Talk:Lingam/Archive 2

shiva lingam mythology

I found this web page with several tales of the lingam falling to earth. Since I'm not an expert the verifiability of these tales are beyond my grasp. Any others seen other sources of the tales like the lingam penatrating mother earth who was the only one that could quelch it's heat? Alatari (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I see a "site unavailable" message, but regardless of this, www.exoticindiaart.com is not a WP:RS. I will check if I can find this information you have mentioned in some book and add it. --Nvineeth (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I never said it was a reliable source, but the stories are interesting and if they can be verified it would be interesting inclusions. There is a lack of mythology here. Alatari (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a more reliable source of the creation myth in which Shiva breaks off his phallus and tosses it into the air and it comes down head first penetrating Parvati's yoni. All couples should worship at this lingam penetrated yoni. Alatari (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This source clearly states that the lingam is a representation of Shiva's Phallus. Alatari (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

page 95 describes 3 different stories about Siva's Phallus (lingam) separated from his body. Their sources appear to be WD O'flaherty, W Doniger - 1973 - Oxford University Press Asceticism and eroticism in the mythology of Śiva Alatari (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A much more reliable source stating the exact tale of the p. 305 Bhrgu standing at the door for days while Shiva makes love to Paravati also comes from WD O'flaherty. If this is unreliable it would have to be proven that WD O'flaherty is not a reliable source. Alatari (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right in pointing out the article that there exists the phallus theory, which must be acknowledged, there are n number of RS for that. This is discussed a number of times: See Talk:Shiva#Linga--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion here is about some creation myths and folklore about the subject. One of he stories comes from an aged Madhu Natisar of the Nath caste not a Westerner. Is it possible that the division is between the understandings of lingam from different castes in Indian and not only an India/Western difference? I understand it's been discussed a few times but the article seems almost completely focused on the non-phallus ideas. So why didn't appropriate changes get made to the article? I see some were made and removed for profanity reasons but censoring the objectionable spots but not the content would have been better than heavy handed removal. Leaving out the myth about the lingams' creation no matter how profane seems to be doing a great injustice. So why don't we agree upon some lingam creation mythology we can add? Alatari (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the theories is that lingam is of phallic origin, but this is not the only one and is disputed by several other academics as well. Regarding Wendy Doniger, there are several WP:RS which dont agree with her, including BBC. Wendy Doniger's works mentioned above are psychoanalytical interpretations on mythology. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir Richard Burton's translation

How can "Sir Richard Burton, The Kama Sutra of Vatsayayana, 1883" be a reference for "Whether the translation of the Kama Sutra by Sir Richard Burton published in 1883 is incorrect, the text was widely distributed in the West and has propagated the meaning of the lingam as a Hindi word for penis." This is case of WP:OR. Removing it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This version is properly sourced and stated: According to the widely distributed Kama Sutra by Sir Richard Burton published in 1883 lingam is the translated word for penis. Alatari (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an WP:OR on the Sir Richard Burton's book and also reads like a WP:SYNTH, Has this opinion piece been published by a WP:RS? could you pls provide the page number? --Nvineeth (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

page 35 talks about the size of a man's lingam as hare, bull and horse. Surely you aren't going to try and tell me they are talking about his nose? This is a bit ridiculous. You can call it manhood, phallus, member, whatever suits you and you can couch the sentence in it being a mistranslation but it is a widely read book published in many different editions and the concept is out there. According to Kamasutra By Vātsyāyana, Wendy Doniger, Sudhir Kakar, Devadatta Shastri Burton made several mistakes in translation but on page lvii it clearly states "... in Brodie's words 'adroitly managed to escape the smell of obscenity' by using 'the Hindu terms for sexual organs, yoni and lingam throughout (84)". It goes onto say that "... Vatsyayana text, which only rarely uses lingam to refer to the male sexual organ...". If this source is accurate then Vatsyayana did refer to the penis as a lingam. This discussion also ignores all the tales listed above about mythical tales about the lingam being Shiva's penis. This seems to be an odd discussion with all the sources available and a few editors continue to refuse to allow some appropriate statements in the article. Alatari (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to remove referenced sentences and reliable source I suggest we work on a wording that we can all live with. Alatari (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Wording for lingam as reference to male sex organs

As the article only reads in a manner as to denounce the understanding of the lingam as phallus and fails to mention other views thus violating W:NPOV I propose a new statement.

• Lingam has been used in some Hindi tales to speak of Shiva's phallus being detached and used to pierce Parvati's yoni where she had placed it on the earth thus creating the first lingam-yaniyoni site. (add references from above here) The ancient Hindu author Vātsyāyana used the term lingam to refer to a man's phallus in his Kama Sutra (add above reference) This usage has continued into current times (many references available in this talk section) but According to Swami Sivananda,[21]

The popular belief is that the Siva Lingam represents the phallus or the virile organ, the emblem of the generative power or principle in nature. This is not only a serious mistake, but also a grave blunder.

This phrasing uses comparison/contrast phrasing to give the Swami Sivananda a clear point to dispute. We can gather several different proposals here and get a final version. Alatari (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"The ancient Hindu author Vātsyāyana used the term lingam to refer to a man's phallus in his Kama Sutra" can be placed in Etymology. Instead of just saying "Lingam has been used in some Hindi (Hindu is more appropraite) tales to speak of Shiva's phallus being detached and used to pierce Parvati's yoni where she had placed it on the earth thus creating the first lingam-yani[sic] (yoni?) site." I propose a section about legends about Lingam emcompassing:

• the above legend from Linga Purana see Devdutt for ref
• the fire pillar legend - contest between Brahma and Vishnu. The pillar of fire is interpreted as a linga.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, "The ancient Hindu author Vātsyāyana used the term lingam to refer to a man's phallus in his Kama Sutra" can be placed in Etymology. But there are couple of views which contrast this when it comes to worship, which I will add later. I am not sure about the legend by Devdutt (even though it is a RS, I am not sure about neutrality), since his book uses Wendy Doniger psychoanalytical works as reference, I will look for other sources though. --Nvineeth (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Vātsyāyana considered a blasphemer by today's Hindu scholars or amongst the general worship community? Alatari (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I dont think he is considered a blasphemer by either of the above, and I did not mean this either above. What I meant was there is another notable view, and when I will get the book, I will try to add it! --Nvineeth (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Legends, like the pillar of fire, with the lingam as a central theme could be detailed in Hindu mythology and this article have something like: "Shiva's Lingam is a central theme in several Hindu myths" BTW, when referring to Shiva's Lingam is it appropriate to capitalize? Alatari (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

About Devdutt Pattanaik, the Times of India and group have articles by him [1]. The Concept of Rudra-Śiva Through the Ages By Mahadev Chakravarti [2] (Limited Preview) in the section "Siva and the phallus" describes various interpretations of the Linga from the Puranas - the phallus and fire-pillar are both mentioned. It also has views of scholars who say "linga has nothing with the phallus in the realistic sense" as well as explicit scholar views "linga is the phaluus of Siva". We need to put this theories equally in the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Western commentators often use the concept of "male generative organ" as the basis for their interpretations" seems to be non-neutral: Devdutt and Mahadev Chakravarti are Indians (not Western). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Even Apte's book gives "The male organ of generation" ("The male organ of generation" is definition 8 in Apte's list of 17 definitions"). User:Buddhipriya added the meaning in the Apte entry, somebody had forgotten. In his words, "clarify that Apte is a Hindu, so the organ of generation defition is not just in Monier-Williams". [3] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

(vote below please)
In order to explain the common view in the west or uninitiated that Lingam is a only a penis then using quotes from Kamasutra By Vātsyāyana, Wendy Doniger, Sudhir Kakar, Devadatta Shastri we say something in the Etymology like:

• "Lingam was introduced to the West as a equivalent term for penis through Burton's translation of the Kama Sutra but this was a misinterpretation of Vātsyāyana's work in which he uses Lingam a few times and those times were to describe the union of the male and female organs. Vātsyāyana referenced the male genitals by other words such as jaghana, yantra or sadhana"

The mythological tales location or inclusion seem still up to debate. Alatari (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the second part on "other words" is undue here and belongs to the KS article. Also not sure about the first part either, and it seems that it belongs to KS article. In the section above this one we were discussing about, "The ancient Hindu author Vātsyāyana used the term lingam to refer to phallus ", which seems more to the point. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement: "The popular belief is that the Siva Lingam represents the phallus or the virile organ, the emblem of the generative power or principle in nature. This is not only a serious mistake, but also a grave blunder." where 'virile organ' is just a PC term for penis ties into the phrasing. 'Popular belief' is mentioned here but not discussed as to why it's a popular belief or from whence the popular belief emerged. This is why I suggested the phrasing. So to tie the phrasing together to the Yogi's assertion and to reduce what seems to be an aversion to offensive phrasing:

Consensus attempt #2

• "Lingam as a equivalent term for the male virile organ comes from Burton's translation of the Kama Sutra but this was a misinterpretation of Vātsyāyana's work in which he uses Lingam a few times and those times were to describe the union of the male and female organs." Alatari (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The translation of Lingam as a phallus in not limited only to Burton, others such a monier williams & Vaman Shivram Apte write this and the article mentions this in the etymology section, probably we can add Burton to the list. Let us seek opinions of others as well, since I feel that above paraphrasing goes into the translation of KS, which I think is off topic in lingam. Not quite sure about this and I would like to hear from others on this. However, I feel that paraphrasing as "male virile organ" by Alatari is good. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This statement: "The popular belief is that the Siva Lingam represents the phallus or the virile organ, the emblem of the generative power or principle in nature." Is it sourced? I don't mean the phallus but that the usage is POPULAR. That is the foundation of this whole debate. The proof and sourcing that it is popular to use lingam as a term for the phallus is still unclear in the article. Alatari (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Last consensus attempt and placement of western interpretation sourced.

As of 1993, Wendy Doniger (same author who refutes the interpretation of the KS) still uses lingam to mean penis She states "Hindus, for instance, will argue that the lingam has nothing whatsoever to do with the male sexual organ, an assertion blatantly contradicted by the material that we will soon examine." I placed the quotes from Wendy Doninger which summarize the Western interpretation that most Hindu authors rail against in the interpretation section. This summarizes the western view and removes my WP:NPOV objection. Alatari (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger's addition is a welcome POV, but the added text has original research and tweaks in word usage (see WP:WTA ) are needed. "western beliefs" is not correct, since, several Indians belive the phallus interpretation, and other westerners like Isherwood do not belive the phallus interpretation. Also the part, " Swami Sivananda rails against " is a OR, since it is not presented in Wendy Doniger's cited work. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your wording is fine, thankyou for the sp check. It would take a thesis by a scholar specifically devoted to the controversy of interpretation to compare the different views and have specific persons contrasted. If you know of such work (or I'm missing something in the article) that would help. The phrasing about the Swami was to again compare these two views.

The Swami's assertion "The popular belief is that the Siva Lingam represents the phallus..." I believe still needs some refinement. Where is it popular? Why does he say it's popular? What other supporting evidence to his comment can we find? There is some controversy here. Doninger's book doesn't explain this supposed popularity. Do you get my point here? Alatari (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I can only answer this question through original research :). I suppose that this notion was popular right from the 19th century, I have read about related discussions in the Paris congress of religion held ca.1900 and Sivananda's book comes from 1996 as per citation. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There's obviously a POV war here that I stumbled into. Religions seem to reinvent themselves over the centuries, Christianity had several conventions to rework the Bible, it seems Hinduism is no different. I came here under research to convert from atheism and came along with a viewpoint tainted by my Burton copy of the KS and my reading of myths and fairy tales (love those). The controversy of interpretation is going to continue every once and a while ( I saw that one massively reworded diff from earlier in the week) but wow this can eat up your free time. I'm out for a while, thanks for the rational opposition. Alatari (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Britannica's online quote

I have updated Britannica's online quote on Lingam. Please check [4] to confirm that I have entered the quote correctly. There it is mentioned:

in Hinduism, symbol of the god Shiva, worshipped as an emblem of generative power. The linga is the main object of worship in Shaivite temples and in private shrines throughout India.

Before editing the section confirm my edits in Lingam with Britannica [5]. -- Truth only truth (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, since:

• It deleted refernced information and quotes from Britannica and Helene Brunner.
• It added true but redundant quote from EB
• It added unsourced and POV labels and characterizations.

Abecedare (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is no reason to revert my edit. Isn't the information correct? How can you say that the earlier quote of Britannica was required and the most recent information [6] is redundant? If Britannica refers to lingam as a sexual object, it is fine, but when it refers to lingam as an object of worship then it is incorrect. According to me, Helene Brunner has been offered a good space in the article. The reader has been referred to read Brunner, if desired. -- Truth only truth (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see above for the reasons for reversion. The quote you added is redundant because the information is already contained in the article. Also please stop edit-warring and POV pushing on this and other articles. Abecedare (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your information is completely wrong with the quote. When you click on the 22nd reference, i.e. Britannica's online entry on lingam [7], what do you read? It states as mentioned above. Moreover,

• There was no quote from Helene Brunner in [8].
• How do you know that a quote from Britannica is redundant? Give a proof, e.g. an agreement from Britannica that the quote is redundant.
• I am presenting the truth with proper references. It is not a matter of personal view. -- Truth only truth (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can read Britannica's main entry on lingam this and verify that it does not read:

The linga was originally understood as a representation of the phallus . . .

Tell me if I have supplied incorrect information? Abecedare, please update your information with the link to Britannica, and stop editing falsely. Your reverted article contains quoted text that takes you to a different sentence. -- Truth only truth (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Britannica Lingam article, after scrolling down past the first sentence, reads:

The linga was originally understood as a representation of the phallus, as sculptures from the early centuries of the Common Era make clear, but many—probably most—modern Hindus do not think of the linga in these terms. In fact, the stylization of the linga into a smooth cylindrical mass asserts a distinctively aniconic meaning, quite by contrast to the murtis (deities in image form) that serve otherwise as the most important foci of Hindu worship. This interplay is found in Shaivite temples, where the linga is apt to be at the centre, surrounded by a panoply of murtis.

The first sentence, which you keep adding back to the article, makes a general point that is already covered in the article. The following paragraph (quoted), makes another point that multiple editors support. Leave it be, or find consensus (please see WP:CONSENSUS) first. Priyanath ^talk 23:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Culture gap

If I understand the culture gap, most of this article is written in reaction against something that Victorian-era British conquerors thought, although modern English Wikipedia is more likely to criticize evasion than sexuality. So should we mention that most Hindus practice strict sexual morality, as described at Religion and sexuality#Hinduism? Art LaPella (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel that Religion and sexuality#Hinduism is OR. I dont think sexuality morality has anything to do with linga & the only connection if any with sexuality is with phallic origin which is a moot point. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

Please explain the removal of {{fact}}--owner wikipedia (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Open Comment to All Hindutva

Continual sniping against Monier-Williams interpretations is unhelpful. There are plenty of sources, even from himself, pointing to his intent to undermine and convert Hindus. Go out and find the sources, create reference citations and build consensus with the other editors and your views can have a spot here. The Monier-Williams article has already been further improved so give it a read. However, he spent many years of his life becoming a scholar (even though his intent was to convert) on these subjects and his view was influential and must be included to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. Writing him out of history isn't going to happen. Hope to see your future constructive editing. Alatari (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Add Shivling, please

... (also, Linga, Shivling, Shiva linga Sanskrit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoTheStoryGoes (talk • contribs) 07:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yupa-stambha

The text in the article is an edit of this:

To this the Swami objected, adducing proof from the Vedas, and particularly the Atharva-Veda Samhita, to the effect that the Shiva-Linga had its origin in the Yupa-Stambha or Skambha, the sacrificial post, idealized in Vedic ritual as the symbol of the Eternal Brahman. "As afterwards," said the Swami, "the Yajna (sacrificial) fire, its smoke, ashes and flames, the Soma plant, and the bull that used to carry on its back the wood for the Vedic sacrifice, gave place to the conceptions of the brightness of Shiva's body, his tawny matted hair, his blue throat and the riding on a bull of Shiva, and so on; just so, the Yupa-Skambha gave place in time to the Shiva-Linga, and was deified to the high Devahood of Shri-Shankara."

which, given the citation, amounts to a quote of a quote of a quote. The Swami being quoted is Vivekananda. The passage is in the book The Life of Swami Vivekananda, "by his Eastern & Western Disciples (Calcutta, Advaita Ashrama, 1974)". A larger, encompassing, passage is quoted directly by Elizabeth Harding in her book (pp.156-7, where she footnotes pp.684-685 as the source.)

All of this is in fact WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It is only Vivekananda's claim that (a) the Shiva-Linga originates in the "Yupa-Stambha", and (b) this is the meaning of an unspecified hymn in the AV. (It is elsewhere claimed, by others, that the relevant hymn is AV.10.7, but nowhere in that hymn is a yupa identified -- because, as it happens, such an "identification" is also a post-Vedic, Puranic myth.) So, what we really have is a claim (Vivekananda's own SYNTH and OR!). We can use it in the article only if we describe it as his interpretation, and also source it directly to the hagiography: Harding is irrelevant. rudra (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You've completely removed the phallic interpretation of the lingam from the article per wp:or shouldn't the article Sivalinga as phallus be deleted per p:or or wp:syn--NotedGrant Talk 13:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. That article is basically just a quote-farm, and the WP:OR is because the editors didn't know better. If someone can create the prose for a proper article using the references, well and good. We can then have a summary in this article. Now, the controversy is a long-standing one, but giving a blow-by-blow account here would be WP:UNDUE, which is why I created that new article. That, right now, it's nowhere near good enough is a separate issue. rudra (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced view concerning lingam as phallus

Besides the fact that the whole section should be prose instead of the massive amount of quotes it currently is, is basically only presents the view that the lingam isn't representative of a phallus. Out of all the examples, only the original proponent of the lingam actually being a phallus is mentioned (and then only in passing) while every other example is refuting the claim. Case in point, of the 7 sources mentioned only Williams is said to promote the claim and his view is allotted a whole sentence, while ViveKanada, Britannica, Sivanada, Brunner, Wilson, Isherwood all are against it and given a whole paragraph each. Doesn't this strike any one else as a little unbalanced, especially for a debate that has a long history in academia?

What about views expressed by Doniger and the like that the lingam does represent a phallus, but far from any sexual or illicit intention, the erect penis represented asceticism in the Vedas, important because Shiva was an ascetic god traceable to his roots as Rudra in the Vedas? Additionally, there is archeological evidence of penis worship among the ancient Dravidian culture so the phallus interpretation is an example of pre-Aryan indigenous influence on the religion. Seriously that section needs to be seriously reworked and balanced in terms of the information it presents.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Resentful and angry right-wing Hindu Victorians control Wikipedia content. Foolish and cowardly administrators let them get away with sustained, deliberate vandalism and falsehoods. C'est la vie. — goethean ॐ 01:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, a particularly aggressive editor even tried to excise the naughty bits from this article. — goethean ॐ 01:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Interpretations of any symbol can be multiple, whether we agree with Goethean or the right-wingers. Even Wendy Doniger of whom I am no fan of, said that texts treat the linga as an abstract symbol of god with no sexual reference while others treat it differently; "This is nothing surprising about this range; some Christians view the cross as a symbol of agony,while others see it as a symbol of their god in the abstract. Hindus who view it as an abstract symbol would object to an anthromorphic interpretation just as their Christian counterparts would object to the cross referring to the passion of Christ. see pgs. 22-23 of the Hindus: An Alternative History at Books.Google.com

Thus, even if you disagree with the view that the linga is phallic, we should present all views so long as one side (phallic) does not dominate the religious aspect and all views should be presented. I think that the current version appears to present both sides of this debate. Raj2004 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good; I was afraid that we were headed towards an edit war. The lede can still be improved, and the article can be improved immensely. The scholars referred to in the lede are not the top-flight scholars that an ideal lede would refer to. — goethean ॐ 03:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. Gavin Flood, and PAUL E. MULLER-ORTEGA appear to be experts on Shaivism. I don't have access to their books, as Google Books won't have all views of their books. If you have them, it would be great if you can present their views. Raj2004 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have those books.

Now that I look at the lede this morning, it focuses too much on symbolic interpretation and origin of the lingam. There should be one sentence on the phallic/non-phallic debate (which is how I had it before you started adding what you thought was counter-phallic material). The rest should discuss the role that the lingam plays in historical and contemporary Hindu worship. — goethean ॐ 13:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the second paragraph should be moved to the section on Origin. — goethean ॐ 13:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Rewriting the lead. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all the changes made. It seems fine now. Raj2004 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with the changes. Redtigerxyz has changed a well-sourced lede into a completely unsourced, largely creative interpretation of the history of the symbol. His changes should be reverted. Specifically, 'aniconic' is POV (as well as unsourced), as the phallic interpretation does not believe that usage of the lingam 'avoids or shuns the graphic representation of divine beings or religious figures, or in different manifestations, any human beings or living creatures' The rest of redtigerxyz's additions are unsourced and inaccurate. I will revert. — goethean ॐ 16:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still writing not final product. Just wait some time. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Another theory suggests that the Lingam is a phallic symbol, though this explanation is disputed and most Hindus would argue that the lingam has nothing whatsoever to do with the phallus.

That completely unsourced and inaccurate statement directly contradicts the sources that you removed from the article. Why did you replace well-sourced statements with unsourced inaccuracies? stop it. — goethean ॐ 16:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Any way I am semi-reverting. Para 2 is a summary of the referenced sections. First two sentences are referenced elsewhere. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide quotations from reliable sources when adding material to the article. Please do not removed well-sourced material from the article per Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 16:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added anthropologist views regarding aniconic and Doniger views. Raj2004 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Stambha references were added in the Origins section so need of duplicating in lead. Wendy who said that Linga is a phallic symbol writes "Hindus, for instance, will argue that the lingam has nothing whatsoever to do with the male sexual organ". References were removed in this revision. Readded them. As per WP:LEAD, lead is a summary of the article. If the same thing is referenced further in the article, it is unnecessary to duplicate references. Well-sourced material from the article was not removed, but just moved. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead used to be well-sourced, and your version of the lead in unsourced. That is good grounds for reverting your changes. Please do not add unsourced, inaccurate material to the lead. Thank you. — goethean ॐ 14:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Replicated references in lead, though I don't think its necessary. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 23:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If that was wiki-policy (replicating ref in lead if they have been cited ahead in the body), then Today's featured article Ashford v Thornton (many other FAs) would not be FAs. Please read wiki-policy on the lead section Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, it says "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." Only new facts need references in the lead. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than offer a profound understanding of Hinduism, this article conveys a profound discomfort with sexuality. The notion that a shiva lingam - many of which in actual, working temples feature both an abstracted glans and frenulum - is something other than a phallus is absurd. That this should be a controversial fact is absurd. In tantra, "lingam" means penis, plain and simple, just as the lingam's female counterpart - the yoni - means vagina, plain and simple. Similarly, Hindu deities frequently have multiple arms and faces without the literal implication that they physically have multiple arms and faces. As far as Hindu religious practices go, it is completely possible for the lingam to represent both a phallus yet not be associated with an actual, physical penis in any way whatsoever. It represents the force behind the notion of a phallus, but to attempt to totally disassociate the lingam from a phallus is inaccurate and a disservice to Wikipedia. Instead of giving a comprehensive and meaningful understanding of the lingam, this article is seriously weakened with all this emphasis on how the lingam is not a phallus.Udibi (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly correct. — goethean ॐ 15:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please update Yoni / Linga articles to be similar in quality scope.

The Yoni article gives no indication that the identifying of Yonjio and Linga as sexual organs is disputed.

  Bippy the beardless (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading

The article needs more links for further reading. This blog (http://www.truthlingo.co.uk/articles/) has many articles which can be of great use to Wikipedia readers. This one is relevant to this article: http://www.truthlingo.co.uk/2010/10/om-swastika-and-shivalinga-mini-series-part-4-shivalinga-as-we-know-it/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertgiujn4k3fds (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Words have alternate meanings

Meanings should replace etymology: populate this nice table below and insert it! Etymology belongs in the sister-site (or yoni site?), Wiktionary.--John Bessa (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The table below shows that a word carries multiple meanings.

Word	Meaning	Alternate Meaning
Linga	Symbol of God Shiva	Organ
Thandhe	Father	Brought
Thayee	Mother	Give Me

In the table given, the word is given in the first column, its primary meaning is given in the second column and alternate meaning in the third. The different meanings of the word should be interpreted only in the context in which it is used and not otherwise. When the word is used as stand alone, the primary meaning takes precedence over the alternate.

As can be seen in the above table a word carries multiple meanings and they should not be misinterpreted. And the word Linga is a classical example of how things can go wrong if one does not understand a religion and language properly.

Some europeans who did not know the inner workings of Hindu religion and languages started to interpret the alternate meanings as same. Since Linga which represents Shiva also represents an organ. Therefore they thought shiva linga represents an Organ which is not correct. Here the different meanings of the word stems from the fact that they were represented in the language using different letters but in due course of time some letters vanished and so the sounds became same which is responsible for the confusion. Actually the word Linga used in olden times was written using different letters for different meanings. They should not be mismatched or mixedup to yield incorrect interpretations. Thanks. 24.90.34.219 (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said. The word Linga carries religious significance and when it is used to represent god, its other meanings should not be used to give it a wrong connotation. The hindus faith and belief will be hurt by this and this could create hatred among people of different religions unnecessarily. Please change or remove the unnecessary parts in this article. 110.225.232.62 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

JR Rao article

I find it very strange that those who do not practise Hinduism, read Sanskrit or even respect Hindu culture, comment in a vulgar way about the subliminal aspects of Hindu symbolism. This is racism and lack of understanding of faith. This is an attack on my freedom of religion. It prevents me from presenting my faith to children of my community and also to adults who wish to learn about my religion. We respect other faiths; please stop spreading these misinterpretations.

It is also interesting that Doniger, Basham and a few other scholars who happen to be holding tenured positions at Western Universities are "scholars of Hinduism", but explanations of revered scholars like Sankara, Vivekananda and Ramakrishna are mocked and removed from this text. We are not "Victorians". We are Hindus, and we do not comment on other religions or their symbols. I submit that this site is an insult to Hinduism and a glorious faith. This obsession with sex by neo-scholars who do not understand an ancient faith is racism-plain and simple.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrrao (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism

Hinduism is more than Religion and myths. It is Science that normal people cannot understand which was lost through generations. I would kindly request you to remove the study of british people who hav published books about Indian Myths and Hinduism without even understand the basic principles of Hindu. It really hurts the feeling of people of India. Every story has many hidden science and logic. It is depicted as stories because the common people cannot understand science and technology behind it. If people laughed and jailed Galileo for saying Earth rotates around Sun. How can they believe about physics and frequecies, waves at that time. The technical aspects were always hidden. Even today we cannot prove it because you cannot think about it. The ayurveda, jyothishastra are all the examples. The british destroyed indian culture and have always tried to insult the Indian culture. So it hurts a lot when those studies are included in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.107.221 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please change and remove objectionable material

There is a complete error in this page. The lingam is a Sanskrit word meaning formless one. Please do not allow people of other religions use wikipedia as a medium to belittle my religion.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/shiva_lingam.htm

Enricardo (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Your definition is not listed in this Sanskrit-English dictionary. — goethean ॐ 20:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the Sanskrit meaning of Lingam is "mark, badge, or sign". I suppose there is some argument for separating the article into "Lingam", meaning the Sanskrit word and "Shivalingam/Shiva Lingam", but "Lingam". However "Lingam" is so often used as short for "Shivalingam" that I don't feel that it would add much. -- Q Chris (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference [5] improper

In this Lingam article, first paragraph, reference [5] quotes the Siva Purana, but references a modern book written by an American author. The sentence is not correct.

A quote from the Siva Purana should include references from the Siva Purana, not from elsewhere.

The Lingam creation story is presented in the Siva Purana Vol. I, Chapter 5, summarized at verse 28, and detailed in Chapters 6-9, with the Lingam creation in Chapter 7 entitled "Siva Manifesting Himself As A Column Of Fire In The Battlefield", specifically at verse 10 and 11.

Quote: "The flames emitted by the two weapons of Brahma and Vishnu burned the three worlds. On seeing this imminent untimely dissolution, the bodiless form of Siva assum­ed the terrific form of a huge column of fire in their midst."

Then from Chapter 9, verse 19: Siva says "0 sons, this column without root or top will hence­forth be diminutive in size for the sake of the vision and wor­ship of the world."

Continuing with verse 20: "The phallic emblem confers enjoyment. It is the only means of worldly enjoyment and salvation. Viewed, touched or meditated upon, it wards off all future births of the living beings."

These direct references are from the Siva Purana Vol I of the 4-Volume Set, English translation, entitled "Ancient Indian Tradition & Mythology", edited by Prof. J.L. Shastri, copyright Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, First Edition 1970, Printed in India at Shri Jainendra Press, Delhi. 76.88.167.177 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The "phallic emblem"? Gee, I wonder what that could mean? — goethean ॐ 19:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I expect that reference 5 is to a book that describes the passage in the Shiva Purana. I think it is referring to the story in Page 50 Section "The reason behind phallic worship" in this translation. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this particular translation - the fact that it does not have chapter and verse references means that it probably is a "readable" rather than "scholarly" translation. I am trying to find out more about this story, some translations of the Shiva Purana don't have it. I have seen references to some translations that do as the "Mahashiva Purana", which makes me wonder whether there are two versions.

I doubt if many people take this story as literally true, for one thing the Shiva Purana also has the "column of fire" story (Page 3 "Analstambh - the pillar of fire"). I am trying to find references for that. BTW, to save you time, it took me a while to realise that you can go straight to a page on Scribd by entering it in the box between the up and down arrows! -- Q Chris (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In the light of this story, I hope that you will grant that the phallic interpretation was not made up by perverted Western scholars with an anti-Hindu agenda. This story shows the Britannica entry, which holds that the phallic "interpretation" originated in the 19th century West, to be false. The Shiva Purana story shows that the phallic view is as ancient and traditional as the more abstract views now insisted to be the only legitimate view by many gurus, including Vivekananda, as well as by anonymous Wikipedia visitors. — goethean ॐ 12:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It shows that it was a view, but by no means mainstream. The puranas are collections stories and some of these stories give contradictory interpretations. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess that you can deny anything that you want, even the most bleeding obvious fact. But this article will not make logical somersaults in order to deny the obvious. Every major scholar of Hinduism agrees that the lingam is the phallus. Some, like Coomaraswamy below, use the terms interchangeably. And yet some gurus like Vivekananda (and a few amateurish authors who are trying to make their name in post-colonial studies by alleging a Western bias with amateurish Hindutva-inspired books like Invading the Sacred), would like to deny this. That is the situation. — goethean ॐ 13:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In this snippet, Coomaraswamy appears to use the term 'lingam' interchangeably with 'penis'. He appears not to have gotten the memo. — goethean ॐ 12:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Went through the edit history, and i found that the same text remains most controversial in this whole page. But i have to a few points, just because of it's shape(doesn't match), if it's assumed by some unknown or known scholar in 19th century, why it has to be added here? It's just a misunderstanding. If you want to mention it, you can mention in the rest of article. Capitals00 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources and NPOV

I and another editor have reverted Apalaria for POV language and using sources that fail WP:RS. This is being discussed at WP:RSN#Western sources on Hindu mythology and Wikipedia policy. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between a "serious mistake" and a "grave blunder?"

The article contains this intriguing sentence: "This is not only a serious mistake, but also a grave blunder." Could someone give an example of a serious mistake that is not a grave blunder, or vice versa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.208.88 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Intro: pillar first or phallus symbol first?

This is quoted for the definition, however, it seems that only selective meanings are presented, in particular trying to hide meaning 10. The genital organ of Śiva worshipped in the form of a Phallus and meaning 8. The male organ of genera- tion. This exclusion seems deliberate and is against the spirit for a neutral debate on the subject. These meanings should be included in the list of definitions, whether it appeases main stream hindus or not. Otherwise this reference should be removed in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.166.243 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit by User:Q_Chris should be reverted. Additionally, his edit summary is completely misleading. He claims,

It is ridiculous that the common practice of most Hindus is ignored because of some "Western Scholar's" psycho-analysis of the symbology

First of all, it is not "Western Scholar's" [sic] who make the claims; it is virtually all scholars, except for a minority of religious conservatives. If you make the effort to read this article, you will see that the most ancient extant lingam is undeniably, and well-sourcedly, a phallus symbol. It is not some perverse fantasy of Western scholars, it is the conclusion of every honest observer. Dozens upon dozens upon dozens upon dozens of reliable, scholarly sources can be arrayed to establish this undeniable fact. The same cannot be said of the pillar interpretation. Additionally, the text which links this pillar interpretation is very misleading — the Linga Purana actually has a story explaining why Shiva is worshipped as a phallus. I just haven't had a chance to write up the appropriate text, largely because I have more respect for this article than to carelessly deface it.

Also, nothing is being ignored, as Q_Chris claims. On my edit, the secondary pillar interpretation is listed in the intro, it's just not listed first. — goethean ॐ 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Since it is about a Hindu symbol, the current mainstream interpretation of the infinite Shiva should be first. The phallus is not some "Western Scholar's" psycho-analysis. The explicit phallus motif is also found in Hindu texts. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Since most mainstream Hindus see it as an interpretation of the infinite Shiva this should certainly go first. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Most Christians see Jesus as Lord and Savior, but that's not how he is defined in Jesus. Buddhists see Gautama Buddha as "the awakened one", but the wiki article defines him as "a spiritual teacher from the Indian subcontinent, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded." Muhammad is defined as the founder of Islam, not as God's prophet. Jews see the Tanakh as God's word, but that's not how it is defined in its wiki article. — goethean ॐ 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In both cases the articles say that this is what most adherents believe in the first paragraph though. -- Q Chris (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that a majority (or very a large minority) of Hindus think that the lingam represents a pillar. And I don't think that there are reliable sources saying so. — goethean ॐ 19:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I the majority of Hindus see the lingam as an abstract form representing the parashiva, or formless energy of Shiva, and would see the story of the pillar as an illustration. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to start respecting Wikipedia policy rather than edit warring over your personal preferences. The intro to this article will reflect a neutral summary of the majority of reliable sources. If you don't like it, you need to escalate this dispute via the dispute resolution process rather than edit warring. — goethean ॐ 14:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The veerasaiva site was working yesterday, I'll monitor it. As for the "citation needed", we already have Burton, saying "For the many the upright standing pillar is not a sexually charged image. The reverse does, though, appear to have been the case originally. For instance an enshrined linga today will be lovingly garlanded and attended by young women and elderly matrons alike, but without any overt suggestions of sexuality. In traditional Indian society, the linga is rather seen as a symbol of the energy and potentiality of the God", and [9] describing how the majority are offended by the phallic description. I am adding the Britannica reference " Since the late 19th century some scholars have interpreted the lingam and the yoni to be representations of the male and female sexual organs. To practicing Hindus, however, the two together are a reminder that the male and female principles are inseparable and that they represent the totality of all existence.". -- Q Chris (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone beat me to the ref - I just added the quote -- Q Chris (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Presuming that it is sectarian, I don't think that the veerasaiva site should be added back in. I have a few issues with Britannica. One, it's a tertiary source and we should be using secondary sources. Two, it is under pressure from the Hindu right that they have changed their entry; it used to be an article by Wendy Doniger. Three, the quoted material is belied by the well-attested fact that the oldest extant linga sculpture is clearly phallic. — goethean ॐ 18:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your link seems to be a lecture by an unknown person? That's not what we need. We need descriptions of the debate by the top scholars on Hinduism, regardless of the country of origin or their religion. — goethean ॐ 18:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

His "Essentials of Hinduism in the light of Šaiva Siddhānta" is referenced in many books. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Britannica claim is also directly contradicted by the Shiva Linga Purana. — goethean ॐ 21:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that the Linga Purana describes the worship of the Linga as a penis. This is not supported by the reference, which says: "Shiva is sexless and without form". Perhaps you could indicate where in the [Linga Purana] you think worship of a penis is described. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference that I provided contains page numbers. Open the book that I cited to the pages that I reference. Read. If you don't like my summary of the cited material, then write your own summary. Do not remove material which is cited to a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I had somehow read "Linga Purana" where you had written "Shiva Purana". I am also using google books for your reference which only gives me the view of paragraphs around the search result, so I did not see the other reference. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have sent you an email containing a link to pasted images from Google books with which you can view the entire quoted passage. — goethean ॐ 14:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't got it yet, but I have seen the story in the Agama. I doubt if many people believe it as literally true, but I'll look for references. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I got my references mixed up. Now I have corrected the reference. — goethean ॐ 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014

Shiva linga is not actually genitals of Shiva. It is pineal gland of Shiva(A part of brain). Pineal gland is at the back of head just exactly opposite to the place between eye brows. Sriraghavatrueindian1 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong description of Shiva Lingma as : and more specifically, the "genital organ of Śiva worshipped in the form of a Phallus"

This is clear objection of definition of Shiva Lingam through the reference of a book from 'British Museum'.

The following text need to be added :

According to Linga Purana, the lingam is a complete symbolic representation of the formless Universe Bearer - the oval shaped stone is resembling mark of the Universe and bottom base as the Supreme Power holding the entire Universe in it.Similar interpretation is also found in the Skanda Purana: "The endless sky (that great void which contains the entire universe) is the Linga, the Earth is its base. At the end of time the entire universe and all the Gods finally merge in the Linga itself."

I request Wiki team to read the puran before publishing it on wikipedia.

Thanks.

Siddharthnow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharthnow (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Siddharthnow: Please tell me the exact book name and page numbers.. I'll see what can be done. Crawford88 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

altering intro and definition

@Owais Khursheed: Please don't change the intro and definition sections arbitrarily. The current paragraph has been reached after much deliberation and consensus building. You starting an edit war will only end up in defacing this article. As you can note that the 'phallic symbol' aspect of lingam is already described in subsequent section. You might do your thing there, but not the intro and definition. Crawford88 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Literal meaning of the word: mystification of the word might not be good per policies http://www.shabdkosh.com/translate/lingam/lingam-meaning-in-Hindi-English http://zeenews.india.com/hindi/entertainment/bollywood/rishi-kapoor-exposes-lingam-swami/269749 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.31.70 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Literal meaning of the word yoni

Casktopic is edit warring for the literal definition of the word yogi on this article and has recently violated WP:3RR rule and he deserved to be WP:BLOCKed as a warning and has been reported. Coming back to the objections raised by Castopic,

• Weightage given to the term vulva is undue and controversial. see WP:CONTROVERSIAL
• Word meaning are given either in the general importance of that definition or by lexicographical ordering. In either case, vulva appears later.
• Majoritarian view is irrelevant here, as you alone are pushing this change. Not that it matters at all.

Crawford88 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit war started by Crawford88, then falsely reported Casktopic for 3RR! As already mentioned WP:BALASP (undue weight given to minor aspect; viewpoint held by majority to be preferred). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casktopic (talk • contribs) 09:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hargrave Jennings

Per WP:BRD. I have reverted @Casktopic:,[10] however he is not adhering to WP:BRD. Also discussed on reliable sources noticeboard that the source is outdated and will require special attribution and it should not be used to counter present scholarship. @Fyddlestix, ShotgunMavericks, and Viewmont Viking: who have edited the same section or opposed this. If we were to mention opinions of such a source then I can imagine how many articles would require the opinions of Helena Blavatsky. Capitals00 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00 No worries! A more modern and reliable source would be added to keep a WP:BALANCED tone of the debate. Casktopic_say 10:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Making of shiv lingam

I heard from sadguru(isha) that lingam is oval stone resting on circular yoni but also found that many scholars believe that lingam is made of three parts....upper round representing lord Shiva, middle 8sided representing lord Vishnu and underground 4 sided representing lord Brahma. What do u think how Shiva Lingam is made?? Dbkatira (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dbkatira: Any statement about the composition of a Shiva Lingam would require verification from a reliable source. Peaceray (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dbkatira: @Peaceray: There are different meaning of the Shiva lingam like in Shaiva Siddhanta (sect of Shaivism) the upper part of lingam represents Parashiva and lower part Parashakti. Moreover Lingam is Shiavism's main icon and in Shaivism, it's a very strong belief that Lord Shiva is Supreme God who is creator, preserver and destroyer. So there is some inconsistency. We might need to add a new section about possible interpretation of Lingam among different traditions and sects of Hinduism especially in Shaivism. शिव साहिल (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Making of Shiva lingam acoording to hindu scriptures

I had added Karana Āgama's text where it state from which all elements/materials we can create a temporary lingam. Agamas are the Main scriptures used by Hindu, Buddhist and Jain in the matter of architecture of the temple. My edit was undone because it was POM. but Agamas are the scripture which are widely used. Karana Āgama is also given in the list of Agamas in Agamas(hindu) page. Could i undo the action which undid my edit??? शिव साहिल (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the phallic symbol origin

@शिव साहिल: It is well sourced (I can find more sources if need be), so it definitely belongs to be mentioned in the article in one way or another. The fact that Sivalinga as phallus was voted for deletion means nothing; it only suggests that the topic was not notable enough on its own, and it was merged into this article as a section until someone (wrongfully) deleted it. Its vote for deletion does not mean the contents of that article were fabricated. I hope this is simply a misunderstanding and that there actually is no ulterior motive to remove this sourced information. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Surjection:. I see that you have edited the Lingam's Page with <While the symbol is a phallic symbol in origin, it is usually no longer considered to be such by most devouts.> We need to ammend it a little cause it's giving a undue attention to fact that Lingam is phallus symbol. If you want phallus fact to be merged into the article, you may need to change this. And one more thing that, any of the Traditions, sects and sampradaya of Hinduism doesn't support phallus theory as far as I know, So we have to amend it some more. It can go like this <In Sanskrit, lingam also means phallus, but it is not considered as such in any of the Hindu traditions> . Offcource, you have to add new source for this. If you don't agree with it. We can add it under some other section but not in introduction शिव साहिल (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: I agree that this is a controversial topic, which is why my original line said "it is usually no longer considered to be such by most devouts", which is referring to the fact that most Hindus do not see it as a phallic symbol anymore, even if it originated as such. The line you suggested would be mostly fine be it for one addition - the addition of "modern" to create "any of the modern Hindu traditions". If you want to replace the line with that, you will have to find the sources, though - I already have mine. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 09:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Surjection:, Yes it is indeed very controversial. So new line would look like <In Sanskrit, lingam also means phallus, but it is not considered as such in any of the modern Hindu traditions>. Does this sound right to you?? and for this line "Sanskrit, lingam also means phallus" you can find many sources. शिव साहिल (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: Yes, I can find sources for the Sanskrit part, but the latter part needs some. Perhaps for clarity it would also be a good idea to change "it is not considered as such" to "the symbol is not considered to be phallic" to get "In Sanskrit, lingam also means phallus, but the symbol is not considered to be phallic in any of the modern Hindu traditions". (And depending on what the sources say, we will probably still need to add an "anymore" somewhere in between) SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's good progress. So we must make amendments qccording to <In Sanskrit, lingam also means phallus, but the symbol is not considered to be phallic in any of the modern Hindu traditions> शिव साहिल (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I am ready to replace the existing mention with that, if the latter part can be properly sourced. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Surjection:. Here are some sources;- by Sivananda Saraswati: http://www.dlshq.org/download/lordsiva.htm#_VPID_80, by S. N. Balagangadhara http://www.jsri.ro/new/?download=19_balagangadhara_claerhout.pdf, by Jaggi Vasudev: https://isha.sadhguru.org/us/en/wisdom/article/linga-a-doorway-to-no-thing, by sivaya subramnaniyaswami: https://www.himalayanacademy.com/media/books/dancing-with-siva/web/r7_14.html, Vivekanada: http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_4/translation_prose/the_paris_congress.htm. These allpeople represent different traditions, sects of Hinduism and intellectuals शिव साहिल (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: I do not think many of those count as reliable, while the second source you linked does not mention of what the lingam is considered today (it only mentions that it originates as a phallic symbol). In fact, I think all of the reliable sources at least somewhat accept that the lingam does have its origins in being a phallic symbol, which makes the recommended edit somewhat disingenuous. Based on those, I would probably amend the statement to "While the symbol is a phallic symbol in origin, the symbol is not considered to be phallic in any of the modern Hindu traditions". Does it sound alright to you? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Surjection:. Ok. Here are some extracts from the link which I had provided. Sivaya Subramnaniyaswami of Shaivism (Shaiva-siddhanta) says that "Śivaliṅga is the ancient mark or symbol of God. This elliptical stone is a formless form betokening Paraśiva, That which can never be described or portrayed. The pīṭha, pedestal, represents Śiva’s manifest Parāśakti". Sivananda Saraswati of Shaivism "A Siva Linga consists of three parts, the lowest of which is the Brahma-Pitha, the middle one, the Vishnu-Pitha and the uppermost one, the Siva-Pitha." Swami Vivekananda "The explanation of the Shiva-Linga as a phallic emblem was brought forward by the most thoughtless, and was forthcoming in India in her most degraded times, those of the downfall of Buddhism. " Jaggi Vasudev "The word linga means “the form.” We are calling it “the form” because when the un-manifest began to manifest itself, or in other words when creation began to happen, the first form that it took was that of an ellipsoid"

So i think second part of the line <In Sanskrit, lingam also means phallus, but the symbol is not considered to be phallic in any of the modern Hindu traditions> is sourced. Is this Ok with you? We can work on the first part of the line too. AND I would like to emphasis that We are making amendments because as we can see in the Archive, there are many-many talks regarding this topic which result in both parties not coming to any consent. We are adding it so there is less tiff about this topic in near future as this part will be inclusive to the article but don't give a wrong vibe all together. Thanks for the patience शिव साहिल (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: The issue is primarily with the fact that many of those sources will probably not count as reliable sources (see WP:RS). We would specifically need actual published books or encyclopedias for sources, not self-published websites. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Surjection:. Ok I am on it. BTW one of the source was from book शिव साहिल (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: Which one exactly? The S. N. Balagangadhara one? It specifically mentions that the linga is a phallic object, not anything to the contrary. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Surjection: Sivaya Subramunyaswami from Book Dancing with Siva. I have found reference from Swami Vivekananda's book Complete work of Swami Vivekananda too. I shall post it later. शिव साहिल (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: I looked through that source, and it does not mention the lingam being phallic or not phallic in any way, not agreeing or denying, but only talking about it generally. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection: How about this book Complete Work of Swami Vivekananda. < https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_4/Translation:_Prose/The_Paris_Congress_of_the_History_of_Religions>. Here Swami Vivekananda has denied this fact by saying "The Swami repudiated the above two views and said that though he had heard of such ridiculous explanations about the Shiva-Linga, the other theory of the Shalagrama-Shila was quite new and strange, and seemed groundless to him" शिव साहिल (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection:Here is another one from book 'Lord Siva and His Worship' where Swami Sivananda said that "The popular belief is that the Siva Lingam represents the phallus or the virile organ, the emblem of the generative power or principle in nature. This is not only a serious mistake, but also a grave blunder. In the post-Vedic period, the Linga became symbolical of the generative power of the Lord Siva. Linga is the differentiating mark. It is certainly not the sex-mark" <http://www.dlshq.org/download/lordsiva.pdf>

@शिव साहिल: Alright. However, I still think that "While the symbol is a phallic symbol in origin, the symbol is not considered to be phallic in any of the modern Hindu traditions" is better in this case, as more sources agree with it, or perhaps "Lingam is not considered to be a phallic symbol in any of the modern Hindu traditions, even though the symbol has phallic origins". SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection:. WE must stick to earlier agreed upon <In Sanskrit, lingam also means phallus, but it is not considered as such in any of the Modern Hindu traditions>. Cause in near future Someone will come along, strongly disagreeing with the fact and again edit war will start. We certainly need to avoid that. For second part I believe it is sufficiently sourced. For first part I think we can find sufficient source. Your thought? शिव साहिल (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: There already is a disagreement, since that statement does not fully agree with the sources that can be found. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection: Apologies but I didn't get what you meant. What I am trying to say that for "In Sanskrit, lingam also means phallus," here are some source I procured

1. http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?mode=3&script=hk&tran_input=lingam&direct=au 2. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lingam 3. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lingam?s=t You can find sources from encyclopedic for this one

and for "but it is not considered as such in any of the Modern Hindu traditions" these are agreed upon sources 1. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_4/Translation:_Prose/The_Paris_Congress_of_the_History_of_Religions 2. http://www.dlshq.org/download/lordsiva.pdf शिव साहिल (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: The problem is that most sources agree that it at the very least was a phallic symbol, and the current revision of that statement does not state that. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection: Mr. Surjection. With all due respect I am stating that now we are starting to go in circle like many before us. We worked on finding sources and in the end we shouldn't get stuck on "lingam was a phallic symbol". Lingam was and is a religious symbol, so Swami would be hell wrong. Anyways, It's bit disappointing owing to fact I invested an evening this. Sigh! Lingam is/was a phallic symbol or Lingam's origin is phallic; is not going to work :( Is there any other agreement we are come uponशिव साहिल (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: I will try to reshape the statement that is currently on the article once more. If you still disagree on how it should be, I recommend seeking dispute resolution, such as a third opinion. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection: Can I have a peek at the statement? Before posting it. शिव साहिल (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: ...that would have been a good idea, sorry. It is "It was originally a phallic symbol, but it is not considered such in any modern Hindu tradition.". SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection: I have a proposition to make; In foreseeable future this topic will be a source of agony for many of us. Why Not make a section devoted this. It would be titled "Controversies" . What ya think? this way it will make into the article but wouldn't be in the intro section

it would include something like 'Wendy Doniger views lingam merely as an erotic phallic symbol in his book Śiva, the erotic ascetic but Modern Hindu Tradition disagree'. Nice and easy for everyoneशिव साहिल (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: There was an entire section devoted to it in the article, until someone removed it. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection: Make a section at the end with a appropriate caption and let me know that content you have in mindशिव साहिल (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: Is the caption used by the removed section Debates around Lingam as phallic symbol fine by you? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjectio: Sounds right. Go ahead and let me know the content to शिव साहिल (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: For the content itself, it is probably better to start with a version on the article and then amend that. The old section may also have something useful. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Surjectio} WOW. It's too big for it's own good. It was dominating whole article. Anyways we must start with thing we already have in hand. This can be dealt later on. Let first commit our progressशिव साहिल (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: I agree that the section was too large. I have now started a new one, feel free to improve it. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection:Can you shorten it to "Debates around Lingam". This way it wouldn't attract unwanted attention and may not lead to it's early deletion like earlier case. शिव साहिल (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: Perhaps "Interpretations"? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection: You mean like "Debates around Interpretations of Lingam" then Yes. Let go with thisशिव साहिल (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection: This concludes our day's work. Thanks and Have a good day Sir शिव साहिल (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)