Talk:Lingam/Archive 3

Requested move 22 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There were weak !votes on both sides, and ultimately the discussion came down to the accuracy of the n-grams, where there is no agreement. There's not a consensus either way on this matter, and I don't feel further relisting will clarify the situation. Per WP:RMCI, this results in no consensus and the page staying at its stable title. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Lingam → Linga – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the references used in the article use the term Linga. See this chart here which shows the usage of the two terms. South Indian Geek (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 20:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Clearly the current common name is Linga, also in spoken language too Linga is commonly used, though there's no reference. Thapa 75 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Spoken language doesn't matter to Wikipedia, we have to look at the written sources, where Linga is more common. South Indian Geek (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Linga may also be used to euphemistically define human genitals in sanskrit language. Keeping in mind the spiritual aspect of the topic I suggest it be left as is. -Casktopic_say 19:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What you stated above applies for lingam as well, used to represent Shiva's phallus. Also, the spiritual aspect of the topic is not a reason to not stick with the common name. South Indian Geek (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - लिंग is usually transliterated as Linga. 86.97.129.80 (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I don't believe the chart offered by South Indian Geek is accurate (see below) I have a Bachelors in Comparative Religion with an emphasis on Eastern Traditions, as well as being a 20 year student of neo-tantra and classical tantra. Today this is the first time I have seen lingam spelled as linga. Google search for "Shiva lingam"- 791,000 results. For "shiva linga" 564,000 results. Britannica and Oxford dictionaries list it as lingam. Sethie (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose लिंग is a schwa deleted prakrit word of the sanskrit lingam. lingam is [akarant neuter gender] and ending it with anusvara is proper. Crawford88 (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What about Ramayana (Ramayanam), Avatar (avataram) then ? South Indian Geek (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Partial Support - User:South Indian Geek, I don't think ngram should be used to determine the correct name in this case. However, I find a number of reasons to support this proposal.

1. About 10 of the accessible references in the article use the term Linga. We should be sticking to the name used by majority of references.

2. I also do notice an inconsistency in the naming of articles. For example, see Mukhalinga, Jyothirlinga, Linga Purana and related articles that used the term linga in their title. Personally, I am ok with using either title for maintaining consistency within Wikipedia. I, being a person from North India, use Linga in my day to day conversations. Surely its better to move the single article lingam to linga instead of moving all the above articles. King Prithviraj II (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Lingam" with the -m written as anusvara, is लिंगं . Written in the old (Vedic, etc) way with the nga (ङ) letter instead of the first anusvara, it is लिङ्गं Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Is the chart listed above accurate?

I don't think the chart linked above by South Indian Geek is accurate on multiple counts.

Linga and Lingam are common Indian last names. A quick search on google scholar brings up over 50,000 articles with the word linga or lingam in them [[1]] from my quick scan they are almost all medical papers, with people who have the last name of linga or lingam.

If we use ngram as an accurate tool for common word usage, when you set the perimeters to 2017 and set the smoothing to 0 (which is listed as the most accurate setting) lingam comes up as currently more common usage. [content=Linga%2CLingam&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CLinga%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLingam%3B%2Cc0] The settings South Indian Geek's chart uses are for the year 2000 and smoothing set at 3- both of which are, I believe, are default settings.

Lastly, that same tool cannot even find the phrase "shiva linga" while it is able to find many uses of the phrase "shiva lingam" [[2]] Sethie (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Smoothing is used to see the correct differences in charts on a larger scale, to see which word is used more commonly. 0 smoothing and 3 smoothing is the same, you can't view the minute differences on a large scale at 0. Ngram is used to determine which name is more common in many move discussions. Search Google books for Linga and lingam and the results are mostly shiva linga and shiva lingam with very few false positives. Britannica obviously doesn't have a common name policy, seen with many articles. It lists Linga as an alternate name. Also, please don't list your achievements like 'Bachelors in Comparative Religion with an emphasis on Eastern Traditions' in a move discussion. Google ngram takes only articles with the specific name linga or lingam and doesn't include most names like R J Lingam etc. South Indian Geek (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@South Indian Geek:

Whether ngram is helpful in this case or not..... I don't know, I leave that for someone who is more knowledgeable to decide..... I do find it curious that it is not able to find one use of the word "shiva linga."

regardless,If we set ngram to it's most accurate setting, and set the date to include as far forward as it can lingam wins..... "Set your smoothing level. Smoothing refers to how smooth the graph is at the end. The most accurate representation would be a smoothing level of 0, but that may be difficult to read. The default is set to 3. In most cases, you don't need to adjust this." [[3]]

I am not aware of a wiki policy that discourages invoking my personal knowledge and experience on a subject in a move discussion. If there is such a policy, please let me know. Sethie (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems that both the users are unaware of proper usage of ngram. While ngram doesn't take every text into concern, it does look at names such as Veerasalingam, Linga Mital, etc. Ngram is to be used in discussion only when the term is specific. King Prithviraj II (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Content assessment

Hi all, I believe that this article's Content Assessment has jumped from level 'Start' to 'C'. If you guys agree then we can change the article's assessment on WikiProject Hinduism, WikiProject Religion and WikiProject India शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup and removal of non-RS

This version of this article relied on too many websites/blogs/online prayer offering/tourism sites and other non-RS. I am removing them per our content guidelines. If there are concerns otherwise, let us discuss them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrong explanation on shivalingam

The explanation or fact that was given is wrong. Shivalingam is not a phallus shape. We need correct information. Shivalingam is a connection of cosmos and earth in scientific. Don't publish any wrong information. Hari 1213 (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, people used to argue that before the lingam at Gudimallam was discovered early last century. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Linga (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Description, history and others about shivalingam is wrong.

I've had give the information of shivalingam but the Wikipedia editors disagree with me. I don't know what wrong with them, it's like discriminating hindu gods. I'm requesting to Wikipedia editors to rewrite the information about shivalingam again.

{{Hari 1213 (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)}}

(edit conflict – I was writing this text in the section above but will add it here as it directly relates to H1213's post here) @Hari1213:, your edits violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines in several ways. Essentially the same content has been restored multiple times, with some changes which however do not change the policy violations. I will use the most recent version of your edits to illustrate this.

• The text does not have a neutral tone, but is written from the point of view of a particular religion. Examples include (but are not limited to) "In the shiva lingam the seven chakras of kundalini remain fully active. And so it’s the most powerful thing which makes a person spiritually awaken and brings peace in mind.", "Additionally, there is a mysterious or indescribable power in the linga.", "It indicates our mother nature holds us in her." This is the kind of phrasing that is appropriate for a religious or poetic text, but not for an encyclopedia.

• The text is not adequately sourced, despite the addition of some references. As an example, I checked all three references for the first part of the first paragraph. The Encyclopedia of Hinduism, page 17, does not appear to support any of that information. Introducing Hinduism: A Graphic Guide does not have pages so "page 17" is hard to find, but again I am unable to verify any of the claims in there. (As an aside, that book defines "lingam" as "phallus", which I believe is one of the claims you dispute.) The Lord Shiva does not meet the requirements for a reliable source.

• The text is often difficult or impossible to understand – this is not a policy violation as such, but it is of course not helpful to our readers to have encyclopedia articles that can't be understood. For example, the first sentence read "A Shivalingam or lingam is known as a symbol of lord shiva in form of a lingam in Hinduism that being worshiped for decades" (a lingam is a symbol in the form of a lingam?). There are also multiple language errors that make the text difficult to understand, as well as use of terminology or other vocabulary that's specific to the religion.

• Finally, the edits also removed quite a lot of well-sourced content, including the basic explanations that helps a reader understand what the article is even about.

If you have suggestions for additions, things that are missing in the article, please suggest them here on the talk page together with the supporting sources. Similarly, if there are claims in the article which you have good reason to think is inappropriate, bring it up here on the talk page. Please make explicit suggestions such as "Change [this text] to [this text]" with a source (but don't make a suggestion for changing the entire text in one go.) Uninvolved editors would then be able to see whether something should be added or changed, and they could edit the article accordingly. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. My only concern is that shivalingam is not a sexual organ or phallus. I will give some evidence or support material to you. Hari 1213 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a symbolic representation of a phallus, as all the best sources agree. In the 19th century some Hindu writers tried to claim otherwise, but, as was explained to you, the discovery of the ancient Gudimallam lingam and other early evidence made this line untenable about a century ago. That's why people keep reverting you - you are wrong. Read better-quality sources. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(Need to change):

1. It often is found within a lipped, disked structure that is an emblem of goddess Shakti and this is called the yoni

2. they symbolize the union of the feminine and the masculine principles, and "the totality of all existence",

3. the lingam symbolizes Shiva in Hinduism, and it is also a phallic symbol

4. Since the 19th-century, states Dasgupta, the popular literature has represented the lingam as the male sex organ

5. The shaivites, a linga is neither a phallus nor do they practice the worship of erotic penis-vulva, rather the linga-yoni is a symbol of cosmic mysteries.

6. *shivalingam does nt have any history*

7. About the gudimallam lingam- it is not an erect phallus. Has a story

8. the Mahabharata is the first ancient Hindu text where the lingam is "unequivocally designating the sexual organ of Shiva". Hari 1213 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The answers for the above wrongly mention:

Answer

1. The concept of Shakti, as both divine energy and as the goddess is of great importance within Tantric philosophy and practice, which places much reverence on the feminine principle of creation. Shakti embodies the active energy and power of male deities, with whom she is often personified as a wife.

Source: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Shakti

- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murti#:~:text=Murti%20

2. It is much more difficult to focus on God as the unmanifested than God with form, due to human beings having the need to perceive via the senses

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murti#:~:text=Murti%20

3. In Sanskrit it means symbol which points the inference. Thus the symbol is represents that the omnipotent lord, which is formless.

Source: https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-shiva-linga-1770455

- https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/58063/11/11_chapter%206.pdf

4. Those, who say of Shiva Lingam as sexual symbol, are themselves primitive,because they cannot see anything else but sexuality. If we stretch our imagination to that extent, we can also say that the Cross, which the Christians worship, is also a symbol of sexual union. The horizontal small bar represents vagina of the female and the vertical bar piercing through it is the penis. If Shiva Lingam is a symbol of sexual union, the cross is also equally the same symbol; the only difference between the two is of art. Shiva - Lingam is quite artistic while there is no art in the cross. Being primitive they have represented only by lines.

Source: https://sites.google.com/site/vvmpune/essay-of-dr-p-v-vartak/shiva-lingam

5. is an oblong stone stuck into the ground exactly halfway along its length. The visible, above ground portion symbolizes Shakti, the manifest principle of Godhead. The invisible underground portion symbolizes Shiva, the unmanifest principle of Godhead. This Shivalinga therefore depicts both Shiva and Shakti. Source: https://sites.google.com/site/vvmpune/essay-of-dr-p-v-vartak/shiva-lingam - https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10153173367576675.pdf

6. Shiva is the smallest living thing also the nonliving thing and also the biggest thing. For an example some great mountains are shapped as lingam; shivaneri, himalaya, biggest planetary nebula and extra- galactic nebula. This is why lingam has no history how it's birth, from where it comes from and and etc. Einstein has correctly said that a straight line is not straight, if it extend to infinity it forms an oblong. Source: https://sites.google.com/site/vvmpune/essay-of-dr-p-v-vartak/shiva-lingam - https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/58063/11/11_chapter%206.pdf

7. It is a tale about sage parasuram. Parasuram after killed his mother, he later wanted to clear his sin then met a sage and he advised parasuram to perform penance on a bank of swarnamukhi river. Then when he start to perform penance brahma appears as a dwarf and wanted to help parasuram. Later the next day the dwarf started helping parasuram and decides to tease parsuram with plucking the flower on the river and acts like the flower failed to blossom. After few days doing this same act finally parasuram finds that he is lying to him and his anger aroused. When parasuram chased the dwarf to punish him the dwarf (brahma)disappeared while calling lord shiva. Lord appeared and said that sage parasuram's that his penance had borne fruit the minute brahma had plucked the first flower from the river, and he no need to be guilty. Then lord shiva blessed them by merging with the lingam. Shiva as the lingam form this unique, unparalleled icon, he is in form of lingodbhava murti Source: https://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146413274

8. Yudistra who consecrated the main deity shivalingam. It is states in Mahabarata he worship lingam. There is also a incident a gomatha(cow) worship this linga daily. It was built between 12th and 13th centuries AD. It is mentioned in Mahabarata volume 10 Source: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=617iBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT273&lpg=PT273&dq=mahabharata+about+lingam&source=bl&ots=KqmObBb8iH&sig=ACfU3U15c93M6CRDDofr0v-y7IVGOaEmOA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjh8JfT3OzpAhXGV30KHVM-CmcQ6AEwCnoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=mahabharata%20about%20lingam&f=false

- https://topyaps.com/mahabharata-era-shiva-lingam-at-lakhamandal/ Hari 1213 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being more specific about the changes you are after. I will refer to the first set of sentences (which you say need to change) as "a" and your comments on each sentence as "b".

1. "b" is not a replacement sentence for "a", since it would make no sense in the context of that paragraph. (In addition, "b" is unsourced, as only a Wikipedia copy is given as a reference – and the "b" sentence is taken verbatim from there.)

2. Same issue as with 1. "b" doesn't have any obvious connection to "a" (and again Wikipedia is given as a source, and in the article Murti that exact sentence is said to be a quote from the Bhagavad-Gita.)

3. The Sanskrit meaning of the word is in the article, as is the aspect of formlessness (see Lingam#Puranas). No contradiction with the text in "a" (which in the article is followed by the sentence "This view contrasts with the traditional abstract values they represent in Shaivism wherein the lingam-yoni connote the masculine and feminine principles in the entirety of creation and all existence".)

4. Here "b" is a paragraph from an essay posted on the Internet, which can't be used as a source in Wikipedia, and the argumentation is rather absurd. In any case, the sentence in "a" is sourced – and is again presented together with the contrasting view.

5. No clear connection (much less a contradiction) between "a" and "b".

6. Where does it say that there is no history ("a")? And I don't understand your reasoning in "b" at all, I'm afraid.

7. There are four reliable sources supporting the current phrasing in the article, and many more in the article about the lingam in question. The legend presented at megalithic.co.uk ("b") is perhaps documented in a reliable source somewhere – it is not exactly unique to have different legends connected to holy places – but nothing at megalithic.co.uk contradicts the current phrasing, and in any case I doubt it would be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes.

8. Sorry, I don't understand your reasoning in "b" at all. "a" is sourced, it is in fact mostly a direct quote from a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 18:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

For the B. It is stated in Wikipedia itself that It is much more difficult to focus on God as the unmanifested than God with form, due to human beings having the need to perceive via the senses( which means that the form of god is only can be perceive via senses and not justified as masculine or feminine principles. There are no such thing as masculine and feminine. Evidence: it is stated in Wikipedia itself in murti article. Hari 1213 (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

👆🏻Above reply from me is for 2. B Hari 1213 (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the term of lingam as phallus, yoni, or sexual organ. This is a wrong term, lingam is not a sexual organ. In this article the word sexual organ or phallus or yoni should be removed. This term was coined by a person called Sir richard francis burton publisher of kamasutra book. Lingam were never called as yoni or phallus or sexual organ in hinduism.

This is the source: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=c8vRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=lingam+is+not+sexual+organ&source=bl&ots=4Q1xKkDb57&sig=ACfU3U0f-7Jpf--y8IrXNjmEI01ejo4UEg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOgZm04vnpAhXHzTgGHVSxDekQ6AEwDHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=lingam%20is%20not%20sexual%20organ&f=false Hari 1213 (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read the whole of Doniger's chapter carefully. She is very far indeed from denying the phallic nature of the lingam. Like me above, she points to the Gudimallam lingam, but also to many Hindu textual sources. She explicitly deals with the phallus-denying position you express. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. But in hinduism there are no such thing has the term lingam as phallus. We either can't believe the words of doniger. Hari 1213 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Just adding, Gudimallam is not the 'oldest lingam' found and wikipedia itself states that //his is perhaps the second earliest linga associated with Shiva discovered so far,[4] and it has been dated to the 2nd/1st century BC,[5] or the 3rd century BC,[3] or much later, to the 2nd century AD,[6] 3-4th century AD,[6] or even, according to one source, as late as the 7th century AD.[7] // So one it's history itself is debated and hence you can't really say it's oldest by definition. So a remote sect worshiping Shiva as Phallus(if you wanna say so) can't be generalized while writing a public article (which is what we are doing by indicating Shiva-linga as Phallus). And best sources for generalizing religious symbols are religious texts - Do we have any evidence from religious texts of Shiva linga being worshiped as 'Phallus' alone ? - Probably not

//Blurton describes the figure as not having "the features associated with gods of orthodox Hinduism" but "squat and broadly-built, and with the thick curly hair and the pronounced lips still seen amongst tribal populations in Central India", suggesting the non-Vedic aspects being absorbed into the emerging figure of Shiva.//

Here 'non-Vedic aspects' and 'not having the features associated with gods of orthodox Hinduism' is important. You can't paint a single instance(reason we have 33 million/billion gods is everyone is free to interpret whatever they want) (worshipped by a remote tribe) to the whole hinduism. We never grew up identifying Shivalinga as 'phallus' and like Hari rightly pointed out , we may choose to disagree with what Doninger has to say. Now coming to article - an article should highlight and describe what 'general evidence' says. And general evidence does not says/interprets Shiva linga as 'phallus' alone, nor do general Hindu population believes in. Rather an exception is made general in here, we need to ask a question - 'How many instances of Shiva linga are seen/viewed as Phallus' and what evidence do we have that Shiva linga was originally derived/viewed as Phallus' ?

So maybe a small section in the article saying, a small sect in Hinduism may have been worshiping Shiva as phallic symbol rather then generalizing it here in the description. //Lingam iconography found at archaeological sites of the Indian subcontinent and southeast Asia includes simple cylinders set inside a yoni, mukhalinga rounded pillars with carvings such as of one or more mukha (faces), and anatomically realistic representations of a phallus such as at Gudimallam.// It assumes that 'all' (even though it does not explicitly says so) ASI iconography reflects Shiva linga as anatomically representations of a phallus - Isn't that an assumption ? (while just one instance can be referenced) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.29.108.147 (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Black stone of Kaaba is Lingam

There is many evidence that pre Islamic Arabian worship the Black stone of Kaaba which is Shiva Lingam created durng King Vikramaditya reign who ruled in Arabia in 100BC. Spartan locke (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spartan locke There is no evidence. BhavishyaPurana was written much later. And the boundaries for Vikramaditya defined in it are well within South Asia ChandlerMinh (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with user:ChandlerMinh

The bhavishya Purana mentions him as Parmara king. But we don't find any mention of Parmara dynasty before 7th century.(I believe this legend about him being a world conquering Parmara was created to ligimatize the Parmara rule ) Bhavishya has History of obvious interpolation like it mentions queen Victoria, ,prophet Muhammad and Jesus. Niger banda (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

why sivalinga is facing north deriction ?

Sivalinga is a holy structure of hindu. As we see while worshiping linga we see it is facing north because it is always facing Mt.kailas . 'which is known as a place where siva lived.

It's cause the flow of energy of the river ganges. Bliss of Knowledge (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the phallic symbols category

"Lingam" being placed under the "phallic symbols" category is factually inaccurate, because lingam in essence do not symbolize phallic iconography as per the sources on the page. Considering "lingam" merely a phallus is only applied in freudian theory, which by itself is disproven and highly critiqued. A specific type of lingam, retas lingam, which illustrates the principal of Urdhva Retas is neither considered to be symbolizing fertility nor sexuality as per the sources although anatomically phallus in shape. On the other hand, all the other articles listed under the phallic symbols category indeed symbolize fertility and variant of sexuality and doesn't have refined meaning around the iconography, like lingam does. Since categorization highly contradicts the symbolism of Lingam as per sources, it's inaccurate to be placed under the phallic category in particular and should be removed due to factual inaccuracy and ambiguity with other articles on the category. —WikiLinuz (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
cc, @Bonadea:

Doniger's psychoanalytic interpretation as "sources"

Psychoanalytic interpretations of Hindu iconography or deities is neither the original transpilation per Sanskrit literature nor she is formally trained in psychoanalysis. It's so she finds the underlying motivations, social conflicts, conceptual paradoxes per Freud's psychoanalytic theories although there doesn't exist such underlying intentions per the original literature. In the encyclopaedia, we rather be more inclined towards scholars who interpret the complexities of iconography or deities per the original literature than psychoanalytic view. Although I'm not sure Doniger interprets the texts in psychoanalytic persecptive in all her scholarships, however, works like On Hinduism, 2013, Siva: The Erotic Ascetic, 2009 or The Hindus: An Alternative History, 1981 does view with psychoanalytic lens. Even if this interpretation is predominantly targeted for academicians, this shouldn't be cited in an encyclopaedia for general audience. —Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 13:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

In the encyclopaedia, we rather be more inclined towards scholars who interpret the complexities of iconography or deities per the original literature than psychoanalytic view. What makes you think that Doniger does not interpret the motifs per original literature? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think that Doniger does not interpret the motifs per original literature? How does a psychoanalytic interpretation is assumed to be the interpretation per original literature? Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 14:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Phallic imagery

A cogent summary in Fleming, Benjamin J. (2009). "The Form and Formlessness of Śiva: The Linga in Indian Art, Mythology, and Pilgrimage". Religion Compass. 3 (3): 448. ISSN 1749-8171. :

None of our earliest examples of lingas and linga-like objects are explicitly, unambiguously, or unequivocally Saivite...

It is possible, for example, that the association of the linga with Siva alchemized over a period of several centuries, perhaps continuing to evolve even into the medieval period. That the linga only gradually rose to the status of Siva’s main emblem is suggested by our ample evidence for anthropomorphic images of Siva...

In the centuries following our earliest evidence for lingas, we see the influence of Saivite literature and theology on its form and iconography. Whereas the iconography of early lingas lacks consistency, our later evidence speaks to efforts at systematization. Innovations and standardization in the iconography of the linga seem to have occurred particularly during the Gupta period (ca. 3rd–6th c. ce). This development appears to have been marked, moreover, by concerted attempts to eliminate any overt resemblance of the linga to the human phallus. Jitendra Nath Banerjea (1935, pp. 36–44; 1956, pp. 445–56), Gritli von Mitterwallner(1984, p. 18, n. 33), and Hans Bakker (1997, pp. 75–76) have pointed to the discomfort of the Brahmanical tradition with realistic, phallic imagery. They propose that the older form may have been modified due to this discomfort; this abstraction, in turn, allowed for the incorporation of the linga into the broader tradition. One might further suggest that elite theologians may have wanted nothing at all to do with linga worship until it was sufficiently abstracted from phallic realism in the Gupta period and could be absorbed into the increasingly pro-Vedic strand of Saivism that was beginning to take form at the time. (Fleming 2007, pp. 140–83)

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Doniger's psychoanalytic interpretation as "sources"

Psychoanalytic interpretations of Hindu iconography or deities is neither the original transpilation per Sanskrit literature nor she is formally trained in psychoanalysis. It's so she finds the underlying motivations, social conflicts, conceptual paradoxes per Freud's psychoanalytic theories although there doesn't exist such underlying intentions per the original literature. In the encyclopaedia, we rather be more inclined towards scholars who interpret the complexities of iconography or deities per the original literature than psychoanalytic view. Although I'm not sure Doniger interprets the texts in psychoanalytic persecptive in all her scholarships, however, works like On Hinduism, 2013, Siva: The Erotic Ascetic, 2009 or The Hindus: An Alternative History, 1981 does view with psychoanalytic lens. Even if this interpretation is predominantly targeted for academicians, this shouldn't be cited in an encyclopaedia for general audience. —Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 13:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

In the encyclopaedia, we rather be more inclined towards scholars who interpret the complexities of iconography or deities per the original literature than psychoanalytic view. What makes you think that Doniger does not interpret the motifs per original literature? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think that Doniger does not interpret the motifs per original literature? How does a psychoanalytic interpretation is assumed to be the interpretation per original literature? Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 14:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Phallic imagery

A cogent summary in Fleming, Benjamin J. (2009). "The Form and Formlessness of Śiva: The Linga in Indian Art, Mythology, and Pilgrimage". Religion Compass. 3 (3): 448. ISSN 1749-8171. :

None of our earliest examples of lingas and linga-like objects are explicitly, unambiguously, or unequivocally Saivite...

It is possible, for example, that the association of the linga with Siva alchemized over a period of several centuries, perhaps continuing to evolve even into the medieval period. That the linga only gradually rose to the status of Siva’s main emblem is suggested by our ample evidence for anthropomorphic images of Siva...

In the centuries following our earliest evidence for lingas, we see the influence of Saivite literature and theology on its form and iconography. Whereas the iconography of early lingas lacks consistency, our later evidence speaks to efforts at systematization. Innovations and standardization in the iconography of the linga seem to have occurred particularly during the Gupta period (ca. 3rd–6th c. ce). This development appears to have been marked, moreover, by concerted attempts to eliminate any overt resemblance of the linga to the human phallus. Jitendra Nath Banerjea (1935, pp. 36–44; 1956, pp. 445–56), Gritli von Mitterwallner(1984, p. 18, n. 33), and Hans Bakker (1997, pp. 75–76) have pointed to the discomfort of the Brahmanical tradition with realistic, phallic imagery. They propose that the older form may have been modified due to this discomfort; this abstraction, in turn, allowed for the incorporation of the linga into the broader tradition. One might further suggest that elite theologians may have wanted nothing at all to do with linga worship until it was sufficiently abstracted from phallic realism in the Gupta period and could be absorbed into the increasingly pro-Vedic strand of Saivism that was beginning to take form at the time. (Fleming 2007, pp. 140–83)

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)