Jump to content

Talk:Lingam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shvetashvatara Upanishad

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Shivling as a phallus needs to be removed

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Shivling is not phallus

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Erroneous reference removal

[edit]

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)[reply]


Remove the Sexual Representation of Lingam

[edit]

The Lingam is often misunderstood, especially in the Western interpretation of Eastern symbols, as a representation of the male sexual organ. However, this view is a significant oversimplification and misinterpretation of its profound spiritual and symbolic meanings in Hindusim

Misconceptions of the Lingam: The misinterpretation of the Lingam as merely a phallic symbol can be traced back to early European colonial views, which often misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented non-Western cultures. This perspective overlooks the complex, layered significance the Lingam holds within Hindu worship and philosophy.

True Meaning of the Lingam:

In Hinduism, the Lingam is primarily a symbol of Shiva, one of the principal deities of the religion known as "the Destroyer" or "the Transformer" within the Trimurti, along with Brahma and Vishnu. The Lingam is an emblem of the energy and potential of God, Shiva. More profoundly, it represents the totality of the cosmos and the generative power of the universe.

The Lingam is typically present in Shiva temples as a smooth cylindrical mass that symbolizes Shiva's formless aspect. It's often paired with the Yoni, which represents the goddess Shakti, embodying the universal feminine energy. Together, the Lingam and Yoni symbolize the union of the passive space and the active time from which all life originates. This union transcends the physical and embodies metaphysical and philosophical concepts of creation.

The significance of the Lingam is mentioned in several Hindu texts, including the Shiva Purana, which describes the origin of the Lingam, known as the Shiva-Lingam, as an infinite cosmic pillar, symbolizing the infinite nature of Shiva. This scriptural account emphasizes that the Lingam represents the beginningless and endless Stambha pillar, marking it as a link between the Earth and the Skies, the material and the spiritual.

Scholars and modern practitioners of Hinduism emphasize the symbolic interpretations of the Lingam. It is viewed as an abstract representation of the divine, focusing on qualities like creation, destruction, and regeneration, which are aspects of Shiva’s character.

The interpretation of the Lingam as a mere sexual symbol is a profound misunderstanding of its role and significance in Hindu spirituality. It is a rich emblem that encapsulates major philosophical and cosmic principles of the Hindu faith. Understanding the Lingam through its scriptural, cultural, and philosophical contexts provides a more accurate and respectful appreciation of its place in Hindu worship.

For those interested in deeper scholarly analysis or the scriptural texts regarding the Lingam, works such as "Saiva Siddhanta" by S. G. S. Murthy and "The Myths and Gods of India" by Alain Daniélou provide extensive insights. Additionally, the Shiva Purana, one of the eighteen Puranas which are part of the Hindu body of texts, offers detailed narratives about the Lingam and its significance. I didn't use external sources to provide the information about the Lingam in Hinduism. The details I provided are based on general knowledge about Hindu religious practices, symbolism, and scripture. If you're looking for more detailed academic or textual sources, I recommend checking out books like "The Myths and Gods of India" by Alain Daniélou or accessing Hindu scriptures like the "Shiva Purana" for primary sources. These texts are available in major libraries and bookstores, and some resources might be available online through academic databases or websites like Archive.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardgrayson3451 (talk • contribs) 14 may 2024 (UTC)

If the lingam was only described as a sexual symbol, you would have a point. Yet, that is not the case; Hindu views on the lingam as a representation of Shiva are clearly presented.
Wikipedia summarizes what WP:RS state about a subject, and is not WP:CENsORed by religious views. If you don't like that, too bad for you, but it means Wikipedia is not a proper place for you to contribute too. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
first of all you can't call Lingam a sexual organ?
who are you to decide which label the Lingam is.
Have you read the vedas? puranas? shastras? upanishads? hindu scholar books?
i have and unlike the editor i dont go out of my way to start labeling the Lingam a Phallus.
if this continues a hindu association will need to approve this.
have a hindu scholar to read the lines and approve it.
u have not written Doginer thinks its she says.
who is a foreign woman to decide what the lingam is?
Regards Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu scholars who want to contribute to Wikipedia also have to conform to Wiki-policies. And what's the relevance of Doniger being a woman? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We all agree that wendy doniger is not authority over hinduism related topics and certainly not the credible scholars as methodology of scholars very outdated based on psychoanalysis. Better you should the tradition source regarding the topic. Don't act like the typical white colonial supremacist. Truth Seeker Alway (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the punch (seeing as the person being responded to is blocked), but from what I'm reading in the article, Doniger is comparing different traditions' views of the lingam, not stating outright that it is phallic. It's even pointed out that [a]ccording to Doniger, the terms lingam and yoni became explicitly associated with human sexual organs in the western imagination after the widely popular first Kamasutra translation by Sir Richard Burton in 1883. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all if you cared to read the whole work of wendy doniger her whole assumation based on the outdated psychoanalysis methodology which not found and related to any tradition scholar's works especially work of shaiva acharya. Truth Seeker Alway (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand; are you saying no one has ever interpreted the lingam as sexual? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying no traditional scholars and initiated shaiva sampradaya acharyas never interpreted it as sexual. Truth Seeker Alway (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're interested in covering what reliable secondary sources have to say about the subject, not just what traditional or religious scholars say. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some non follower says something about a religion: source
Shankaraacharyas talking: No guys, we are not interested in what scholars say. A book written by someone on the other side of the planet is more reliable as a secondary source than those who hold actual authority in hinduism or an actual book calling it a pillar of fire. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lingam&oldid=1242766987"