This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SanatanScriptures (talk | contribs) at 20:21, 16 August 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:21, 16 August 2022 by SanatanScriptures (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
why sivalinga is facing north deriction ?
Sivalinga is a holy structure of hindu. As we see while worshiping linga we see it is facing north because it is always facing Mt.kailas . 'which is known as a place where siva lived.
It's cause the flow of energy of the river ganges. Bliss of Knowledge (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Removal of the phallic symbols category
"Lingam" being placed under the "phallic symbols" category is factually inaccurate, because lingam in essence do not symbolize phallic iconography as per the sources on the page. Considering "lingam" merely a phallus is only applied in freudian theory, which by itself is disproven and highly critiqued. A specific type of lingam, retas lingam, which illustrates the principal of Urdhva Retas is neither considered to be symbolizing fertility nor sexuality as per the sources although anatomically phallus in shape. On the other hand, all the other articles listed under the phallic symbols category indeed symbolize fertility and variant of sexuality and doesn't have refined meaning around the iconography, like lingam does. Since categorization highly contradicts the symbolism of Lingam as per sources, it's inaccurate to be placed under the phallic category in particular and should be removed due to factual inaccuracy and ambiguity with other articles on the category. —WikiLinuz (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
cc, @Bonadea:
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)
Doniger's psychoanalytic interpretation as "sources"
Psychoanalytic interpretations of Hindu iconography or deities is neither the original transpilation per Sanskrit literature nor she is formally trained in psychoanalysis. It's so she finds the underlying motivations, social conflicts, conceptual paradoxes per Freud's psychoanalytic theories although there doesn't exist such underlying intentions per the original literature. In the encyclopaedia, we rather be more inclined towards scholars who interpret the complexities of iconography or deities per the original literature than psychoanalytic view. Although I'm not sure Doniger interprets the texts in psychoanalytic persecptive in all her scholarships, however, works like On Hinduism, 2013, Siva: The Erotic Ascetic, 2009 or The Hindus: An Alternative History, 1981 does view with psychoanalytic lens. Even if this interpretation is predominantly targeted for academicians, this shouldn't be cited in an encyclopaedia for general audience. —Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 13:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
In the encyclopaedia, we rather be more inclined towards scholars who interpret the complexities of iconography or deities per the original literature than psychoanalytic view.
What makes you think that Doniger does not interpret the motifs per original literature? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)What makes you think that Doniger does not interpret the motifs per original literature?
How does a psychoanalytic interpretation is assumed to be the interpretation per original literature? Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 14:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Phallic imagery
A cogent summary in Fleming, Benjamin J. (2009). "The Form and Formlessness of Śiva: The Linga in Indian Art, Mythology, and Pilgrimage". Religion Compass. 3 (3): 448. ISSN 1749-8171. :
None of our earliest examples of lingas and linga-like objects are explicitly, unambiguously, or unequivocally Saivite...
It is possible, for example, that the association of the linga with Siva alchemized over a period of several centuries, perhaps continuing to evolve even into the medieval period. That the linga only gradually rose to the status of Siva’s main emblem is suggested by our ample evidence for anthropomorphic images of Siva...
In the centuries following our earliest evidence for lingas, we see the influence of Saivite literature and theology on its form and iconography. Whereas the iconography of early lingas lacks consistency, our later evidence speaks to efforts at systematization. Innovations and standardization in the iconography of the linga seem to have occurred particularly during the Gupta period (ca. 3rd–6th c. ce). This development appears to have been marked, moreover, by concerted attempts to eliminate any overt resemblance of the linga to the human phallus. Jitendra Nath Banerjea (1935, pp. 36–44; 1956, pp. 445–56), Gritli von Mitterwallner(1984, p. 18, n. 33), and Hans Bakker (1997, pp. 75–76) have pointed to the discomfort of the Brahmanical tradition with realistic, phallic imagery. They propose that the older form may have been modified due to this discomfort; this abstraction, in turn, allowed for the incorporation of the linga into the broader tradition. One might further suggest that elite theologians may have wanted nothing at all to do with linga worship until it was sufficiently abstracted from phallic realism in the Gupta period and could be absorbed into the increasingly pro-Vedic strand of Saivism that was beginning to take form at the time. (Fleming 2007, pp. 140–83)
TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Shivling as a phallus needs to be removed
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)
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)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- 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