Talk:Shaktism/Archive 1

Changes to Shaktism Page

Hi everyone:

Back in January 2007, someone added a tag, "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it."

After a few small tweaks here and there over the past several months, I finally undertook to try and comprehensively expand and improve the article. At this point, I am still doing a lot of work and the changes –both large and small – are so extensive it would be almost impossible to note each one. Please be patient with me for a bit longer.

As of this writing, my changes and expansions are basically complete from the top down to the "Puranas" intro. Below that, I have not done much except add heads and subheads for further expansion later, and move around some pre-existing text from the article as it was. So please note when editing: Anything below the Puranas intro is still very raw and very much "under construction."

I will endeavor to complete additions and expansions, within the new template, as soon as possible. Please leave any comments and suggestions for improvement!

Thanks! - Devi (Devi bhakta 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Use of Devotee literature

References from Subramuniyaswami, Satguru Sivaya's book relating Ganesha were removed from the article as it was considered devotee literature , thus not WP:RS.[1] Same applies to "Merging with Siva".--Redtigerxyz 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that Subramuniyaswami's work definitely qualifies as "devotee literature"; however, the first and third passages quoted are not "devotional" in nature. At the back of the "Merging with Shiva" text is a massive Glossary for readers unfamiliar with Hindu terminology, philosophies, denominations, etc., offering brief discussions and explanations, etc. -- in fact, both references were drawn from there. Would it help if i clarified the Bibliography to say "Dictionary of Hindu Terms and Concepts", taken from the Subramuniyaswami work? Whatever the devotional nature of the book as a whole, the glossary seems very straightforward. The second passage *has* to be devotional, in the sense that it is illustrating the assertion that "Shaivas take a different view of this than Shaktas" -- and thus follows Subramuniyaswami's (Shaiva) interpretation.

(Devi bhakta 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Quoting primary sources

Quoting primary sources e.g Rigveda directly with verese no, is against the WP policy of WP:RS and WP:V. Generally secondary sources e.g a WP:RS which says the verse is in Rigveda, should be referenced and primary sources can be used as notes. I am not removing primary sources til secondary sources are found.--Redtigerxyz 12:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. (Devi bhakta 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Still references 31 and 33

^Mahabharata, IV.6 and VI.23. ^ Silappadikaram, Canto XXII remain--Redtigerxyz 12:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahavidyas

"Their theology is complex and multilayered; however, a good basic summary explains:

"The Supreme Mother is the Transcendent Absolute; ineffable, immutable. In the act of creation, she subjects herself to time and space. Though space is actually one vast expanse, for [purposes of] our grasp and understanding we demarcate the invisible and infinite space into ten directions [i.e. the eight cardinal directions, plus above and below. ...] Likewise, the one Truth is sensed in its ten different facets; the Divine Mother is adored and approached as the ten cosmic personalities, the Dasa [Ten] Mahavidyas."

Each of the Mahavidyas is said to lead to ultimate wisdom and spiritual liberation; yet the paths to this end will differ according to the goddess chosen as an aspirant's personal deity [ishtadevata]]:

"Each Vidya is distinct and distinguishable from the other. Each is a particular cosmic function and each leads to a special realisation of the One Reality. [...] If an aspirant wants to reach the Divine, circumscribed as he is by his receptivity and capacity, he chooses one particular path; i.e., takes up for adoration one aspect of the Divine. As his pursuit is exclusive, his progress is quick and his approach becomes direct. Ultimately he attains a perfect identification with the Divine."

In fact, it is believed that the Mahavidyas work collectively guiding their individual devotees through spiritual evolvution, and that "one Mahavidya leads [her] sadhaka to another, depending on the need and aspiration of the sadhaka." Each of the Mahavidyas can be understood at various levels. For example, in some Kalikula systems Matangi is conceived as the "outcaste goddess," taking the form of a Chandali – a tribal woman of a jungle-dwelling, meat-eating hunter-gatherer tribe – while in Srikula systems she is more often described as the daughter of the great sage Matanga, and Prime Minister to the Queen (Lalita-Tripurasundari as Rajarajeshwari)."

Removed this info under WP:UNDUE to Mahavidyas discussion. This info is better suited for Mahavidyas article.--Redtigerxyz 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahavidyas and Goddess Lists

Reworked section in accordance with above suggestions. Standardized capitalization of goddess lists for aesthetics and uniformity in keeping with links and brief translation/descriptors. (71.245.64.12 14:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Better lead needed

The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD. The lead should be 2-3 paras, giving an overview of the article ahead.--Redtigerxyz 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I went for a tight, concise "definition" lead of two sentences. Much of the material in the early part of the "Overview" section was formerly in the lead. We could move it back, but I'm not sure it would improve the article. I would rather see either (a) specific suggestions as to a better lead or (b) other opinions as to whether the current one is really insufficient.

Thank you! (Devi bhakta 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Better lead completed (Devi bhakta 11:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Bhuvaneshwari image

Replacing Image:Bhuvaneshwari1.jpg with Image:4-bhuvanesvari2.jpg as the former is a grainy image while the latter is an image of better resolution, with a additonal yantra (Tantric image) and used in Mahavidya article.--Redtigerxyz 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Red Tiger. I have to agree with you. I have been unhappy with the grainy Bhuvaneshwari for several reasons. As you know I tried the Bhudevi, but of course you were correct that the two devi forms are simply too different. As a compromise I took a few minutes and created this composite image along the same lines as your proposed art, except with colour image and yantra displaying colours per dhyana also. (Devi bhakta 11:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Worshiper Photo

Hi Redtiger: Thanks for your latest round of edits. Please remember that, even though I am finally approaching the end of my planned edits, all of these sections are still very much works in progress. More pics will be added as sections fill out; references completed, etc.

Under "Worship in Shaktism" you removed the photo wit comment, "remove img as deity not seen; it can be any other diety." I would just note that (a) I was particularly seeking a "worshiper" pic here, as there will be plenty of deity photos within subsections; (b) the caption clearly notes that this is a Durga Puja crowd, as well as place and date of same, so it is very much "on topic"; (c) as a point of design they are both "facing" the list of Devi's names, visually paying respect to their holiness (while graphically balancing the text); and (d) I kinda like the fact that the photo is in Bangladesh, to kind of visually add to the textual assertions about the wide geographic spread of Shaktism.

I know the shot's not particularly strong (it's not mine either; just a Wikimedia Commons upload), but I liked it and found it charming and good for "mood" I wanted to set for opening of this section. Unless you feel incredibly strongly about it, I'd really like to let it stand. (Devi bhakta 20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Is Santoshi a principal diety????

removed:

#Santoshi Mata: The Goddess of Contentment, a "recent" goddess form, made famous in the 1975 film, "Jai Santoshi Ma"

Again she is a "recent" goddess, with no Puranic evidence. Emerging after 1975. Thus not part of the ancient cult of Shaktism.

--Redtigerxyz 14:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted this for several reasons: (a) the list is based on Kinsley and Hawley as footnoted, not on subjective personal choice; (b) this article is about Shaktism -- from earliest times to the present; *not* only about "the ancient cult of Shaktism" -- ancient Shaktism is fully covered earlier in article, and Santoshi is clearly indicated as a recent development (and will be further developed as article nears completion -- I need to keep stressing that this article is still a work in progress!); (c) like it or not, the Santoshi cult is hugely popular and influential in North India; her image is everywhere, and even academics have taken note of the phenomenon"; (d) with so much of the article (necessarily ) focusing on south and east of India, I think the Santoshi discussion adds balance. My 2 cents anyway. - DB(71.245.64.12 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Yakshini pic

A word on the choice and placement of the photo of a Shunga-period yakshini, bridging the "Upanishad" and "Epic" sections of the article:

In the "Upanishad", we discuss the Devi's taking the form of a yakshini in appearing to the Vedic trinity. In the "Epic" section, the Shunga Empire is specifically named as a culture feeding the nascent Shakta impulses appearing in the Epics. So the photo applies to and bridges the two sections.

Aesthetically, the sculpture provides a visual that breaks up a long stretch of unrelieved text. As I've placed it, it not only makes sense thematically as stated above, but also as a nice and relevant illustration falling almost exactly halfway between the Lajja Gauri and the Mahishasura Mardini.

Finally, it nicely balances the list to the left, and relieves the unbalanced white space that had existed there before. - DB (71.245.64.12 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Devipuram

The temple is given WP:UNDUE imp. Thus i request DB to remove one of the 2 images from the article. Image:Devi homam.jpg is looking a little wierd due to big light. --Redtigerxyz 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fair criticism. There are not many who are willing to publicise these rituals. In any event I have diversified the pics. (Devi bhakta 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Page nos needed for references

for WP:V. --Redtigerxyz 12:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Someday! Someday! ;-) (Devi bhakta 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Done. (Devi bhakta 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Too many Durga images

Thus replacing one with Kali's.

Also the image now in the lead is not fit for the lead as one side is darker compared to rest of the pic.--Redtigerxyz 14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about bad color balance on this photo. So I unframed and re-shot the print this morning outdoors in natural sunlight -- then blued it a bit to offset yellowing. I think it's much better now -- and it is just an awesome poster. As I write this I dunno where I will put it, though. I like the Tridevi image a lot -- it's very clean at the top of the article, but this old Durga Puja image has so much in it!!! Thanks for input! - DB(71.245.64.12 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

As for "too many Durgas," I dunno. I agree the Kali shot should be in there -- but I don't like her there -- she is facing away from the devotees and the text. And I like having the pandal shot there. Maybe the faded-out saffron "Mahishasura Mardini" -- which is overused on other Devi-related pages anyway, could be replaced with the 1925-35 version I uploaded this morning. - DB (71.245.64.12 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

The old Durga puja and the Pandal image give UNDUE weight to the Bengali view of Durga. I request DB to decide what to retain. I would prefer "the Pandal image" as featured pic and modern celebration of the festival. Due "The old Durga puja" though good is not of high resolution. The "Mahishasura Mardini" image is older than the two images giving another imagery of the goddess.--Redtigerxyz 17:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Red Tiger: I have restored Pandal image as you suggested.(71.245.64.12 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Peer review

Devi has done a brilliant work on this article. I believe that very soon it could meet the featured article criteria. Therefore, I'm displaying a peer review here, per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Following the guidances, you can improve this article further.

• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid capitalizing words in section headings unless they are proper nouns or the first word of the heading.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • are considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your very kind words and advice. I have gone through the piece and begun to take these items into account. Best regards ... (Devi bhakta 07:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Tripura Sundari

I just wanted to draw your attention to Tripura Sundari temple. The state of Tripura is named after her. http://southtripura.gov.in/Data/matabaridetails.htm. Your article is very good. Unfortunately most of the Sri Vidya Upasakas at least in Tamil Nadu do not consider themselves Sakthas.--Sankarrukku 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sankarrukku ... Important point re Tamil Srividya upasakas, will add referenced language to that effect:

Many Samaya sadhaks (in Tamil Nadu, for example) explicitly deny being Shakta and/or Tantric, though Brooks argues that their practices are technically both, "even if Samayins would reject this appellation."[111]

(Devi bhakta 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

Getting a bit long

The article seems to be getting a bit intimidatingly long. It's currently at just over 86 KB, about 69 KB of which is readable prose (where 32 KB is the recommended limit,) so you might want to reduce it per. Wikipedia:Article size. The best way to do this is probably by taking some of the longer sections and either making them into their own article or merging them into some other article, and then just have a summary here that refers to the main article. There's no rush to do this, however it is something to keep in mind while editing. Thanks. -- HiEv 13:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks HiEv ... I share your concern re: length. Please keep in mind that I am still finishing last few sections of article, then will re-read from top and edit for length and concision also. I guess I would also appreciate advice from others as to whether this should be cut by half (per "32 KB limit") you mention, or whether this is a large and complex (and linked) enough topic to merit its length. Would slashing the article's size by half actually improve the piece? (Devi bhakta 16:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, I just swept the article and reduced the size to about 73 KB (dunno how to determine how much is "readable text" but I suppose that is an even more dramatic reduction as non-text elements remain stable. It may shrink even further as I polish the remaining three "unfinished" sections -- i.e. "Hindu Identity and Popular Devotion" (which should shrink a bit), "Major Festivals" (which will probably grow) and "Shakti Temples" -- which I may not even preserve as a separate section; a mere mention of some major places in the "Worship" intro may be more appropriate, the rest being links elsewhere. Not sure yet. Thanks again for your input ... (Devi bhakta 07:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Will remove some parts to reduce length and paste them here.--Redtigerxyz 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed:

"In the first age of the gods, existence was born from non-existence. The quarters of the sky were born from she who crouched with legs spread. The earth was born from she who crouched with legs spread, and from the earth the quarters of the sky were born."

I have to disagree with this one. This edit would (a) remove the first explicit Vedic reference to Devi as Creator, (b) remove the most important Vedic passage forging the Indus Valley ==> Vedic Age connection proposed by Bhattacharyya, and (c) remove the context for the inclusion of the Lajja Gauri/ Aditi illustration. While I understand that certain persons of delicate sensibilities might find this passage uncomfortably graphic or explicit (the only real justification for such an edit), the fact remains it *is* Rig Veda sruti and not some rogue interpretation. In fact, I think it is not too great a leap to say that this edit – in the name of removing 2 1/2 lines of text – would remove the vital, basic philosophical bedrock of Shaktism in the very first section of the "Philosophical Development." Hardly an auspicious beginning! At least that's my two cents ...

The rest of your edits, by the way, look good. This would be my only objection. - DB (71.245.64.12 03:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

"Aditi is what shall been born , father, mother" expresses the Creator connection.--Redtigerxyz 12:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed: and also that the term "Tantra" is itself extremely fluid:

"Tantra is a highly variable and shifting category, whose meaning may differ depending on the particular historical moment, cultural milieu, and political context. If tantra in the Sanskrit texts simply means a particular treatise that "spreads knowledge and saves," tantra in the popular imagination means something quite different indeed – a frightening, dangerous path that leads to other-worldly power and control over the occult forces on the dark side of reality."

UNDUE to Tantra.--Redtigerxyz 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess this is a justifiable edit. I included it only because Wikipedia's "proper" article on Tantra is so utterly unhelpful. (Devi bhakta 14:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Suggestion to remove Kena upanishad story as UNDue to relatively unknown story. When famous folklore of Durga is not discussed(not needed too), this should not be too.--Redtigerxyz 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. The excerpt cited is the central, pivotal moment in the Kena Upanishad -- one of the oldest and most venerable of the ancient Upanisads. To characterize the great Kena as a "relatively unknown story" is nothing short of absurd.

As for "famous folklore of Durga". I believe you are referring to one paragraph in the Devi Mahatmya section that was removed before you ever wrote this comment. (Devi bhakta 14:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

I criticize the citation of Bhattacharya on the depiction of Shaktism responsible for destroying secretarianism of mainstream Hinduism. Before commenting on the Tantric tradition one should be aware of the fact that this very sect of Hinduism is still kept highly secret. In considering texts it is always advicable to refer those 64 tantras that were mentioned by Adi Sankarachariya because other texts may be polluted from the Vajrajana Tantra, which has nothing to do with Hindu mainstream thought but a degraded Buddhist practice. The real interpretation of 5 Ms and other text must be sought to different lineages of Gurus and I didn't find citation of a single lineage in the article. Tantra was developed because in Kali Yuga the Yama and Niyama of Yoga was difficult and nearly impossible to practice. This Yama and Niyama under Yoga and Samkhya restricts sexual desire, anger, greed, attachment, pride, jealousy (6 ripu) completely and Tantra was developed because man cannot at once renunce all the six ripus in Kali Yuga as his powers are limited compared to other Yugas. Tantra prescribes controlled fulfillment of desire and renunciation of ripus step by step to achieve the perfect state of Yama, Niyama and renunciation. In this process Kama (Sexual desire) is given up by removing the orgasm and by and by the whole Kama is destroyed. Similarly greed and other ripus are removed. In the Tantric tradition a student first begins his lesson being in the animal state (pashu)in this state he removes last traces of Sexual desire (charectaristic of animal nature) in himself through controlled sex. Then he starts his lessons in Rajas state to remove other ripus and finally achieves perfect Satvic state of perfection. So Tantra is best be called a controlled fullfillment of desires leading to desireless state. And the erotic and sexual depiction of the development of the philosophy of tantra (based on Freudian Psychoanalysis, which itself emphesises excessively on erotic nature of man) is unfortunate and insults the Tradition of India. If psychoanalysis is needed Samkhya is to be used for studing Indian Philosophy.

Krishna and Radha

I notice that, in addition to the Aditi birth-giving passage being expunged, we've also had Radha changed from "Krishna's lover" to "Krishna's consort" ...

I guess I'd ask for some input on this. There is no doubt that Krishna and Radha are a Cosmic Pairing – but Radha is a married woman and her relationship with Krishna is, in worldly terms at least, illicit. I thus chose the term lover rather than consort as the more accurate term because of this unusual arrangement.

I agree, as with the Aditi case, that the term "consort" is less shocking to the sensibilities than the blunter term "lover," but – again as with Aditi – is being delicate more important than being accurate?

Would welcome any input, and will let "Consort" edit stand for now ... DB (71.245.64.12 04:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Shift sections

Reasons:

• Worship above in the article as Discusses srikula and kalikula - the terms are repeated many times in the article

This may be a good move, esp. in light of shifting deities sections upward. I will review and see. There is an internal flow to these sections as I wrote them, and wholesale cut n pastes of this sort often leave all kinds of leaks and exposed wiring. There is probably a lot of patchwork to be done. It might be best to finish the article first, and then start shifting around. It's incredibly difficult to finish the outstanding sections when the finished material gets re-scrambled every night! :-) (Devi bhakta 14:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

• then origins and other history then expansion west and then misconceptions. smoother flow.--Redtigerxyz 11:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, my perception is the opposite. It trips up the flow as I read it. But again, I cannot tell because the revision is still incomplete. These heavy-handed shifts make it very difficult to work. It turns the flow of the narrative into a revolving target. (Devi bhakta 14:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Kalikula: Family of Kali

Kalikula: Family of Kali gives only the Bengali side of the cult.--Redtigerxyz 12:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to research and augment as you feel necessary. (Devi bhakta 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

The term Kali Kula is a categorization by some writers. But in actual practice it is not true anymore. I had posted about Lalita Tripurasundari temple. Here Lalita Tripurasundari is Shodasi, a Maha Vidya considered by the local people to be a form of Kali. This is the temple where daily animal sacrifices are done at the government's cost. The Kakaradhi Kali Sahasranamam from Rudra Yamala seems to have been written by a south Indian who calls her Kaveri Thira Vasini. This is obviously a Sri Vidya text. May be we could avoid this classification. Thanks.--Sankarrukku 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to suggest alternative classification. I would only wonder aloud whether this is the proper forum for such reclassifications. An academic, for example, could publish a scholarly piece on the problems of the traditional classifications, but it seems that an encyclopedia is rather more constrained to present the state of knowledge on the topic as it is, rather than as it perhaps should be. It also seems to me (and I am certainly not the first to mention it!) that whatever someone categorically states about Hinduism, someone else can cite a case in which the opposite is true. It fact, a lot of the commentary on this discussion page seems to fall into that subjective category. (Devi bhakta 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Shakti Temples

UNDUE to Animal Sacrifice practice.--Redtigerxyz 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That portion of article was here long before I arrived. As a courtesy, I've not erased it because I think it may have a place, but I do not know where yet.

As noted ad nauseum above and elsewhere, I have not even tried to edit or do anything with that section yet. I would encourage you to do so if you feel strongly about it. (Devi bhakta 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Adhikara to perform Yagnas

Some of the sampradhayas of Sakthism allow the women to perform Yagnas. The women are also allowed to become Bhairavis. The Tantrik guru of Sri Ramakrishna was Bhairavi Brahmani who was a Vaishnavite Bhairavi. As this right is denied by the traditional Hindu religion including Sri Vidya, a couple of sentences would be nice. Thanks. --Sankarrukku 14:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sankarrukku ... This is interesting info and could be worked into article if you can provide references and citations. I would note, however, that I am aware of several Srividya sampradayas (including my own) in which women as well as men freely perform yagnas and so on. So the right is not denied across the board by Srividya -- as I tried to note in the article itself Srividya itself is made up of two opposing streams, only one of which practices the orthodox, brahaminical social restrictions. (Devi bhakta 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Sakthism practiced in India today

This article does not seem to take into account the Sakthism which is widely prevalent in Bengal, Assam and parts of Maharashtra. Chandi, Durga and Kali are the the main deities. There is no mention of Chandi in in this article. Only one school is covered . The major school of practicing Sakthas who consider the supreme deity to be Maha Kali. Maha Lakshmi, and Maha Saraswathi are not mentioned. Devi Bagvatha is basically followed by South Indians where Sakthism is almost extinct. Just an observation.

Thanks,

--Sankarrukku 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sankarrukku: As noted at the top of the page, the article is very much under construction and incomplete. As of this writing, the article is finished only through the Samkhya and Vedanta section. The section on Shaktism as practiced in India today has barely begun. There is a section heading reserved for the Kalikula Shaktas of Bengal, Assam and Maharastra, and it will be completed in due course (or you are, of course, welcome to begin working on it now -- in fact I will drop a few of your comments in right now as a starter. Just for the record, though -- as a member of a southern parampara, I can assure you Shaktism is most certainly not "almost extinct" there; it is thriving and growing. (Devi bhakta 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Thank you Devi bhakta. I am right now trying to revise the article on Devī Māhātmya. So I may not be able to contribute here. What I wanted was some coverage for the Devī Māhātmya and Bhakthi tradition of Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir, Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra.

--Sankarrukku 11:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article gives covers only South India and Bengal. Even in a list of temples, important Saktha temples like Ambaji temple in Gujarat, Kolhapur Mahalakshmi ( who is mentioned in many of the old Sanskrit studis), Bramhramba in Sri Sailam (one of the oldest Saktha and Buddist centres) are not mentioned. The pure saktha temples of Himachal Pradesh like Vajreswari, Jwalamukhi do not find a place. I could go on. It may be better not to mention any temple.The animal sacrifices at (Government expense) at the Tripura Sundari temple is not mentioned. Animal Sacrifice is offered to Lalita also.--Sankarrukku 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Festivals

REmoved:

• Guru Poornima: Celebrated on the full-moon day in the Hindu month of Ashada, corresponding to end of June or early July. On this day, Shaktas worship their gurus as the Devi.

REason:

• every hindu worshipps their guru not specific to shakta
• ref site not RS

--Redtigerxyz 11:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Guru Purnima is very important to Shaktas. Divali and Navratri are not "exclusive" to Shaktism either, but they are there because few Shaktas would miss them. Same with Guru Purnima. (Devi bhakta 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Is Vasant Navaratri same as Chaitra Navaratri?? If no Chaitra Navaratri should also be included else just the name.--Redtigerxyz 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not really sure. (Devi bhakta 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Vasanta Navaratri is the same as Chitra Navaratri. Vasanta is the name of the season. Chaitra the name of the lunar month.--Sankarrukku 01:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Vasanta Navaratri is celebrated by all temples in North India. --Sankarrukku 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnoting caption?

I removed the request for citation in caption under Bharat Mata, because (a) footnoting captions is crazy-making; and (b) Shaktism's "pervasive influence" is theme of entire section and is exhaustively footnoted already. (Devi bhakta 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Modern developments

association of female gurus with Shaktism can be considered WP:OR.--Redtigerxyz 11:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, general "association of female gurus with Shaktism" is not the assertion. I specifically cite a scholar's research associating three such gurus (I named the two who had links on Wikipedia, and skipped the third, Karunamayi, I believe) with the Female Principle as espoused in Shaktism. None of this is "original research," unfortunately, as pleasant as my ego might find such a conceit. You are free to disagree and/or cite opposing research; but simply asserting "original research" in the face of verifiable footnotes is not sufficient. (Devi bhakta 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Even the conclusion that New Seven Wonders of the World shortlisting was due to it being a Shakta temple is OR.

"Shakta-oriented temples and pilgrimage sites draw ever-growing crowds and recognition. For example, in 2004 the monumental Meenakshi Amman Temple was shortlisted in the '"New Seven Wonders of the World' competition.[80]"

--Redtigerxyz 11:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, not the article's "conclusion." I do not say (nor do I believe) that Meenakshi Temple made the Seven Wonders list "due to it being a Shakta temple." I simply note the fact that it *is* a Shakta temple (or at least it is considered one by Shaktas; Shaivas consider it a Shiva temple), and that it *was* shortlisted. Both facts are true, and both are relevant to the article's factual statement that some Shakta places are enjoying greater visibility and popularity.(Devi bhakta 14:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Even Bharat Mata seems to be OR. Thus i press for the removal of this text.--Redtigerxyz 11:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted in several other sections on several other occasions (and as labeled on the subsection itself), this section remains under construction. I have not finished writing the section, nor have I inserted all references. Once this is done, and if you still disagree with the conclusions of the cited works, you are of course welcome to put forward opposing research. Thanks as always for your input.(Devi bhakta 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

This article is about the cult "Shaktism" not about worship of Hindu goddesses. The references given by DB say that they are associated with Hindu goddesses but not with cult Shaktism. Thus associating them with Shaktism can be considered WP:OR.--Redtigerxyz 11:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If Bhattacharyya, Dikshitar, Woodroffe, et al., believe there is a direct association with Shaktism (and all of them do address Bharat Mata as a manifestation of Shaktism), and Red Tiger believes they are incorrect, then Red Tiger may cite opposing sources in the article. (Devi bhakta 14:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)):

The core policy of Wikipedia, NPOV is meant to provide a framework whereby editors with diverse, often conflicting, even opposing points of view can collaborate on the creation of an encyclopedia. It does so through the principle that while it is often hard for people to agree as to what is the truth, it is much easier for people to agree as to what they and others believe to be the truth. Therefore, Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criteria for inclusion. Instead, it aims to account for different, notable views of the truth.

DB REFERENCED FROM Mother India and Her Militant Matriots NOT FROM Bhattacharyya, Dikshitar, Woodroffe. iF THOSE REF ARE PROVIDED I HAVE NO OBJ TO BHARAT MATA.--Redtigerxyz 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Red Tiger: Bhattacharyya info added re: Bharat Mata from inception to post-Independence. Bhattacharyya's analysis ends in 1974, and the essay (from Hawley's Devi: Goddesses of India) takes analysis through 80s and 90s. Dikshitar and Woodroffe both wrote in first half of 20th century only. Hawley is best source on post-70s developments in this regard and is cited accordingly. (Devi bhakta 14:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

I dont see the Hawley citation. The popular influence of Shaktism helped propel Bharat Mata to her place as a symbol of the nation of India. How Shaktism propelled should be referenced.--Redtigerxyz 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting too crowded. See new section: "Female Saints, Bharat Mata, and Shaktism" below.

fOR GURUS IT IS The Graceful Guru: Hindu Female Gurus in India and the United States NOT Bhattacharyya, Dikshitar, Woodroffe.--Redtigerxyz 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bhattacharyya gives background (cited) on spread of Shakta influence into mainstream Hinduism and popular saints. Again, his analysis ends at 1974 and thus excludes the saints whose popularity emerged after that date. Pechilis takes the "popular saint" analysis directly into the realm of women saints and gurus, and then offers the stated division into those displaying "feminine"/Shaktic vs. patriarchal/non-Shakta approaches to popular devotion.

My meaning in mentioning Bhattacharyya, Dikshitar and Woodroffe is that they have all written on the influence of Shakta teheology on popular Hinduism and on the Independence movement, and the arisal of Bharat Mata out of that background. The Bhattacharyya cites suffice to reference that in the article. It is truly not a terribly original idea -- the connection has been known for years. (Devi bhakta 14:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Dear friend DB: Give me a direct citation saying the female saints discussed in the article are viewed as a manifestation of Shaktism. They are not even Shakta practioners. I want to know the names of "popular saint" Bhattacharya discusses and are they Shakta practioners or not. I would know to know if Pechilis explicitly uses the term Shaktism in connections to the gurus. --Redtigerxyz 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting too crowded. See new section: "Female Saints, Bharat Mata, and Shaktism" below.

Merge "Tantras" and "Tantra and Shaktism"

As both talk Tantric association with Shaktism.--Redtigerxyz 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is surprisingly difficult to expand and resequence an article when its parts are moved about in mid-composition. I do appreciate your interest in anticipating what possible future edits may be useful, and I thank you for rearranging things here for now instead on it the article proper. But until there is a final, semi-stable layout to review it seems quite premature. But that's just my view. (Devi bhakta 13:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Now that the article in out of the under construction phase , I again press for the merger of the sections. I use WP:BOLD and merge the sections. --Redtigerxyz 13:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft:

Sri Amritananda Natha Saraswathi, a modern Shakta adept and guru, performing the Navavarana Puja, a central ritual in Srividya Tantric Shaktism, at the Sahasrakshi Meru Temple at Devipuram, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Tantra and Shaktism

Another widely misunderstood aspect of Shaktism is its close association with Tantra – an ambiguous, loaded concept that suggests everything from orthodox temple worship in the south of India, to black magic and occult practices in North India, to ritualized sex in the West. It is important to note that not all forms of Shaktism are Tantric in nature, just as not all forms of Tantra are Shaktic in nature.

When the term "Tantra" is used in relation to authentic Hindu Shaktism, it most often refers to a class of ritual manuals, and – more broadly – to an esoteric methodology of Goddess-focused spiritual discipline (sadhana) involving mantra, yantra, nyasa, mudra and certain elements of traditional kundalini yoga, all practiced under the guidance of a qualified guru after due initiation (diksha) and oral instruction to supplement various written sources.

In most schools of Shaktism, the Tantras – a large genre of ritual manuals dating from as early as the 7th century CE and as late as the 19th century – are central scriptures. The Tantras "devised two main margas (paths of sadhana) to reach the same goal":

• Vamachara lineages generally favor external worship (puja, murtis, etc.) and permit use of the panchamakara at various levels in certain controlled circumstances; and

• Dakshinachara lineages generally prefer internal worship (meditative techniques, etc.) and essentially disapprove of the panchamakara under any circumstances.

The proper path is generally determined by the guru based upon a given devotee's personal nature – i.e., as a tamasic pasu (i.e., an ordinary person not particularly given to spiritual pursuits, and mainly preoccupied with worldly matters); a rajasic vira (an active and vigorous spiritual seeker, qualified to "heroically" engage more intensive forms of sadhana); or a sattvic divya (a holy-natured person, having already achieved an extremely high level of spiritual maturity) – and various other factors.

Tantric Shaktism received an high-profile boost when the legendary sage Adi Shankara, c. 800 CE, composed his powerful (and still vastly popular) ode to the goddess known as Saundaryalahari ("Waves of Beauty"). Shankara, while "not a Shakta in the sectarian sense, [...] had a soft corner for Shakta religion, perhaps due to its popularity among the masses."Another important Shakta text traditionally attributed to Shankara is the hypnotically exquisite Mahishasura Mardini Stotra, a 21-verse hymn derived from the Devi Mahatmya.

By the thirteenth century, "the Tantras had assimilated a very large number of cults of various origins – regional, tribal and sectarian – [and] had assumed a completely Shakta character." From the fourteenth century onward, "the Shakta-Tantric cults had [...] become woven into the texture of all the religious practices current in India," their spirit and substance infusing regional and sectarian vernacular as well as Sanskritic literature.

In the social sphere, the Tantra is "free from all sorts of caste and patriarchal prejudices. [...] All women are regarded as manifestations of Shakti, and hence they are the object of respect and devotion. Whoever offends them incurs the wrath of the great goddess. Every [male aspirant] has to realize the latent Female Principle within himself, and only by [thus] 'becoming female' is he entitled to worship the Supreme Being"

Sri Chaitanyananda Natha Saraswathi (at far right) of the Sri Rajarajeshwari Peetam, a Shakta temple in Rush, N.Y., leads devotees in performing the Tantric ritual known as Kamakhhya Puja, 2007.

In sum, the complex social and historical interrelations of Tantric and non-Tantric elements in Shaktism (and Hinduism in general) are an extremely fraught and nuanced topic of discussion. However, as a general rule:

"Ideas and practices that collectively characterize Tantrism pervade classical Hinduism. [...] It would be an error to consider Tantrism apart from its complex interrelations with non-Tantric traditions. Literary history demonstrates that Vedic-oriented brahmins have been involved in Shakta Tantrism from its incipient stages of development, that is, from at least the sixth century. While Shakta Tantrism may have originated in [ancient, indigenous] goddess cults, any attempt to distance Shakta Tantrism from the Sanskritic Hindu traditions [...] will lead us astray."

Removed "Under Construction" Sign

Just to inform anyone who may know and/or care, I have removed the "under construction" sign from the article. The article still needs polishing and a few good rounds of line-editing, and I will probably be tweaking it for weeks to come ... but I have pretty much finished what I set out to do in expanding and completing it. (Devi bhakta 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Congratulations on an excellent article. DB. The article seems to favor the south Indian Sri Vidya point of view and gives an impression that south India is a stronghold of Sakthism. As a person who has stayed in the region for decades, I only wish it were true. Great article DB. Thanks.--Sankarrukku 02:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sankarrukku. Thanks for your kind words of support. I did try to avoid regional and sectarian bias -- and last night went thru article again, and tightened pretty severely. Would appreciate any specific concerns or suggestions. Thanks again! (Devi bhakta 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Tantra vs. Tantras: Article Structure

Redtigerxyz wrote: "Now that the article in out of the under construction phase , I again press for the merger of the sections. I use WP:BOLD and merge the sections."

With all due respect, I have restored the original arrangement, and will offer a structural explanation here as to why – for anyone who may be interested, or who may be able to offer constructive alternative viewpoints:

Tantra

The article begins with a definition and brief overview of Shaktism, covering the most basic ideas for the casual reader. Then, before reaching into specifics of deities, methods of worship, etc., the article immediately moves to address the two main points of misunderstanding regarding Shaktism -- namely the role of Shiva, and the role of Tantra.

That is why the section begins, "Another widely misunderstood aspect of Shaktism is its close association with Tantra ..." – an intro that no longer made sense in Redtigerxyz's rearrangement. The section goes on to clarify that Tantra in Shaktism is not about black magic or sex, but is rather a practical methodology of spiritual technique. Then it briefly addresses (a) the more liberal socio-spiritual heirarchy implied by Tantra; (b) the complex reality of the infamous 5Ms, and (c) authentic Tantra's intricate relationship with Vedic Hinduism.

Thus the casual reader, reading only the Introduction and Overview, walks away with a sound understanding of Shaktism's essence, and a useful clarification regarding the two most common misunderstandings.

Tantras

There is a difference between "Tantra" and "Tantras" – as indicated, for example, by the fact that Wikipedia offers two separate articles on the two concepts. "Tantras" refers to the literary genre that produced the so-called Tantric philosophy.

That is why the section begins, "In most schools of Shaktism, the Tantras – a large genre of ritual manuals dating from as early as the 7th century CE and as late as the 19th century – are central scriptures."

It is a more esoteric and technical discussion, and so I place it chronologically within the "Philosophical Development" section of the article (in which the Shakta literature is systematically discussed), for those interested in delving deeper into the concepts introduced in the Overview. After introducing a few "Tantra 101" concepts that dictate the content of these manuals, I move on the Adi Shankara's introduction of Tantric ideas into the Advaita Vedanta school, then to the mutual exchange of ideas between Tantra and the popular religion of the masses.

This provides a logical, fluid segue into the next section, on the "Rise of Popular Shaktism."

---

By contrast, the proposed reorganization – "bold" though it may be – makes two fatal errors: (1) It buries the important "Tantra" issue far too deeply in the article, where the casual reader is quite unlikely to ever find it, and thus "undoes" an important function of this article, at least as I see it; and (2) By indiscriminately mixing the concept of "Tantra" with the genre of "Tantras," it displays precisely the confusion that this article is attempting to dispel. For what it's worth, however, I did take Redtiger's suggestion of a title change for the top section. Thank you.

Hope that helps? (Devi bhakta 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Shakti Temples List Deleted?

Redtigerxyz deleted this article's list of "Shakti Temples" for the stated reason that the "List [is] available in Peethas article." The problem is that, other than the special case of Kamakhya (the premiere Tantric Devi temple), none of the temples in the list Redtigerxyz deleted appear in the Shakti Peethas article. In fact, the list was specifically intended to supplement the linked article.

Redtigerxyz also mentions that the article's "list gives UNDUE to some temples ignoring others." Given that there are literally thousands of Shakti temples, of which quite a small number are particularly famous and/or notable; and also given that the deleted list was duly footnoted to a legitimate source, it appears that this is another case of an editor placing his personal views and prejudices above the larger interest of the article as a whole.

A further purpose of the deleted list was to link the "Shaktism" article to some of the major Shakti temple articles available on Wikipedia. Today my plan was to add brief descriptions of the temples in the list, describing what (beyond the self-explanatory geographic spread) makes each particulalar temple interesting and noteworthy. I am not going to do that now, frankly because it is frustrating to spend that kind of time and energy when arbitrary and unresearched deletions follow literally within hours – with not even enough time to gather one's thoughts and duly consider proper next steps.

Overall I am a patient person; I try to be diplomatic, and in any event I considered my contributions to this article a bit of Navratri sadhana. But I am not going to waste further time improving the "Temples" section until some decision has been taken regarding the inclusion of this list. As it stands now, I do not think the "Temples" category even merits a separate section, because all that's left is an expert comment that Shakta Peetha lists are unreliable – accompanied by a link to just such a list ... and nothing more? It is just too silly. (Devi bhakta 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Please assume good faith. I object to "this is another case of an editor placing his personal views and prejudices above the larger interest of the article as a whole".--Redtigerxyz 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Chottanikkara Temple in Kerala;
• Dakshineswar Kali Temple in West Bengal;
• Devipuram in Andhra Pradesh; Image (I dont know how 1985 established temple became major Shakta temple; it may be famous in Andhra but is it as famous as Kamakhya Temple, Kamakshi Amman Temple , Kalighat temple or Vaishno Devi)
• Kamakhya Temple in Assam; In Festivals
• Kamakshi Amman Temple in Tamil Nadu
• Meenakshi Amman Temple in Tamil Nadu; The Image
• Mookambika Temple in Karnataka; and
• Vaishno Devi Temple in Jammu; Is mentioned in Modern developments

--Redtigerxyz 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Again every state in India will have major Shakta as Chottanikkara Temple in Kerala;Dakshineswar Kali Temple in West Bengal, Kamakshi Amman Temple in Tamil Nadu,Mookambika Temple in Karnataka. --Redtigerxyz 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Red Tiger:

Yes, I agree that the list is not perfect. It needs some refinement; I would consider it a work in progress. I will try to do my part, and I hope various Wikipedia users will also help.

I don't think the fact that Meenakshi Temple is used as the section illustration means that it cannot be mentioned in the text. It is one of the most famous temples in India, of any denomination. The fact that Kamakhya and Vaishno Devi are mentioned in passing elsewhere also should not disqualify them from being listed for what they are: famous Devi temples. Devipuram is new and not yet widely famous but it is growing fast, and its design and approach are very unique – it arguably deserves some passing note (though as author of the Devipuram entry, I am maybe a bit biased ;-) ...)

Finally, I apologize if my comments offended you. You were keeping me very busy with all sorts of things in quick succession (all of which I believe I have been addressed here and below at this point), and I do admit to becoming a bit exasperated (I write about holy people, but I certainly do not claim to be one, by nature or temperament ;-) ). I do appreciate your interest in what I have tried to do here. Thank you.

(Devi bhakta 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

To be unbiased a article called "list of Shakti temples can be created". Another option to create a category and link to it.--Redtigerxyz 07:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Female Saints, Bharat Mata and Shaktism

This is for Red Tiger, based on various objections s/he raised above. I hope it will finally put all of this business about Female Saints, Bharat Mother and Shaktism to bed. Here are Red Tiger's various comments and my responses:

• I would know to know if Pechilis explicitly uses the term Shaktism in connections to the gurus. --Redtigerxyz 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she does, repeatedly.

• Give me a direct citation saying the female saints discussed in the article are viewed as a manifestation of Shaktism.--Redtigerxyz 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your trust in my work is very touching :-D But since you asked so nicely, here is a "direct citation" for your edification:

"There is no set religious institution or organization in Shaktism, and women mystics become valued for their states of ecstasy, their trance states, and their close relationship with a guru or other religious figure. Women gurus are often charismatic figures, who tend to gather relatives and other friends around them as devoted followers. In Shaktism, women are understood more often than men to be incarnations of the goddess [and] bhakti or devotional mysticism, often mixed with tantric and folk elements, seems the most prominent form of mysticism. Bhakti is a feminine mode, and the female gurus Ammachi, Anandamayi Ma, and Mother Meera [are associated] with this mode; in contrast, the female gurus Nirmala Devi and Gurumayi [are] explicitly anti-feminist leaders of patriarchal traditions that promote sexist teachings. [An even] more relevant concept for understanding what is feminine about female gurus is Shakti, a classical term in Hinduism explicitly associated with the feminine. In Shakta circles, all women are addressed as Maa or Devi or Vira [and] all of the female gurus are associated with the Goddess through the concept of Shakti, for they, like the Goddess, are paramount embodiments of shakti. Further, many of the female gurus are understood to embody the essence of specific goddesses, either through their self-interpretation or the interpretation of their followers. For example, Meera Ma is identified with Adiparashakti; Karunamayi Ma is identified with Saraswati, Bala Tripurasundari, Lalita and Lakshmi; [and] Ammachi is identified with Devi."

Citation: Pechilis, pp. 6-9, 123-25. She also cites the work of Madhu Khanna, Elizabeth Puttick, and June McDaniel in support of these assertions. Any further questions?

DEar friend DB: Your hard work is appreciated. If you quoted this before, there would not have been the debate.--Redtigerxyz 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• They are not even Shakta practioners. --Redtigerxyz 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The cited sources disagree.

• I want to know the names of "popular saint" Bhattacharya discusses and are they Shakta practioners or not. --Redtigerxyz 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC) ***

You place the term "popular saint" in quotes; however, that phrase is not used in any portion of the article that I can find. In any event, the individuals discussed by Bhattacharyya are two fellows by the name of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. Perhaps you've heard of them? ;-) According to Bhattacharyya (as cited), yeah, they lean Shakta. :-)

Remember you used it in "Modern Developments" discussion. Look above :). And I asked the question because expected the answer to be Shaktas like Ramakrishna and Vivekananda and not the female gurus Ammachi, Anandamayi Ma, and Mother Meera. So the Popular saints of Bhattacharya are different from Pechilis' Popular saints. --Redtigerxyz 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned above, the books cover different time periods. They are a generation apart. (Devi bhakta 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

• "The popular influence of Shaktism helped propel Bharat Mata to her place as a symbol of the nation of India." How Shaktism propelled should be referenced. --Redtigerxyz 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This material is already in the article:

Popular influence of Shaktism = From this point onward, "Shaktism was evolving as a liberal, universal religion" that touched nearly every aspect of Indian life. The evolution "achieved a completeness" in the great Shakta saint Ramakrishna (1836-1886), "who held from his Shakta experience that the aim of all religions was the same [...]"

This was never in question. DB misunderstood me. The popular influence of Shaktism helped propel Bharat Mata was in question.--Redtigerxyz 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How Shaktism propeled Bharat Mata = Ramakrishna's chief disciple Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) "inherited from Ramakrishna the Shakta-oriented, synthetic outlook which insisted on the cult of Shakti in the programme of national regeneration," and in fact "regarded the country as the living image of the Divine Mother" – an image that resonated throughout India's struggle for independence.

Though I understand you disapprove of the expert conclusions, it does not mean that they are wrong. And no amount of demands for additional cites will make them wrong.

I object. I do not disapprove of the expert conclusions. The quotes where not from a book related to Shaktism and the quotes did not explicitly use Shakta term.--Redtigerxyz 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is more than a collection of strung-together quotes. Here (as in many other sections) I paraphrased and summarized a very long quotation into a single sentence, followed by a brief hanging quote. There was no "problem" other than the fact that you did not trust or believe my paraphrase -- even after I assured you (above) that it was accurate, you still demanded to see the full section I paraphrased. Is that "assuming good faith," as you scolded me about above? As a courtesy and attempt at civil behavior, I obliged -- but in general if you doubt someone's footnote go to a library or bookstore and check the source yourself! Not only is it more polite, it also avoids the appearance of intellectual laziness. (Devi bhakta 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

• I dont see the Hawley citation.--Redtigerxyz 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, the Hawley quote related explicitly to Bharat Mata's modern association with the Hindutva fundies. I deleted it during editing a couple of days ago as I felt it either needed to be explained more deeply or not brought into the article at all. Since length is an issue at this point, I chose to leave it out. Shall I add it back in for you? :-)

Please add it back. as ref in image caption.--Redtigerxyz 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was a rhetorical question. :-p Based on length and topic I still believe that the modern Hindutva discussion -- while tangientally relevant and given a lot of discussion in Hawley -- strays too far afield for purposes of this article. As for "reference in image caption" I will repeat what I said before: (a) footnoting captions is crazy-making, and I will not do it; and (b) image's caption reflects theme and content of entire section, which is exhaustively footnoted already and has already given far more discussion here than it merits. Let us put an end to it here, shall we? (Devi bhakta 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

I think that covers it (*whew!*). Hokay? (Devi bhakta 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Authorship of Soundarya Lahiri and Mahisashura Mardhini Stotram

The authorship of Adi Sankara of Soundharya Lahiri is an issue of debate among scholars for a long time. It is almost inconceivable that the proponent of Nirguna Brahman should write a book based on Saguna Brahman. His commentary on Brahamasutra blasts this argument of Saguna Brahman. I remember Coburn has mentioned about this in his Encountering the Goddess in a footnote. I do not have the book now.

Mahisashura Mardhini Stotram has never been attributed to Adi Sankara. It is attributed to one Ramakrishna Kavi who was supposed to be from Bengal.--Sankarrukku 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was aware that Shankara's authorship of Soundarya Lahiri is disputed, but according to Brooks, the only real debate is whether the original Shankara or a later Shankara in his lineage wrote it. Bhattacharyya also mentions Shankra's books with opposing views but suggests that this ability to easily slip into various philosophical clothes would be very typical of a sage at Shankara's level of attainment.

As for "Mahishasura Mardini", you may be right to say it is not Shankara's (apparently no one knows for sure), but you are incorrect to say it has "never been attributed to Adi Sankara." I have in front of me, as I type this, a CD by the Carnatic singer Smt. Sowmya, entitled Shree Adi Shankaracharya's Mahishasura Mardhini, CD SR-032, Super Recording Co. Ltd., Chennai. It is hardly academic proof, but it is indeed an attribution, and I am pretty sure Sudha Ragunathan's recording of the piece carries the same attribution.

A quick search online does turn up the Ramakrishna Kavi attribution, but also many for Shankara, for example, this one: "Ai Giri Nandini [alternative title of Mahishasura Mardini, based on first line of song] is a poem, written in Sanskrit by Adi Shankara, and is one of the greatest works ever addressed to the supreme feminine power." (http://www.dagadtrikon.com/blog/ai-giri-nandini-by-shankar-ramani/) And here is a discussion forum where Shankara has several champions as author of the piece (other candidates besides Kavi are named as well): (http://www.india-forum.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t973-100.html).

I am not saying you are wrong about Kavi; just that I didn't pull the Shankara attribution out of the air. (Devi bhakta 00:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the clarification.

The authorship of Soundarya Lahari is mainly disputed by professors of Philosophy as the texts represent different conflicting schools.

Mahisashura Mardhini Stotra's attribution is mainly by the sound recording companies to sell the CDs and cassettes.The recording companies are also in the habit of attributing all the old Shyama Sangeeth to Ramprased Sen.--Sankarrukku 05:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Daughter articles

As suggested in peer review. The article should be split into Daughter articles as it is TOO LOng. What do you think will be the best content to form a new article. In my view, the Philosophical Development and Origins part can be coupled to form "History of Shaktism" as in Shaivism article.--Redtigerxyz 08:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That probably makes sense. Let me think on it for a few days. It's hard for me to make a decision about ripping the article up like that when I've only just finished writing it. I don't have any distance on it yet ... (Devi bhakta 19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

Once the "History of Shaktism" article is formed (if it is formed), a summary has to written of it. It's not "ripping the article"; all your hard work is preserved in another article.--Redtigerxyz 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Draupadi

Is she really considered a goddess , with reference to her mention in Epic Period section ???--Redtigerxyz 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference in question is: "The Mahabharata introduces the popular Draupadi, whose legends remain among the best-known in Hinduism." Draupadi is not referred to as a goddess; but rather one of the stronger female presences in the Mahabharata. I could add words to that effect.

Is she considered a goddess? I am not sure; in general, I think not. But she is definitely "something."

I have been curious about her spiritual stature, in fact, as there are not many who view God as a friend in Hindu "mythology." Among the major pairings, modeling Bhakti approaches to God, we have God as lover (Krishna and Radha, who *is* generally considered a goddess) or God as Guru (Shiva and Parvati, as in the Tantras and Agamas). In the God as friend model we have such obvious male-male examples as Krishna and Sudama or Krishna and Arjuna (not considered a god), or Rama and Hanuman (definitely a god).

But the Krishna-Draupadi relationship in the Mahabharata is a unique example in Hindu literature, as far as I know, of a friendship "across gender" -- in the modern sense of a man and a woman who are, without undercurrents of sexual tension, simply friends. (Devi bhakta 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Came across interesting reference in Bhattacharyya that Draupadi appears as an early name for the Devi in Dravidian sources. Probably a distant Mahabharata connection? (Devi bhakta 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Re: Getting a Bit Long

I divided this article into two parts -- the main article and a new one, History of Shaktism.

I did this on account of several requests on this page. HiEv stated, on Oct 18:

"The article seems to be getting a bit intimidatingly long. It's currently at just over 86 KB, about 69 KB of which is readable prose (where 32 KB is the recommended limit,) so you might want to reduce it per. Wikipedia:Article size. The best way to do this is probably by taking some of the longer sections and either making them into their own article or merging them into some other article, and then just have a summary here that refers to the main article."

The inevitable Red Tiger followed with, "As suggested in peer review. The article should be split into Daughter articles as it is TOO LOng."

Okay. So my action knocked the size of this article down from 72,795 bytes to 43,537 bytes. I hope that this is pleasing to everyone.

But can I just point something out? The Wikipedia article on Islam – at 95,675 – is more "intimidatingly long" than this article ever was.

And may I point something else out? This vast article on Islam is starred as a "Featured Article," i.e., "considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria."

So what happened to the "32 KB is the recommended limit" rule in the case of Islam? Why does Islam not split its history into a second article? Red Tiger says "In my view, the Philosophical Development and Origins part can be coupled to form 'History of Shaktism' as in Shaivism article."

That's all well and good, but Shaivism is a B-Class article (as this one was rated even before about 100 hours' worth of additions and corrections), and Islam is a Feature-Class Article! So why the double standard? May I have some opinions? Should this article be split in two, following the example of Shaivism? Or revert to its original form, following the example of Islam?

Just curious. - DB (Devi bhakta 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

If you observe closely ; the matter is not more. Its due to the large no of references that has made it a almost 96 KB article. Same applies to Ganesha (undergoing FAC process). --Redtigerxyz 05:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so let's say the pre-split Shaktism article was the same length as the Islam article. The question remains, why are we modeling this article after a B-Class example rather than a FAC example? (Devi bhakta 11:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

We are not modeling the article on any other article. Model the article on FA criteria only. The peer review wil help the article come closer to FAC status. After the peer review, apply GA status (more comments). After GA staus,apply for FAC.

IMO splitting the article that way was the best thing to do to reduce size. If any editor felt otherwise, s/he should have expressed it. Thats why i started a discussion first rather than splitting the article myself. At the moment, the Shaktism article is much closer to FAC than Shaivism. I must note: the pre-split Shaktism article was NOT the same length as the Islam article. The Islam article has so 125 references, each quoting multiple books. The article has more than 10 daughter articles.--Redtigerxyz 11:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, Red Tiger. ;-) Let's see how people respond to it. Thanks for your help and comments. (Devi bhakta 14:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Promoting to 'A'

I believe this article was assigned class 'B' prior to Devi Bhakta's improvements. With his edits, I think it rates an 'A' Per the discussion of quality: "Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting." and "Peer-review would be helpful at this stage." As noted above, peer review has already been instituted, and feature article status has already been suggested. (Jd-in-nv 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your vote of confidence, JD ... (Devi bhakta 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Should ratings for the "Shaktism" article be carried over to the "History of Shaktism" as well? It is basically part of the same article -- really the intellectual core of the article -- and written at the same level, depth and completion, and with the same set of references. But at this point "History of Shaktism" has no rating and no link to the Hinduism Project except thru this article? Can anyone advise? Thanks! (Devi bhakta 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Though the article is definitely close to FA in my view, i still we go through GA process which will help improve the article and "non-experts" will go through the article and will point shortcomings (if any). GA is a grade just above B. I think we let the grade remain B (cancel the A promotion) and go through GAC and officially get the grade by WP:CON. Another reason of the demotion is the low response to peer review. Getting the opinions of "non-experts" in GAC will be an indication to what objections may be raised in FAC. I would like to point that FA Ganesha went through the same process of peer review and GAC before FAC. --Redtigerxyz 07:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to judge on this because I do not know the whole procedure and the way things are generally done here. For example, it is not at all clear to me how an admittedly artificial "demotion" will encourage peer review. We've had a few editors come by and neaten up this and that. It is not a topic on which a huge number of people have a large amount of knowledge. Does non-response mean no one is looking, or that no one is criticizing? I am not saying there is no room for improvement; there always is. But both editorially and substantively it seems pretty tight and complete for a B; even a "strategic" B? Would appreciate any explanation or clarification on these points. Thank you! (Devi bhakta 15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

The "artificial demotion" MAY NOT encourage the response of peer review. Going for WP:GAC will help encourage editors to read through the article. Though an article can be ranked A without an GA; GA status is an official grading forming WP:CON by all editors of WP - experts (Hindus or Shaktas in particular) or non-experts (non-Hindus etc.). Sometimes, as Hindus aware of the Devi ideology and Sanskrit terms; we sometimes tend to not to explain the jargon to non-experts or miss the WP:NPOV. We can have "for an impartial reviewer to assess". "The process for designating an article as a good article is simpler than designating one as a featured article" and can be an indication to what objections may be raised in a futher FAC. There is no rule stating that an article should be gone through GAC before WP:FAC but most articles go through this process of GAC and then FAC. Moreover B is "Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process(like GAC and FAC)"--Redtigerxyz 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me step in, guys. First of all, who has rated this article as 'A' (it seems to be an 'A' as it's mentioned above)? Where is the "article milestones" mention? There is a vote for these matters. It's weird. I personally feel that the article is good enough to be an FAC very soon.

The quality scale goes like this (from low to high, please see this for further information):

• B
• GA
• A
• FA

Redtigerxyz says: "cancel the A promotion". So it hasn't been promoted yet? If it hasn't, so why I see an 'A' in the above table. I think that's what confuses me. As for the GAC, there are two major concerns you have to take into account, before nominating it.

A) Basically, I do agree with Redtigerxyz, you can take it to a GAC, but why? Please take into account the fact that it takes ages. I've promoted the Preity Zinta article to a GA (it took nearly two months), and then to 'A'. The FAC was not promoted, and now some users took it to a "Good article reassessment" (the same can happen to this article, and it hurts). So you can also see that GA is not such a big concern, GA is still too low for this article, and as I gave you the example, it won't help to its FAC promotion.

B) Redtigerxyz has also said: "Going for WP:GAC will help encourage editors to read through the article." - it's not right, because an article's promotion to GA is being made by only one editor. It doesn't give you many suggestions to improve and/or promote the article, because, I repeat, only one editor makes the GAC review, and it's him to decide whether it's a GA or not. There is no vote for a GAC.

Therefore, I think, a massive FAC will help you. Many editors go through it and give suggestions, comments etc, and you just have to address them. Even if it's not promoted to a FA after that, it will be improved.

Regarding the peer review. I had requested a peer review for Asha Bhosle once, but nobody took care and nobody replied. So I just moved up the article link again and again on the PR page, and finally someone replied. I will do the same with this article now. If within three days-one week suggestions are not displayed, just take it to an FAC -- you have absolutely nothing to lose.

Please contact me if you need some help. Good luck and best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification:

User:Jd-in-nv, who has 6 contributions to WP as of 5 nov elevated the rating of article from B to A by simply changing the class in the template. I am changing the class back to B - "Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process(like GAC and FAC)". I suggested a GAC as it is better to be a Good article first than a failed FAC. My experience with Ganesha FAC (now FA) compelled me to suggest a GAC first, There are many editors with an eagle eye to detect WP policy violations, who vote at the FAC, which leads to the article to fail a FAC. Before confronting them, i thought the easier, less tough GAC process should be initiated, after peeer review is archived.--Redtigerxyz 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Wikilinks

This article has come a long way. Wow.

At a quick glance, I've noticed several terms that are linked more than once throughout the article. My understanding of the Manual of style is that we generally link to a term the first time it is used and not thereafter (except with exceptionally long articles, which I don't think this one qualifies).

As a suggestion, interested editors, might want to go through the article and do a little copy editing to remove those multiple wikilinks.

TheRingess (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaishno Devi

It is barely mentioned in the article. It is now the second most visited religous shrine in India after Tirupati. Punjabi and Jammu have traditionally gone here and people from other parts of India now have started to visit. Jai Mata Di. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in History of Shaktism, Modern developments.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a little worrisome though. I think a lot of people skim through and do not notice there is a "daughter article" -- the Historical section is one of the more interesting features of the article, in my opinion. Hope we haven't "banished it to the provinces" by splitting it out of main article. Opinions? (Devi bhakta (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC))