Talk:Lingam/Archive 1

message: I would like to refer to this discussion for further updates to this article: http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_9/threads.html --IMpbt 18:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referral 

message: I am referring this article for clean up due to poor article quality (maybe due to the numerous edits) and layout. Requires careful handling as it is a religion related article. I am not including myself in the effort, as I think I might be biased.--IMpbt 20:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup request 

message: I have modified the content of the article considerably. I have tried to include as much information as possible without any bias, as much as possible. This is an ongoing effort and hopefully will be complete soon. The sanskrit dictonary translations were obtained from this Dictonary.
I have deleted some segments, as they are commentaries and provide no information thus should rather be added to wikiquotes then to the article.--IMpbt 06:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  major updates 

message: The line: "The linga (sign) is a symbol of Shiva. The linga is a phallic symbol, and represents the fertility of Nature. Many Hindus consider it to be liturgically incorrect to worship images of Shiva himself, and thus use the lingam to represent Lord Shiva". has had been consistently deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard and 24.34.208.84
The word Lingam by its very definition means the Phallus. To delete the very defining element of this term is in effect making this article null and void. The shaivite conception of the universe is to celebrate the generative aspects of nature, and the lingam epitomizes this conception. Besides I did not see this essential point stated anywhere else in the article. Deleting this aspect is indeed vandalism. Robin klein 20:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the definition (see link). lingam means gender not phallus in sanskrit, an example is also provided with the definition). Since the definition you have provided is subject to interpretation, it should be in the interpretation section. I will move the sentence to the interpretation section. --IMpbt 22:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Any references to the same ?, because even in official documents (Indian government) linga is the word used for gender not ling. One of the major prespectives during the rewrite is that this page has reached the cleanup stage because of edits which deal with this subject, which according to most discussions is interpreted differently by different people. I would try to allow each to include information without disturbing the other, the best way seems to be to move these sections to the interpretation section and allow each to have their say --IMpbt 23:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like the edit wars have already begin --IMpbt 03:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I am a more or less practicing hindu south asian, and never in any temple or in any story my grandmother told me or anywhere else was I taught that the shivlinga is a phallic symbol. Personally, I would find it offensive. Historically, early christian and gnostic cults worshipped "phallic crosses" and practiced hieros gamos. Associating such practices with modern christianity would be offensive to christians. THerefore, in the context of modern saivite worship, no generalizations regarding a lingam as "shiva's penis" should be made, as for the majority of hindus, the shivalinga is not a phallic symbol but an abstraction of deity meant to take place of idol-worship, especially in various bhakti traditions. In the Ramayana, for example, Rama and lakshman used a mound of earth as an object of worship. See http://www.svabhinava.org/TransgressiveSacrality/Dialogues/Shivalinga/index.php for more info. —--Sakredfire 12:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lingam as a phallic symbol 

message: I think I'm going to remove the first line of the second paragraph of the intro. It merely mentions the lingams connection with shiva again, already mentioned in line 1 of the article, and links to swami sivananda, which is fine, but should be in the body of the text. I dont want another guru's followers coming along in a month and getting into a war over interpretation and who is linked to. So its going to be "Some knowledgeable interpreters of Hindu scripture say" and leave it at that. Hornplease 20:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the intro 

message: The current text includes a section that reads:
:Something that resembled a Siva linga was called the Sankara Stone in the movie, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. In Hindi/Sanskrit, Sankara or Shankar is another name for lord Shiva.
This is suspected as original research.  Unless a verifiable source is provided, or a request made for time to obtain such a verifiable source, I will delete this section after 48 hours.  --BostonMA 19:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research? Pop culture 

message: Never have I seen a page try so assiduously to avoid the obvious. Folks, you can't clean up the fact that the lingam and yoni clearly represent the male and female genitals. This is established in endless scholarly works going back for -- at least -- well over a century. Joseph Campbell even talked unabashedly about it in his PBS shows .. why can't you just be honest?
Phallic imagery extends across the entire ancient world and were part of religions and fertility rites and much more. India has no reason to hide the beautiful sensuality of the past. Maybe it's time for everyone to see "Passage to India" again? There's a page called Phallus. Go ahead. Just tell the truth. It won't hurt.
Twang 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it reads now, the page is useless as a general entry on the concept of Linga. It is far too detailed, far too esoteric, and does indeed take great pains to avoid the obvious. Some writers are clearly offended by what they call the "misinterpretations" of Western scholars, but what they've offered in place of established sources is a lot of irrelevant misdirection. As an encyclopedia entry, this article fails utterly.Erikacornia 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: What is the Linga? And what is the meaning of the symbol? There are few ways to explain the meaning and the symbol of Linga.
1. Linga as Arthabrahma or phenomenal manifestation
Linga is the amorphous representation of Shiv and can be regarded as the highest emblem of Shiv because of its least anthrophomorphic nature. Shiv, Parabrahman, is the highest Divine Principle in intimate union with Divine Power, the Parashakti. The only positive qualities of this Divine Principle are Shat, Chit, and Anand. He is conscious of Himself i.e. He has Atmavimarsha. He is the cosmic Purusha (person) but is Nirakar - has no particular form and has no distinguishing mark. He is therefore inconceivable. "God cannot be known by the mind or the physical senses" is consensus of all the sages. It is in this sense Herbert Spensor speaks of God as " Unknown and unknowable." What he means is that Deity per se is "Unknown and Unknowable." John Fiasco further argues that "Deity is unknowable to the extent of it is not being manifested to consciousness through the phenomenal world knowable but knowable in order of its phenomenal manifestations: knowable in a symbolic way as the power of being rhythmic life of the universe; knowable as eternal source of moral law." If we accept this, then Shiv is inconceivable. But if He is not conceived, how can he be worshipped? Yet religious mind craving for eternal happiness cannot be satisfied without worship and cannot do without worship. He, therefore, requires some kind of representation or symbol of God. Without some concrete symbol of God, God would be a formless abstraction devoid of meaning to him/her. Hence it for those, who cannot digest abstract ideas of God, temples are built and images representing Gods in different powers and attributes are consecrated. Whatever may be said against images in the temples, rituals, and ceremonies, the fact remains that they are indispensable at a certain stage of the spiritual evolution life. 
Nirakar Shiv is Amurtha (formless) in his indistinct condition, and is Murtha or Sakar in his manifest condition –manifest in the form of universe. Shiv assumes eight-fold forms and is, therefore, called as Ashtamurthi. Then the Linga represents the whole universe appearing hemispherical placed on something. The Linga, the amorphous symbol of Shiv, thus, represents the Murtha form of Shiv. Hence, the Linga signifies Alinga or Shiv that has no special form or mark. The circular base with round semi-spherical top placed on it fits the description of the idea of Murthavthva.
2. Linga as Shabdabrahma
Shivaparabrahman is the cosmic Purusha having Atmavimarsha. He first vibrates in his Leele (play or amusement) towards creation. The vibration is Nada (a loud roar), the first expression as Nama or name. From his Nada proceeds Bindu (dot), i.e. the form. The couplet Nama and Rupa or Nada and Bindu are known as Onkara or Pravana. The Bindu is the disc-like Peetha and Nada is the line that supervenes the Peetha. The line stands on the Bindu like a cylinder with a rounded top. All this forms the Linga.
3. Linga as the Visvarupa
Shivaparabrahman has no particular form but is all-formed. He is, therefore, called Visvarupa. He is the creator of the Universe and assumes all forms in the Universe. He is hidden in all creatures, and pervades all and forms inner souls of all. He is said to have a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, and a thousand feet. He has hands and feet in all directions. The semi-spherical top that supervenes the circular base represents this description of cosmic Purusha, with whom His devotees identify Shiv. The round top on the circular base really consists of thousands of heads, each of the size of a point. The sides of the cylindrical figure represents equally thousands of heads, eyes, and faces in all directions. The semi-spherical top, resembling the visible horizon, is truly symbolical of the universe that surrounds the earth on all sides. Though the symbol has no eyes and feet, or eyes and ears, it has thousands of hands and feet, heads, eyes, and ears in all directions, just as a circle has no face all around but it has faces in all directions at every point of the circumference. Thus the Linga is the closest possible representation of such formless or all-formed God Shiv. 
It is customary in nature that all classes of things in universe must have different shapes and forms. The so-called "Gods class" must have different shapes and forms, though nobody knows what those shapes and forms should be. It is only the fancy of the human beings that has endowed Gods with some anthrophomorphic forms. But there is no proof of that. Nonetheless, it is conceivable that Gods have shapes and forms different from those of human beings as human beings have shapes and forms different from those of other animals, worms, insects, etc. 
4. Linga as Phallus
This is vulgar representation of the Linga and should not even be entertained. But for the sake of completeness, we shall give the brief account of this. 
This is a kind of misunderstanding regarding Shivalinga or the symbol that represents Shiv. Religious philosophy and almost all scholars of religion believe that the Linga be the Phallus of Shiv. This deep-rooted prejudice has been long persisted based on the following five different considerations.
(a) There was phallic worship among the primitive peoples and Dravidians could not be an exception to it. (b) The misinterpretation of the word "Shishradeva" that occurs twice in Rigveda. (c) The meaning of Linga as phallus given in lexicons. (d) The shape in general resembles phallus (erect membrum virile). And (e) various verses of the Shakta Tantras about sex worship.
(a) The phallus worship among primitive peoples has been well established. Westrop has collected information about the existence of this practice in several countries including Greece, Egypt, Rome, Syria, ancient America, and etc. The worship of Linga was not confined to India alone, but was prevailing in Asia and Europe, and also in Egypt. The phallus worship of some primitive peoples has no bearing or the connection with Dravidian worship of Shivalingam. Because some primitive peoples have worshipped the phallus, it does not necessarily mean that Dravidians must also have worshipped the same. The cause of this deep-rooted prejudice and plain misunderstanding can be attributed to the assumption that the Dravidians, at the time of the Aryan invasion of India, were merely primitive people with no civilization of their own. On the contrary, Dravidians were the most ancient people of all other peoples of the world with more advanced human civilization. So to speak, they were ahead of all others in developing human civilization. They had a much deeper insight into the nature of the Almighty as the creator, protector, and destroyer of the universe. They had already formulated their own notions of  Godhead as being self-subsistent, omniscient, and benevolent, possessed of greatness and wondrous power (Shakti). With such an insight, is it in any way thinkable that they should identify Godhead with phallus? Can it be even possible that they should attribute such powers of Divinity and greatness to the phallus? The universe, they must have thought, was after the creator and the image of the God was reflected in the spherical universe and was represented by it. To all outward appearance the universe is a hemi-spherical thing bounded by the circular horizon and placed on something. This idea has been later expressed by the Puranas that the world-globe is balanced on the hood of Adishesha, the king of the snake-world. And the Linga with circular base and the semi-spherical top placed on the circular base represents the universe. This was the idea of the Dravidians about their Godhead. 
(b) A proof of phallic worship is sought from the word Shishradeva occurring twice in Rigveda. The interpretation of the word as "Those, whose God was phallus" seems to be due to the obsession of phallic worship that might have existed before. One thing is remarkable that there are only two hymns in which the word Shishradeva occurs. If it were the phallic worship of the non-Aryans, the Aryans who took every occasion to condemn their enemies, would not have failed to speak of their phallus worship as many times and in as many ways as possible and further condemn them for the debased form of worship in all possible ways. Besides these two deceptive and misleading references, there is no mention of phallic worship anywhere else in the Vedic, Brahmanic, and Upanishadic literature. Hence Shishradeva cannot be a proof of phallic worship.
(c) The phallus is one of the meanings of Linga from lexicons. However, it is not the primary and prominent meaning of Linga but merely secondary. The primary sense of the word is " A mark or sign." Therefore, it must be concluded that the lexicographic secondary sense of Linga in Shivalinga as the male organ is due to merely to the preconceived prejudice of phallic worship of some peoples in ancient times.
(d) The shape of the Linga resembles an erect membrum virile is also a mistaken notion. In small-sized Shivalingas the top is always semi-spherical, but in many large-Lingas the top is generally elongated, as the proportionately magnified top does not look well and also to give goodly shape and appearance to a Sthavaralinga. The peculiar shape of the Linga at Gudimallan, Kalattur, and Kudumiyamlai had rather misled Gopinathrao to believe and conclude that the Linga is only the phallus. This is merely prejudice and the result of the obsession of the idea of phallic worship, when in fact innumerable Shivalingas everywhere else in the land are of common shape having not even slightest resemblance to the phallus. The shape of only three Lingas mentioned above should not contaminate inner meaning and the basic idea of the Shivalinga by submission to tasteless idea that all Lingas are phallic in shape. 
(e) Lastly, the various verses of the Tantras about sex-worship and sexual interpretation of the form of Linga are simply due to degenerate Shaktas, who failed to understand the significance of Shrichakra and Chakrapooja of Shakta faith and rituals and thereby becoming victims of corrupt practices. The advocates of the worship of Shakti, residing in Kula or perineum, misunderstood the meaning of Kundalini or the universal power lying in a static condition with downward face (Adhomukhi) and cooped up there. The power is to be roused and put into a Dyuamic condition gradually to be raised (Urthmamukhi) by stages to union with the Universal consciousness (Atmavimarsha). The inability of the followers to understand the meaning and the significance of the Shakta rituals led to the debased and perverted forms of Shakti worship.
Swami Vivekananda was the first one to point out that Linga is not the phallus. According to him, the worship of Shivalinga originated from the famous Lingam in the Atharva Veda Sanhita sung in praise of Yupasthambha, the sacrificial post. In the hymn a description is found about the beginningless and endless Sthambha or Skambha and it is shown that the said Skambha is put in place of the eternal Brahman. Afterwards, the sacrificial fire, the smoke, ashes and the flames, the Soma plant, the ox used to carry it on its back, and the words for Vedic sacrifice gave place to Shiva’s body. His yellow matted hair, his blue throat, and the bull were added later. The Yupasthambha gave place to the Shivalingam and was raised to high Devahood of Shri Shankar. In Atharva Veda, the sacrificial cows are praised with the attributes of the Brahman. In the Linga Puranas, the hymn is expanded in the form of stories meant to establish the glory of the great Sthambha and superiority of Mahadeva. Later Swami Vivekananda says that the explanation of Shivalingam as Phallic emblem began in India in her most thoughtless and degraded times.
If the word Linga and Alinga are properly understood there can be no shadows of doubt that Linga does not mean phallus but merely a mark or symbol. Hence, the Linga is the amorphous representation of Shiv and the least anthrophomorphic as maintained by Kumar-swami.
This was excerpt directly taken from http://members.aol.com/ukumbar/vsny/Detailed.htm#BM8.
About the misinterpretations:What I fail to understand here is some Christians and Muslims and ignorant who try to look Linga as phallus should know that never in ancient India or IVC there was circumcision practice and how can a phallus or penis can ever look like Linga.
Hope people are aware of uncircumscribed ones also existing.
Infact circumcision is known to be practiced only to outside IVC i.e by Egyptians and through them to Christians and Islamists.
I do accept that a few paranoids who based their ideas on faulty shaktha ,maya,mantra and tantra had tried to mislead people.
The whole concept of India (and should it be called religion Hindu or Indus civilisation or Dravidian civilisation) itself is under debates.
So don't waste precious values of wikipedia by following myths.There are hundred of myths already existing .Don't add your own one.Ask a scholar,discuss or ponder if you don't know.Let's come to a logical conclusion with the available resources.Just because a article is not locked it should not mean you should disrupt it.
Philosopher1 07:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Linga? 

message: I would agree more to fully remove that 'GOD' passage than to tag it dubious. 
I have placed a "dubious" tag on the following passage:
Hinduism conceptualizes Brahman, the supreme power, as having three main roles: that of GOD the Generator, Organizer and Destroyer. This trinity is represented iconically by the deities Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva respectively.
"God" is an English word; Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva predate it by, oh, a couple of millennia. This is just some clever (or perhaps not-so-clever) backronym and doesn't offer any real explanation for the use of the Lingam as a symbol of creation. Obviously the reason lies more in the idea of Shiva as the creator than in a modern acronym. If this is to be kept at all, it will need a reliable source. It looks like proselytizing to me. I'll leave it for a few days to give others a chance to cite it and clarify the context. Kafziel Talk 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section. I wanted to pare it down rather than remove it completely, but there was nothing in the section that made any sense. Logically speaking, the section said it was a symbol of creation because it's a symbol of Shiva, and that Shiva is a creative force because the linga is a symbol of Shiva. It didn't make any sense and neither did the tantra section, so I've taken them out. Kafziel Talk 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The abstract symbol section needs to be cleaned or removed too. All Hindu terms are written for some strange reason in caps. GizzaChat © 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: This article is being made a mockery here by people who don't know anything about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.22.5.79 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orpheus vandalism now 

message: According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "Editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." In order to improve the article sourcing, please provide reference information when adding anything.  In addition, please do not make changes to text that is sourced, as changes to sourced statements make your changes appear to be referenced by prior footnotes which may not cover the new material added.  If you would like to add something but do not have a source, you can raise the idea on the talk page first and see if someone can help you find a WP:RS.  In that way material that may be true but weakly sourced can be gradually added as sources are found. For translations from scriptures, please provide the book reference where you got the translation, along with citation data so someone could locate the book and see if the quotation has been made to Wikipdedia accurately.  This would include publication data such as an ISBN number for the volume you used to get the quotation.  Since translations of scripture vary a great deal, and recensions vary for the source text, citing a particular volume is a necessary part of the verification process. Buddhipriya 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: What's there to discuss? Shiva lingham stones is not only wrongly spelled, but contains incorrect information about the origin of lingams. The stones found in the Narmada river are mainly silas and not lingams. The link there is hardly reliable as it is a merchant website offering lingams and other stones for sale = unreliable. I'll merge what I can and then tag that article for deletion, removing the merge tags. Ekantik talk 03:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? Merged!