is so terrible about this." Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have a suggestion, if they cite some scholarly sources the why not put both the points? 2409:40E3:58:26AF:3C55:E4FF:FEC9:D674 (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• I thin that say lingam (or shiva linga) cannot be a phallic symbol for Shiva as absurd for modern day English usage when it is clearly the common name. Consider the following definitions for lingam:
  • The aniconic phallic representation traditionally worshipped as a symbol of or in connection with Shiva. – wiktionary:lingam. Retrieved 2023-12-31.
  • Among the Hindus, a phallus, worshipped as a symbol of the god Shiva. – "lingam - Quick search results". Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 2023-12-31.
  • Hinduism: A stylized phallus worshiped as a symbol of the god Shiva. – "The American Heritage Dictionary entry: lingam". ahdictionary.com. Retrieved 2023-12-31.
  • a stylized phallic symbol that is worshipped in Hinduism as a sign of generative power and that represents the god Shiva – "Definition of LINGAM". Merriam-Webster. 2023-12-19. Retrieved 2023-12-31.

This is simlilar to the situation for swastika (see Talk:Swastika as well). People object to using that word because of its association with Nazis, but it is clear that swastika is the common name for hakenkreuz. Lingam is clearly a common name for a phallic symbol for Shiva in today's English. Peaceray (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Erroneous reference removal

Hi @WikiLinuz I removed the reference to Kramrisch 1994, p. 14. But you reverted it as "not erroneous". I removed this because page 14 of Kramrisch's publication "The Presence of Siva" does not include a critique of Wendy Doniger and Rohit Dasgupta's interpretation of the view of linga as extrapolations of what was originally a phallic symbol (as is claimed in the article). This is therefore an erroneous citation. The author may well make such a critique elsewhere (sorry I can't help on whether she does), but not as per the citation provided.

I'm a relative novice at on wiki, but as a scholar I try to be correct and accurate. Just trying to be helpful with a correction :-)

If you agree (I acknowledge that I may be missing something very obvious here), then perhaps we can revert to remove that citation or provide an alternative correct citation :-)

Thanks FaresM (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• B-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
• B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• High-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class Shaivism articles
• High-importance Shaivism articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Nepal articles
• Low-importance Nepal articles
• WikiProject Nepal articles