I would like to refer to this discussion for further updates to this article: http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_9/threads.html --IMpbt 18:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
cleanup request
I am referring this article for clean up due to poor article quality (maybe due to the numerous edits) and layout. Requires careful handling as it is a religion related article. I am not including myself in the effort, as I think I might be biased.--IMpbt 20:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
major updates
I have modified the content of the article considerably. I have tried to include as much information as possible without any bias, as much as possible. This is an ongoing effort and hopefully will be complete soon. The sanskrit dictonary translations were obtained from this Dictonary.
I have deleted some segments, as they are commentaries and provide no information thus should rather be added to wikiquotes then to the article.--IMpbt 06:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
lingam as a phallic symbol
The line: "The linga (sign) is a symbol of Shiva. The linga is a phallic symbol, and represents the fertility of Nature. Many Hindus consider it to be liturgically incorrect to worship images of Shiva himself, and thus use the lingam to represent Lord Shiva". has had been consistently deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard and 24.34.208.84
The word Lingam by its very definition means the Phallus. To delete the very defining element of this term is in effect making this article null and void. The shaivite conception of the universe is to celebrate the generative aspects of nature, and the lingam epitomizes this conception. Besides I did not see this essential point stated anywhere else in the article. Deleting this aspect is indeed vandalism. Robin klein 20:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
The aspect of the lingam representing the fertility of nature is mentioned down in a different section, but I think it should be mentioned in the introductiry paragraph itself. Robin klein 20:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see the definition (see link). lingam means gender not phallus in sanskrit, an example is also provided with the definition). Since the definition you have provided is subject to interpretation, it should be in the interpretation section. I will move the sentence to the interpretation section. --IMpbt 22:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
interpreting Lingam as gender would not be accurate. Ling translates as Gender, Lingam translates as sex organ. Robin klein 23:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Any references to the same ?, because even in official documents (Indian government) linga is the word used for gender not ling. One of the major prespectives during the rewrite is that this page has reached the cleanup stage because of edits which deal with this subject, which according to most discussions is interpreted differently by different people. I would try to allow each to include information without disturbing the other, the best way seems to be to move these sections to the interpretation section and allow each to have their say --IMpbt 23:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like the edit wars have already begin --IMpbt 03:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
IMpbt´s comments on an edit war gave me the creeps. Okay, Let´s go for consensus:
Hinduism is a very, very broad religion. It is said to be the oldest of the widespread religions in the sense that, having no formal founder, it evolved from timeless primitive beliefs and, with input from innumerable sages and cultural influences (the absorption of which is a small miracle derived from Hinduism´s acceptance and tolerance), it is now what we see. As a religion coming from the primeval analysis of natural forces themselves, later clarifyed, explained and enlightened by the mentioned sages, Hinduism retains its early roots. Hinduism acknowledges no original sin. It sees all creation as sacred, it sees no intrinsic evil. Sex is a powerful force, very natural, very primitive. To the early man, Lightning, Fire, Wind, Nature were expressions of God. So was Sex. God is a powerful being and those were the attributes the instictive men identifyed with power. So, this is why the Shivalingam is called a "Lingam" and it rests on a Yoni. The higher men, however, sees many meanings his ancestors could not grasp. The power and meaning of the Lingam has been explained later by Sivananda, Subramuniyaswami, and many others. We Hindus believe that there are still many symbols expressed by our Holy Lingam that are beyond us, as its abstract meaning was lost to the men who named it "Lingam" in the first place. So, saying it is a phallic symbol is simplistic, and wrong. It is a Holy Symbol, with endless special meanings, and it has that name because early culture associated it with a phallic symbol - before further illumination by the sages. Subramanian talk 08:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Of course you're absolutely right, Robin. It's absurd to try to avoid the obvious... not to mention at least a century of plain-speaking in endless scholarly works. I don't know what dictionary the person is using that keeps referring to 'Sanskrit'.
The dictionary on my new iMac defines LINGAM as: "a symbol of divine generative energy, esp. a phallus or phallic object worshiped as a symbol of Shiva. Compare with yoni." Something very close to that is what belongs at the top of this page, not a waffling pretense.
It's the symbolic meaning of the statuary that matters, not the label attached to it. It's not necessary to regress to infantilism to protect the children. They've all seen one by the time they're five ... and the symbols are celebrations of the creativity and fecundity of life and the beauty of creation.
Sorry, too late to hide it, the secret's out: people have genitals. At least, they're born with them ... though some people seem to forget that.
More on the intro
I think I'm going to remove the first line of the second paragraph of the intro. It merely mentions the lingams connection with shiva again, already mentioned in line 1 of the article, and links to swami sivananda, which is fine, but should be in the body of the text. I dont want another guru's followers coming along in a month and getting into a war over interpretation and who is linked to. So its going to be "Some knowledgeable interpreters of Hindu scripture say" and leave it at that. Hornplease 20:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Greek and Hebrew not related
This is an absolutely incorrect statement. Aside from countelss lexical similarities, the alphabet itself resembles Hebrew to an unmistakeable degree( Alpha:Aleph, Beta:Bet, Gamma:Gimel, Iota:Yud, Phi/Pi:Pheh,Peh; are you unaware or do you have a something to prove? ). The opinion that Greek and Latin are unrelated to the Semitic are nothing short of the vestige of European anti-Semitism which thrived quite well in the universities that produced the bulk of our etymological information( ASMOF the word Sem in semitic is related to semiotic and symbol- which are traditionally traced to greek lineage, however the hebrew Shem:'word' predates the greek usage by all substantial archeological evidence ). Your edits will be changed unless you address this point as a non-anonymous user. Much of our etymology comes from pre-WWI German academic efforts( search for the Ursprech ). Most German specialists at the time believed that Hebrew or more commonly termed Semitic is the root of all Indo-European languages( including Hindi-Sanskrit-Brahmi, Latin, and Greek ), this opinion abruptly changed with the outset of WWII. The common continental belief that Greek was the oldest and most influencial language was adopted to a degree. Early American linguists also favoured the Semitic postulate, including Merriam Webster( who had direct knowledge of Hebrew ), who included many Semitic etymologies in his first American Dictionary. Many of these etymologies also disappeared with the onset of federalism in America, and its direct influence on the MWD. The semitic postulate is most often attacked by both bible critics and those who have ethnic animosity for the Jewish people.
NPOV - Jacob Never worshipped the stone !
It is wrong information and the wishful thinking of author to state that Jacob worshipped the stone (Which he/she presumes lingam) this is what the passage says
Genesis 35:13 Then God went up from him in the place where He had spoken with him. Genesis 35:14 Jacob set up a pillar in the place where God had spoken with him, a pillar of stone, and he poured out a drink offering on it
Jacob offered oil as a drink offering to God, The pillar is simply nothing but an alter, Biblical God is totally against worshipping stones and idols
Habakkuk 2:18 "What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, Or an image, a teacher of falsehood? For its maker trusts in his own handiwork when he fashions speechless idols.
Habakkuk 2:19 "Woe to him who says to a piece of wood, ' Awake!' To a mute stone, 'Arise!' And that is your teacher? Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, And there is no breath at all inside it.
Habakkuk 2:20 "But the LORD is in His holy temple. Let all the earth be silent before Him."
It is a dishonor of Biblical God to compare oil (which was widely used in bible for anointing) with semen!
- The boilerplate of NPOV dispute was inserted and discussion here was invented, by User:Karma2Grace, this note and small modification of epigraph, is by Reo On
- I suppose, that now, when the relevant text was deleted (by Goethean - [1]), the POV statement should be deleted too. --Reo On 10:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
what mean mantra trantra yagna in praticular life
mantra= A set of words arranged to mean a thougth or objects or activite. In normal term mantra is nothing but a sound or voice which a human create from his mouth and put to object, thought, activite, etc.
trantra = A action or set of action to be prepare for the task which u aim for.
yagna = A effort to achive sucess on a daily and continously process of your life.
Original Research? Pop culture
The current text includes a section that reads:
- Something that resembled a Siva linga was called the Sankara Stone in the movie, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. In Hindi/Sanskrit, Sankara or Shankar is another name for lord Shiva.
This is suspected as original research. Unless a verifiable source is provided, or a request made for time to obtain such a verifiable source, I will delete this section after 48 hours. --BostonMA 19:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
No verifiable sources offered, nor request for more time, nor talk of any sort. I'm deleting the section in question. --BostonMA 14:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Political Correctness at the point of truth
So the connection between the lingam and the biblical "pillar of stone", between ancient religions and cultures is sacrificed on the altar of political correctness? What does this say about the authors of this page, about Wikipedia, about objectivism and knowledge?
Lingam stones
I am not the most familiar with the idea of shiva and lingam, but I am an avid collector of narmadeswara lingams These are so called "lingam stones" found in the Narmada river. Could this have some significance to the idea of a lingam? All that is mentioned about lingam stones occuring geologically is the brief paragraph on the ice stalagmite at Amanarth cave. What do you guys think about me adding a section on Lingam stones? Or perhaps I should make a seperate article? --Ottokarf
Wow
Never have I seen a page try so assiduously to avoid the obvious. Folks, you can't clean up the fact that the lingam and yoni clearly represent the male and female genitals. This is established in endless scholarly works going back for -- at least -- well over a century. Joseph Campbell even talked unabashedly about it in his PBS shows .. why can't you just be honest?
Phallic imagery extends across the entire ancient world and were part of religions and fertility rites and much more. India has no reason to hide the beautiful sensuality of the past. Maybe it's time for everyone to see "Passage to India" again? There's a page called Phallus. Go ahead. Just tell the truth. It won't hurt. Twang 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)