Talk:Lingam/Archive 1

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

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

major updates
I have modified the content of the article considerably. I have tried to include as much information as possible without any bias, as much as possible. This is an ongoing effort and hopefully will be complete soon. The sanskrit dictonary translations were obtained from this Dictonary.

I have deleted some segments, as they are commentaries and provide no information thus should rather be added to wikiquotes then to the article.--IMpbt 06:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

lingam as a phallic symbol
The line: "The linga (sign) is a symbol of Shiva. The linga is a phallic symbol, and represents the fertility of Nature. Many Hindus consider it to be liturgically incorrect to worship images of Shiva himself, and thus use the lingam to represent Lord Shiva". has had been consistently deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard and 24.34.208.84

The word Lingam by its very definition means the Phallus. To delete the very defining element of this term is in effect making this article null and void. The shaivite conception of the universe is to celebrate the generative aspects of nature, and the lingam epitomizes this conception. Besides I did not see this essential point stated anywhere else in the article. Deleting this aspect is indeed vandalism. Robin klein 20:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The aspect of the lingam representing the fertility of nature is mentioned down in a different section, but I think it should be mentioned in the introductiry paragraph itself. Robin klein 20:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see the definition (see link). lingam means gender not phallus in sanskrit, an example is also provided with the definition). Since the definition you have provided is subject to interpretation, it should be in the interpretation section. I will move the sentence to the interpretation section. --IMpbt 22:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

interpreting Lingam as gender would not be accurate. Ling translates as Gender, Lingam translates as sex organ. Robin klein 23:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Any references to the same ?, because even in official documents (Indian government) linga is the word used for gender not ling. One of the major prespectives during the rewrite is that this page has reached the cleanup stage because of edits which deal with this subject, which according to most discussions is interpreted differently by different people. I would try to allow each to include information without disturbing the other, the best way seems to be to move these sections to the interpretation section and allow each to have their say --IMpbt 23:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like the edit wars have already begin --IMpbt 03:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

IMpbt´s comments on an edit war gave me the creeps. Okay, Let´s go for consensus:

Hinduism is a very, very broad religion. It is said to be the oldest of the widespread religions in the sense that, having no formal founder, it evolved from timeless primitive beliefs and, with input from innumerable sages and cultural influences (the absorption of which is a small miracle derived from Hinduism´s acceptance and tolerance), it is now what we see. As a religion coming from the primeval analysis of natural forces themselves, later clarifyed, explained and enlightened by the mentioned sages, Hinduism retains its early roots. Hinduism acknowledges no original sin. It sees all creation as sacred, it sees no intrinsic evil. Sex is a powerful force, very natural, very primitive. To the early man, Lightning, Fire, Wind, Nature were expressions of God. So was Sex. God is a powerful being and those were the attributes the instictive men identifyed with power. So, this is why the Shivalingam is called a "Lingam" and it rests on a Yoni. The higher men, however, sees many meanings his ancestors could not grasp. The power and meaning of the Lingam has been explained later by Sivananda, Subramuniyaswami, and many others. We Hindus believe that there are still many symbols expressed by our Holy Lingam that are beyond us, as its abstract meaning was lost to the men who named it "Lingam" in the first place. So, saying it is a phallic symbol is simplistic, and wrong. It is a Holy Symbol, with endless special meanings, and it has that name because early culture associated it with a phallic symbol - before further illumination by the sages. Subramanian talk 08:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Twang 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you're absolutely right, Robin. It's absurd to try to avoid the obvious... not to mention at least a century of plain-speaking in endless scholarly works. I don't know what dictionary the person is using that keeps referring to 'Sanskrit'.The dictionary on my new iMac defines LINGAM as: "a symbol of divine generative energy, esp. a phallus or phallic object worshiped as a symbol of Shiva. Compare with yoni." Something very close to that is what belongs at the top of this page, not a waffling pretense.It's the symbolic meaning of the statuary that matters, not the label attached to it. It's not necessary to regress to infantilism to protect the children. They've all seen one by the time they're five ... and the symbols are celebrations of the creativity and fecundity of life and the beauty of creation.Sorry, too late to hide it, the secret's out: people have genitals. At least, they're born with them ... though some people seem to forget that.


 * 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)

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

NPOV - Jacob Never worshipped the stone !
It is wrong information and the wishful thinking of author to state that Jacob worshipped the stone (Which he/she presumes lingam) this is what the passage says

Genesis 35:13 Then God went up from him in the place where He had spoken with him. Genesis 35:14 Jacob set up a pillar in the place where God had spoken with him, a pillar of stone, and he poured out a drink offering on it

Jacob offered oil as a drink offering to God, The pillar is simply nothing but an alter, Biblical God is totally against worshipping stones and idols

Habakkuk 2:18 "What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, Or an image, a teacher of falsehood? For its maker trusts in his own handiwork when he fashions speechless idols.

Habakkuk 2:19 "Woe to him who says to a piece of wood, ' Awake!' To a mute stone, 'Arise!' And that is your teacher? Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, And there is no breath at all inside it.

Habakkuk 2:20 "But the LORD is in His holy temple. Let all the earth be silent before Him."

It is a dishonor of Biblical God to compare oil (which was widely used in bible for anointing) with semen!


 * Semen? Its not supposed to be semen, its supposed to be the waters of the Ganga. The Shivling is, among many things a representation of Mount Kailash. And the shivling is not an idol, its an altar. In fact, the whole point of Saivite bhakti movements was to move away from non-abstract physical representations of God, because these were being interpreted as idols by the uneducated. Please don't offend my religious beliefs. I have respect for Abrahamic religion...don't give others just cause for your heathen bias. Even by your beliefs Hindus aren't by definition idolaters, just as there are some who believe there is idolatry within various Christian sects. I think the story of Jacob and the stone is a good analogy for shivling worship. At the same time, followers of non abrahamical religions should be careful with the use of the word "worship." Though when a hindu speaks of "worshipping" a shivalingam, or Jacob "worshipping" a stone pillar, he does not speak of worshipping the object itself; the same interpretation is not made necessarily by other ridiculously oversensitive people. The correct phrase would be Jacob worshipped "at" the pillar. --Sakredfire 12:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The boilerplate of NPOV dispute was inserted and discussion here was invented, by User:Karma2Grace, this note and small modification of epigraph, is by Reo On


 * I suppose, that now, when the relevant text was deleted (by Goethean - ), the POV statement should be deleted too. --Reo On 10:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Original Research? Pop culture
The current text includes a section that reads:


 * Something that resembled a Siva linga was called the Sankara Stone in the movie, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. In Hindi/Sanskrit, Sankara or Shankar is another name for lord Shiva.

This is suspected as original research. Unless a verifiable source is provided, or a request made for time to obtain such a verifiable source, I will delete this section after 48 hours. --BostonMA 19:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No verifiable sources offered, nor request for more time, nor talk of any sort. I'm deleting the section in question. --BostonMA 14:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As a practicing hindu, I routinely refer to shiva as shankara bhagavan. Does that help?

Wow
Never have I seen a page try so assiduously to avoid the obvious. Folks, you can't clean up the fact that the lingam and yoni clearly represent the male and female genitals. This is established in endless scholarly works going back for -- at least -- well over a century. Joseph Campbell even talked unabashedly about it in his PBS shows .. why can't you just be honest?

Phallic imagery extends across the entire ancient world and were part of religions and fertility rites and much more. India has no reason to hide the beautiful sensuality of the past. Maybe it's time for everyone to see "Passage to India" again? There's a page called Phallus. Go ahead. Just tell the truth. It won't hurt. Twang 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

What is Linga?
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)

A small update on Point 4 b, regarding Shishradeva....   Shishra to my knowledge is NOT Phallus as has been contended.... ShishNa is the word for Phallus... Shishira is the sanskrit word for Winter ... and Shishiradeva means someone who is worshipped in the winter months.... This refers to the practice of worshipping Shiva in the very early morning(Pre-Sunrise) in these months. In the days, when people had to go to a river or lake quite far-away, to have their ritualistic bath before prayers, this called for a lot of grit and determination

Dubious
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)
 * 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)
 * The abstract symbol section needs to be cleaned or removed too. All Hindu terms are written for some strange reason in caps. GizzaChat  &#169; 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus vandalism now
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).

What you don't seem to understand is that: Instead, consider opening a discussion here and justifying your reasons with reliable sources (no, knowing the matter doesn't make you a reliable source). --Εξαίρετος (msg) 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) simply adding a template doesn't protect a page from further edits: you must be an administrator to do that;
 * 2) continuously reverting each other's edit is called an edit war, and that generally results (3 revert rule) in the page being blocked in an arbitrary version (at the administrator's discretion) and both participants possibly blocked from editing Wikipedia.

OK common place ur explanations on how Linga can be your interpretation.comments on the things discussed above of what is Linga?.If you have enough points I will agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.22.85.192 (talk • contribs).

For the Monier-Williams definitions two sources have been provided; you can't remove the statement just because you don't like it. Whether it's correct or not, it has been stated and nothing can change that fact. If it's wrong, though, surely someone has written about it: so, once again, support your interpretation with a reference to a book, a website, anything can be considered a reliable source so that the article can say something like "the Monier-Williams dictionary gives ... but X, Y and Z have protested against this interpretation." --Εξαίρετος (msg) 15:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some sense now My answer: As per wikipedia's undisputed page of Monier williams-please visit it -It says "Monier-Williams declared from the outset that the conversion of India to the Christian religion should be one of the aims of orientalist scholarship." What does this mean? Do you know vandalism had started at that time only.Just go through the dictionary excerpt link .After many mentions of it as a mark, mark of a gender(which is already mentioned in article) suddenly he then mentions it as male organ phallus. The whole intention should be a mark of energy rather than evil minded constrictions. For contradicting his statement already there is a section What is Linga above and the link http://members.aol.com/ukumbar/vsny/Detailed.htm#BM8.If you are still ignorant there are various links.Approach and get salvation from experts.It states phallus is vulgar representation of Linga.How can one revert back contentious issues without referring to talk or discussion page. A mark of such heritage and culture cannot be subjected to ignorant sensitivities. I don't find flogger IPSOS write anything here. I think I have spoken enough to remove it.I remove it again. If you want to add it write something special about Monier Williams which will make his version greater than all the pundits and visionaries of India.I challenge it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.61.254 (talk • contribs).

What Monier-Williams' ideas were doesn't matter here; as I wrote, it has been stated by a widely known scholar, so it deserves to be acknowledged on wikipedia. From the point of view of a follower of the faith, shouldn't you be interested in discussing that definition to prove how wrong it is, instead of censoring it? I've added a quote from that url; it's quite long so someone will probably split it in smaller sentences, but it can simply coexist with Monier-Williams' definition, and this is the way it should be, since, as that same article states, "religious philosophy and almost all scholars of religion believe that the Linga be the Phallus of Shiv". If many people think so, shouldn'it be made clear to them that it's wrong? --Εξαίρετος (msg) 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Monier Williams is monumentally insignificant scholar in Indian history.His prominence is questionable in Indian History.Even today majority of Brits are racists in majority of Indian minds. Its not a POV nor am I need to be a follower and how do you prove how right it is.He has said and never he said it to be "the more specific meaning".See the dictionary excerpt.At the end of all generic meanings he seems to have turned of all faiths and suddenly placed "your specific meaning". I don't need a compensation here.We are dealing with etymology and its your ignorance to add a lobbying here as most of the Brits are experts at!(well not racial but can cite instances in every timezone of our great CE!) The article is written for all to read and interested can read the vulgar representation also.If majority were true then virgin Mary would become a prostitute and Christ would have married!Isn't it.Majority of the christians in this world colonised,converted,enslaved.why don;t u put this under christianity?
 * 1) "From the point of view of a follower of the faith, shouldn't you be interested in discussing that definition to prove how wrong it is, instead of censoring it?"
 * 1) "I've added a quote from that url; it's quite long so someone will probably split it in smaller sentences, but it can simply coexist with Monier-Williams' definition, and this is the way it should be, since, as that same article states, "religious philosophy and almost all scholars of religion believe that the Linga be the Phallus of Shiv". If many people think so, shouldn'it be made clear to them that it's wrong? "

This is not a place for democracy as we dont know how many are educated and true scholars.I am changing it and placing your phallus under misinterpretations.

NPOV discussion: Hostage situation
I can't beleive the other editors of this article are allowing to be held hostage by two anons with a POV. Lingam does, among other things, mean 'phallus'. There are good sources that say this. Yes, it has the expanded meaning of the use of Phallus in psychoanalysis. But these two users, 122.167.10.186 and 59.144.51.xxx keep removing and/or labelling this a "misinterpretation" which is not NPOV. Can somebody else help out here? I'm tagging the article, this needs to be resolved. Britannica is a valid reference. And dozens more could be provided to support that one meaning of lingam is phallus. IPSOS (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We should note that Lingam is a sensitive issue and a religious one.One meaning when used subjectively it is a mark of a man or which you name as organ but that need not be mentioned as all engrossing.We cannot discuss Psychoanalysis here.Please discuss it in Psychoanalysis page. No body will deny Pu-Linga to be Phallus or Sthree-Linga as mark of woman. But Lingam has a larger meaning and thats what we have to discuss here. About misinterpretations :Interpretations of Indian scholar has never met with criticism but entirely defining Lingam as a phallus just for some dictionary fillings is controversial and has met with criticisms mentioned already.If you can cite authentic criticism met by a Indian scholar you can cite that also. There is also an interpretation of the Lingam on pedestal as prakriti-purusha or Linga-yoni(womb of nature - not to be misunderstood for vagina by psychoanalysis) relationship but this is only a POV as most of the lingams REST ON GROUND or BASE (need not be circular). (Even if we take it as peetha or pedestal My POV is - its highly illogical to see a phallus coming out of vagina in a outward fashion,but we can see a force protruding out of a womb of nature as we all come out of womb of our mothers as babies into this world.) I this the article on What is Linga provides sufficient insights to this.


 * Is it possible to have signed comments ?
 * It is not at all necessary to discuss psychoanalysis here, User:IPSOS's comment is to the point, and well understood by many. The point is not to exclude each other. Why not have two entries: one as Lingam for the popular, archetypal reference [ Phallic/Linguistic ?? :) worship need not be called primitive ] and one as Linga for the esoteric interpretation.
 * P.S. This is as far as I would personally like to pursue the discussion.
 * Thanks and good care to all,
 * (Lunarian 11:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Its just your POV to call it esoteric.I dont know why people having no idea of the concept should prolong the discussion here just for some personal satisfaction.122.167.2.103 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again I fail to understand where is popularity in India to worship Lingam as phallus.I dont know about west and Europe .If it is then please cite references.We can make it Indian Lingam and failure of English scholars in understanding Lingam (specially Monier followers and psychoanalysts).There is no perennial philosophy running here but a very ancient philosophy through with timezones!!.


 * To my meagre self-satisfaction allow me to observe that very ancient...through with timezones in Hole in the Wall, where I live, is called perennial for short.
 * And do not tempt me to call you names ( I know some fine applicable esoteric ones )
 * (Lunarian 17:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

When above I asked you for a reference, you gave me http://members.aol.com/ukumbar/vsny/Detailed.htm#BM8 and from that I extracted a quote to prove your point; but I'd like to point out that in there it says "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. [...] (c) The meaning of Linga as phallus given in lexicons. [...] Swami Vivekananda was the first one to point out that Linga is not the phallus.". Thus, that same article states that lexicons give "phallus" as one of the meaning, and that the first ever to say that wasn't true was Swami Vivekananda, born in 1863, while Monier-Williams started teaching Sanskrit in 1844.

Please note that nowhere in the article we have here it says that in India people worship Lingam as a phallus, just that dictionaries give "phallus" as one of the meanings, that almost all scholars believe it to be a phallic symbol (which doesn't mean the Hindus do) and that's true, as that link states the same. The definition of the dictionaries and the encyclopedias may be wrong, I agree, but you can't deny that most (if not all) the non-Indian dictionaries and encyclopedias around the world support it. Just to give an example, here I have an old Italian encyclopedia (it:De Agostini), which gives for Śiva, among other things: "dio della morte, della procreazione (ha come simbolo il linga, o fallo) e della vita". Translating: "god of death, of procreation (his symbol is the linga, or phallus) and of life". I'm not saying that this encyclopedia is correct, because you're right, I'm ignorant on this, but you can't treat it as an occasional misinterpretation, as a lot of encyclopedias on the market give that definition. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Lunarian : Perennial when precedes philosophy means continual philosophy through times which might have taken ramifications.Though you have a sense to look your situation as a hole in the wall you dont have the sight to see that the philosophy hasn't remained what it has originated as but in the name of popularity and interpretations have been patented for the sake of christening anything and everything.A popular approach being the great word of Globalisation. For example USA has patented original Indian Basmati rice as Kasmati rice.I even now wonder when did USA people started eating rice!!! All these rules and regulations can be termed as people who consider themselves as perennial losers.Hope ur hole gets wider!!! And about calling names I would invite you be a gritty man /woman whoever u are - if at all you know definitions of both,else I can help you.

Exairetos: Quite good research.I like it.


 * 1) while Monier-Williams started teaching Sanskrit in 1844.

Monier teaching Sanskrit.Awesome.Let us call him Guru Monier Acharya Williams.Can I know who were the students.Hope you would have explored it also:-))Monier in 1844 ,first war of Indian Independence in 1857 and Vivekananda in 1863.Quite good relevance.


 * 1) I agree, but you can't deny that most (if not all) the non-Indian dictionaries and encyclopedias around the world support it."

Most of the majority who u have discussed and world majority will always look at the most published ones and when they define it as Lingam it spreads.That is obvious.The article states that part under the subtitle of Vulgar representation.If you call as POV u can call the representation as POV also. You leave the title of the article and author calling it "deep rooted prejudice" and take some lines to prove it then it becomes ur POV right!.If you want take the whole and put under "Vulgar representation" sub heading!


 * 1) Just to give an example, here I have an old Italian encyclopedia.

When did Italians got so much information.As long as I know only England a little French Dutch were the ambassadors in India.Rest would obviously be English exploration.

The basic question is why doesnt the popular widespread belief of a spiritual subject be taught by someone who doesn't have any connection to it.Why need a western scholar's report when it is criticised. This is clearly a case of racists in wikipedia.Why more weightage given to a western scholars intent on a Indian subject.I wonder nobody would have published the relative unease of great Indian Gandhi about the christians in christianity page. He said

"I consider myself a Hindu, Christian, Moslem, Jew, Buddhist, and Confucian.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today. Freedom and slavery are mental states. Almost anything you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. All business depends upon men fulfilling their responsibilities. There is nothing that wastes the body like worry, and one who has any faith in God should be ashamed to worry about anything whatsoever."

He also said

"It is my firm opinion that Europe does not represent the spirit of God or Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan’s successes are the greatest when he appears with the name of God on his lips."

"I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ’s Christianity."

Why doesn't it gets featured in the article "Christianity" which states largest followed religion in world but doesnt say if they follow it or not.Just because its another Indian's POV.

With so much criticism from Indian Father of the nation its crystal clear that a Indian subject be met with such abrasive attitude by the majority of all the other scholars of the religion.

See its not wrong to treat any force of creation at all to be a mark - right.But it is wrong to treat a sensitive issue in such a narrow approach.122.167.0.205 13:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)122.167.0.205 13:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lunarian's reply:


 * Some excerpts from: "The origin and use of images in India" chpt.VII of Ananda K. Coomaraswamy's The Transformation of Nature in Art Harvard 1934, available in reprint by Dover Publications since 1956.


 * Few of those who condemn idolatry, or make its suppression a purpose of missionary activity, have ever seriously envisaged the actual use of images, in historical or psychological perspective, or surmised a possible significance in the fact that the vast majority of men of all races, and in all ages, including the present, Protestants, Hebrews and Musalmans (sic) being the chief exeptions, have made use of anthropomorphic images as aids to devotion. (Khajuraho presumably including Puruṣa Lingam ? note Lunarian)
 * We have already suggested that the multiplicity of the forms of images, coinciding with the development of monotheistic Hinduism, arises from various cases, all ultimately referable to the diversity of need of individuals and groups. In particular, this multiplicity is due historically to the inclusion of all pre-existing forms, all local forms, in a greater theological synthesis, where they are interpreted as modes or emanations (vyūha) of the supreme Iśvara; and subsequently, to the further growth of theological speculation. In the words of Yāska, "We see actually that because of the greatness of God, the one principle of life is praised in various ways".
 * Iconolatry, however, was not left to be regarded as an ignorant or useless practice fit only for spiritual children; even the greatest, as we have seen, visited temples, and worshipped images, and certainly these greatest thinkers did not do so blindly or unconsciously. A human necessity was understood, its psychology systematically analyzed, the various phases of image worship, mental and material,were defined, and the variety of forms explained by the doctrines of emanation and of gracious condescension.
 * The whole problem of symbolism (pratīka,"symbol") is discussed by Śankarâcārya, Comentary on the Vedânta Sūtras, I, 1, 20. (...) And as to anthropomorphic expressions in scripture,"we reply that the highest Lord may, when he pleases, assume a bodily shape formed of Māyā, in order to gratify his devout worshipers"; but all this is merely analogical, as when we say that the Brahman abides here or there, which in reality abides only in its own glory (cf. ibid., I, 2, 29).
 * To the form thus conceived imagined flowers and other offerings are to be made. Such interior worship of a mantra-body or correspondingly imagined form is called subtle (sūkṣma), in contradistinction to the exterior worship of a material image, which is termed gross (sthūla), though merely in a descriptive, not a deprecatory sense. -Further contrasted with both these modes of worship is that called para-rūpa, "trans-form", in which the worship is paid directly to the deity as he is in himself. This last mode no doubt corresponds to the ambition of the iconoclast, but such gnosis is in fact only possible, and therefore only permissible,to the perfected yogin and veritable jīvan-mukta, who is so far as he himself is concerned set free from all name and aspect, whatever may be the outward appearance he presents. Had the iconoclast in fact attained to such perfection as this, he would not have been an iconoclast.
 * The whole problem of symbolism (pratīka,"symbol") is discussed by Śankarâcārya, Comentary on the Vedânta Sūtras, I, 1, 20. (...) And as to anthropomorphic expressions in scripture,"we reply that the highest Lord may, when he pleases, assume a bodily shape formed of Māyā, in order to gratify his devout worshipers"; but all this is merely analogical, as when we say that the Brahman abides here or there, which in reality abides only in its own glory (cf. ibid., I, 2, 29).
 * To the form thus conceived imagined flowers and other offerings are to be made. Such interior worship of a mantra-body or correspondingly imagined form is called subtle (sūkṣma), in contradistinction to the exterior worship of a material image, which is termed gross (sthūla), though merely in a descriptive, not a deprecatory sense. -Further contrasted with both these modes of worship is that called para-rūpa, "trans-form", in which the worship is paid directly to the deity as he is in himself. This last mode no doubt corresponds to the ambition of the iconoclast, but such gnosis is in fact only possible, and therefore only permissible,to the perfected yogin and veritable jīvan-mukta, who is so far as he himself is concerned set free from all name and aspect, whatever may be the outward appearance he presents. Had the iconoclast in fact attained to such perfection as this, he would not have been an iconoclast.
 * To the form thus conceived imagined flowers and other offerings are to be made. Such interior worship of a mantra-body or correspondingly imagined form is called subtle (sūkṣma), in contradistinction to the exterior worship of a material image, which is termed gross (sthūla), though merely in a descriptive, not a deprecatory sense. -Further contrasted with both these modes of worship is that called para-rūpa, "trans-form", in which the worship is paid directly to the deity as he is in himself. This last mode no doubt corresponds to the ambition of the iconoclast, but such gnosis is in fact only possible, and therefore only permissible,to the perfected yogin and veritable jīvan-mukta, who is so far as he himself is concerned set free from all name and aspect, whatever may be the outward appearance he presents. Had the iconoclast in fact attained to such perfection as this, he would not have been an iconoclast.
 * To the form thus conceived imagined flowers and other offerings are to be made. Such interior worship of a mantra-body or correspondingly imagined form is called subtle (sūkṣma), in contradistinction to the exterior worship of a material image, which is termed gross (sthūla), though merely in a descriptive, not a deprecatory sense. -Further contrasted with both these modes of worship is that called para-rūpa, "trans-form", in which the worship is paid directly to the deity as he is in himself. This last mode no doubt corresponds to the ambition of the iconoclast, but such gnosis is in fact only possible, and therefore only permissible,to the perfected yogin and veritable jīvan-mukta, who is so far as he himself is concerned set free from all name and aspect, whatever may be the outward appearance he presents. Had the iconoclast in fact attained to such perfection as this, he would not have been an iconoclast.


 * From the sanskrit glossary:
 * puruṣa, person,personality. Distinguished from jīva, individual.
 * māyā, creative power; natura naturans.


 * I fail to see what all this has to do with racism, Kasmati rice, or waffle in general unless it is blown through the mind of a very frustrated would-be guru.
 * If Hole in the Wall ever grows to any perceptible dimension it will be to better welcome serious editors


 * (Lunarian 09:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Reply to Lunarian :Well humbly considering myself welcome for some serious editing I would like to grow the Hole in your wall" ,first a research is always nice.Para-wise reply
 * Art
 * Diversity
 * Science
 * More science
 * Science on a perfect yogin!-while it percieves the state of a yogi who although pioneers of iconoclasm may not be iconclast at all is debatable as subjectivity of each yogi may be a relative theory to each one based on available facts.When philosophies themselves are mysteriously woven distinctions the degree of erudition is questionable.And how far the centuries of manual interpretations have flavoured the relative insights provided to them in the matrix of the scholastics-appearing greatly and the understanding of perennial-which would much depend on individual's approach as to whether follow the matrix (or maya) or breaking it to form his/her own understanding -which again to the dismay of lunarians becomes a relative theory contradicting itself to beckon with the matrix.The idea should not be merely portraying one's philosophy on another mirror but treated as a whole.When the whole itself is criticised dubiously it becomes vandalism.


 * Well I think we are not debating on the icons and iconoclasm or of philosophies here!!!And if at all it was an explanation of Lingam as an anthropomorphic imaging science,holding 10th century Khajuraho(please read article on Khajuraho about exterior and interior carefully) as a reason then I think the Hole in the Wall is in serious darkness.122.167.0.25 08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And:
 * (Luanarian again:from Cooramaswami as refered to above)
 * When(...)a material image is to be produced for purposes of worship in a temple or elsewhere, this as a technical procedure must be undertaken by a professional "craftsman", who may be variously designated śilpin "craftsman", yogin "yogi", sādhaka "adept", or simply rūpakāra or pratimākāra "imager". Such a craftsman goes through the whole process of self-purification and worship, mental visualisation and identification of consciousness with the form evoked, and then only translates the form into stone or metal.Thus the trance formulae become the prescriptions by which the craftsman works, and as such they are commonly included in the Śilpa Śāstras, the technical literature of craftmanship. These books in turn provide invaluable data for the modern student of iconography. Technical production is thus bound up with the psychological method known as yoga.
 * It should be further understood that images differ greatly in the degree of their anthropomorphism.(...) A very important iconographic type is that of the yantra, used especially in the Śākta systems; here whe have to do with a purely geometrical form, often for instance composed of interlocking triangles, representing the male and female, static and kinetic aspects of the Two-in-One. Further images in the round may be avyakta, non-manifest, like a lingam; or vyaktāvyakta, partly manifest, as in the case of a mukha-lingam; or vyakta, fully manifest in "anthromorphic" or partly theriomorphic types. In the last analysis all these are equally ideal, symbolic forms.
 * Ah yes my friend, art, diversity, science, more science...aint life a bitch.
 * You are quite a poet yourself, at least at times your prose reads like James Joyce; dismay of lunarians, and mysteriously woven distinctions are among your best (if not the only) hilarious tropes.
 * About Coomaraswami though, you'd better buy the book yourself as I am not going to spoonfeed it to you entirely.
 * And remember: He who bans the smile kills his heart (ref. Spike and Suzy "The Dark Diamond")
 * And remember: He who bans the smile kills his heart (ref. Spike and Suzy "The Dark Diamond")


 * PS: on mukhalinga see forms of Shiva, carefull investigation (search the web) of other examples of mukhalinga may reveal decorative marks reflecting the uncircumsized penis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.193.187.246 (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


 * (Lunarian 12:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC))


 * PPS In The Iconographic Genesis of Shiva late Vedic a-phallic worship is contrasted with Mahabharata's phallic manifestation of Shiva (Lord of the yonis). Khajuraho and Kamasutra can be investigated with great aesthetic pleasure, bearing in mind Coomaraswami's remarks on yogin/śilpin quothed above.
 * This remark is directed to students wishing to disengage from the present discussion with at least a minor idea of what is at stake.
 * (Lunarian 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC))


 * What really needs to be taken away is that a couple of opinionated and anonymous IP-editing prudes are attempting to censor Wikipedia of common knowledge contained in multiple dictionaries and encyclopedias. This cannot be allowed to continue. There are differing interpretations, but one is not "wrong". IPSOS (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I quite agree, but it is not only a matter of this article alone. Although one would expect it to introduce the means of understanding the complexity of the matter. Take for instance the ithyphallic Pashupati of Mohenjo-daro in which case the article Urdhvalinga needs to be created (see also Mukhalinga). I do not feel up to this task because following it up all the way through the interminable debate that would ensue is beyond my economic means. I do not think I am alone in this, many of us can only observe, regret and continue to learn as we go. Perhaps passing a lead here or there: the spark that may entice her or him with the greater knowledge (i.e. access to better reference, not gut feeling) and stamina to contribute. (I wish there had been a softer reference to ithyphallic -seems wiki means one can not use an egg without breaking its shell -its farewell Easter egg for the romantics among us!)

(Lunarian 11:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Point of View: Comments...
I am a American who has practiced Hindu spiritual and devotional practices for over 30 years. I read the Wikipedia article on the Lingam and was very happy that there was no mention of the lingam as a symbol for Shiva's penis. I for one meditate on Lord Shiva and the thought that the lingam refers to his sexual organ is offensive and repulsive. I noticed on this page of discussion that there are Hindu devotees who feel as I do and have removed any such reference to the Lingam in the article.

Others on this page counter by saying that we can’t have people hijack the interpretation of the article. Why not have some balance on this issue? If modern swamis, Vivekananda and Sivananda (who are highly respected) say it is not right to think of the Lingam as Shiva’s sexual organ and that doing so emerged from a fallen perverted state of Hinduism why not state that in the article? Why not state that Hindus are offended by this view and it that modern scholars are learning that Hindus do not practice phallic worship? The Lingam represents God’s Divine Energy, which is transcendental and Absolute. Adoration of the sexual organs is unthinkable to Hindus. Do Christians adore Jesus’ penis? That is unthinkable to Christians. But modern western scholars unthinkingly make this horribly insensitive conclusion about Hindus toward Shiva. Just explain that such beliefs are considered inappropriate and modern scholarship is beginning to recognize this fact. Use this discussion as your scholarly reference. Just because a phallic meaning was given to the west does not mean it is literal, true, or representative of Hindu belief. Do modern western scholars actually think that the Hindus adore Shiva’s penis and use a form of his organ to represent him? Somehow there has to be a much deeper meaning to this that transcends any hint of crass human carnality. Why don’t the western scholars, or participants on this page, start worshipping God as a phallus? Probably because they are not insane. But, with all respect... there has been gross insensitivity toward the subject. Look at all the new scholary information this discussion page has brought to light. '''Objectively, fairly, represent this issue in the article from what has been discussed from this page. Then I bet the issue will not be edited out again'''. Best of luck.

--- Please allow me to step out further on this limb and offer more insight as to the resistance regarding this issue. In humans the sexual energy is impure. It contains lust, ego, desire, craving. It is base. In Hinduism devotees of God strive to transmute and overcome the impure sexual nature. In this earnest and literal endeavor the very thought of God having impure lust and human sexuality is simply intolerable.

In Hinduism, the purpose of devotion to God is to become completely purified of all human sanskara, impurities, and merge into a mystical union with God. When this higher state of universal oneness is achieved nothing of the enlightened person is impure. Not even the enlightened person's sexual energy (which he or she still has). Mystically that person's vision of life sees only God as the Living Energy (Shakti) assuming all forms, pure and impure. That is a way of saying that the transcendental yogis are completely beyond any feeling/cognition of evil, impurity or any separation of life from its God-essence. For such a yogi our above discussion regarding the Lingam is superfluous. But to myself and other devotees on the path of enlightenment, who practice celibacy as a spiritual dedication to God, who are becoming increasingly sensitive to a more discerning perception our human energies, the sexual energy is experienced as impure vibrations of our ego-separation from God. God becomes an Energy to us that is far beyond sexuality in quality, substance and appreciation. The Lingam issue, therefore, in the context of spiritual devotees, is not only relevant but presents an urgent need to be properly understood to all people that Shiva is not represented by sex. He is beyond any human conditioned concept of sexuality. He simply is BEYOND. Shiva is absolutely transcendental, PURE, Oneness; a Wholeness beyond all human energies. As devotees literally and increasingly experience the transcendental nature of inner Self (Shiva) any association to God with prior ego-energy is unbearable. This especially applies to Shiva in His Personal Form. I say this to hopefully encourage in you a more empathetic understanding of the Lingam problem. To use the word "prudes" is again a terrible western insensitivity. Insensitivity is what we are trying to overcome here. The scholarly contexts (above) are not hard to understand or represent in the article. What do we do when offended? Forgive and try to understand! Forgiving is part of the spiritual path. It is good for everyone. Again best of luck in rectifying the Lingam issue in the article. Wikiuser108 07:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "I for one meditate on Lord Shiva and the thought that the lingam refers to his sexual organ is offensive and repulsive..."
 * Maybe I should not ask this ( being an old pervert and never having meditated on anything in particular ) but why should you think Lord Shiva has a sexual organ ?
 * My respect where respect is due,
 * (Lunarian 10:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

________

Lunarian,

That is an appropriate question. Shiva doesn't have a sexual organ. Shiva is cosmic. He is the Divine essence that pervades and comprises the human soul and every manifestation of form and being within the universe. However, to refer to the divine symbol, the Lingam, as a symbol of the sexual organ just creates the most gross misinterpretation. It rubs against our spiritual grain. The crux of this discussion exists on a feeling level. To allude even subtly that devotion to Shiva involves the thought, icon, image, energy, feeling, vibration or in any other mannerism, a reference to the human organ is just so gross, so inappropriate. Shiva has nothing to do with a feeling or energy, etc., of human sexuality. It doesn’t even come into play to a true devotee. In fact it is antithetical in purpose and to the transformation involved in uniting with Him.

And if someone were to approach Shiva devotion and worship as involving in any manner human sexuality then I assure you that they are "doing their own [gross] thing" as opposed to representing the ancient, timeless nature of Shiva and man's spiritual union with Him, which transcends all human energy. The reference is horribly gross and Hindu leaders and followers dismiss it as antiquated foolishness at best*. If some expression to that effect was included in the article then the tension/conflict may disappear and the phallic reference to the Lingam will likely remain on the page. That is my humble guess and solution. Give it a try.

[*Entire cultures or subcultures can become perverted. Look at Nazism or the Spanish Inquisition or any form of collective behavior/belief that ended because at the very least they were not natural, not true to life and reality.] Wikiuser108 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute: dictionary tussle section
Even the title is POV. Sentences like "The spirituality and sexuality are united to please the pleasures of the popular and for the sake of reducing abstractness" have no source and present an individual editor's opinion. It is not encyclopedic and does not solve any problems with the article. This beating about the bush about the lingam and the phallus needs to stop. IPSOS (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried to provide a balanced point of view showing both sides, but I am wondering if others think the article is now balanced with regard to the Etymology section? I am willing to try to find further sources on any points if other editors would please point out parts of the article that need attention first.  One step could be to place  tags on any sentences in particular that seem problematic.  I agree that the two sections that are marked as unreliable are in need of extensive overhaul.  It may be best to do this in small steps rather than as a large change in order to give everyone an opportunity to react to a series of smaller incremental edits.


 * Regarding User:Philosopher1, he has been given a short block per this edit: I suspect that Maleabroad is now involved with Lingam in connection with previous vandalism related to the Ligayat sect, as another confirmed sock of his User:ChangeDetection has been active there. See: [].  For those who may be unfamiliar with this issue, the Lingayats are connected with certain social and political themes which this user espouses, and the Linga is an important symbol for them. Buddhipriya 18:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How can I intervene in this dispute?? --SunStar Net talk 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your offer to help. Any user can help by placing this article on their watch list and monitoring changes for WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and taking whatever action seems to make sense to you based on your understanding of those policies.  The more eyes looking at the article the better.  Buddhipriya 04:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek and Hebrew not related
This is an absolutely incorrect statement. Aside from countelss lexical similarities, the alphabet itself resembles Hebrew to an unmistakeable degree( Alpha:Aleph, Beta:Bet, Gamma:Gimel, Iota:Yud, Phi/Pi:Pheh,Peh; are you unaware or do you have a something to prove? ). The opinion that Greek and Latin are unrelated to the Semitic are nothing short of the vestige of European anti-Semitism which thrived quite well in the universities that produced the bulk of our etymological information( ASMOF the word Sem in semitic is related to semiotic and symbol- which are traditionally traced to greek lineage, however the hebrew Shem:'word' predates the greek usage by all substantial archeological evidence ). Your edits will be changed unless you address this point as a non-anonymous user. Much of our etymology comes from pre-WWI German academic efforts( search for the Ursprech ). Most German specialists at the time believed that Hebrew or more commonly termed Semitic is the root of all Indo-European languages( including Hindi-Sanskrit-Brahmi, Latin, and Greek ), this opinion abruptly changed with the outset of WWII. The common continental belief that Greek was the oldest and most influencial language was adopted to a degree. Early American linguists also favoured the Semitic postulate, including Merriam Webster( who had direct knowledge of Hebrew ), who included many Semitic etymologies in his first American Dictionary. Many of these etymologies also disappeared with the onset of federalism in America, and its direct influence on the MWD. The semitic postulate is most often attacked by both bible critics and those who have ethnic animosity for the Jewish people.

what mean mantra trantra yagna in praticular life
mantra= A set of words arranged to mean a thougth or objects or activite. In normal term mantra is nothing but a sound or voice which a human create from his mouth and put to object, thought, activite, etc.

trantra = A action or set of action to be prepare for the task which u aim for.

yagna = A effort to achive sucess on a daily and continously process of your life.

Political Correctness at the point of truth
So the connection between the lingam and the biblical "pillar of stone", between ancient religions and cultures is sacrificed on the altar of political correctness? What does this say about the authors of this page, about Wikipedia, about objectivism and knowledge?

Lingam stones
I am not the most familiar with the idea of shiva and lingam, but I am an avid collector of narmadeswara lingams These are so called "lingam stones" found in the Narmada river. Could this have some significance to the idea of a lingam? All that is mentioned about lingam stones occuring geologically is the brief paragraph on the ice stalagmite at Amanarth cave. What do you guys think about me adding a section on Lingam stones? Or perhaps I should make a seperate article? --Ottokarf

Personal link moved here for discussion
"It's like a simplest pillar, a sign or an emblem.Various Lingas - Istalinga,Sthavaralinga,Jyothirlinga,Praanalinga,Gurulinga,Mahalinga etc are various ways in which Linga is worshipped.More insights can be taken from  http://members.aol.com/ukumbar/vsny/Detailed.htm#BM8."

I moved this here because its not encyclopedic to have a weblink in the middle of an article, and it appears out of place to me and needs to be cleaned up in format. Add it back in if you think it can be integrated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC

Cleanup
The article needs cleanup. There are lots in ALL CAPS, missing spaces, and other typos. I am not qualified in the subject to make the changes.

Vandalism
Dbachmann and all those who changed afterwards is spreading vandalism by changing in 28th Jan .After so much of discussion if he want to still flogg I don't know what to say.How can Sanskrit from where name is derived be offtopic?````

Etymology
I will do a copyedit on the Etymology section of the article to try to organize the Sanskrit a bit better and provide some references. For me the issue has nothing to do with objections to sexual matters, which are a normal part of life. The issue is that in Sanskrit the word "linga" means "sign", and the specific use in male anatomy is that the male organ is a "sign" of gender. It is also true that the word linga can be translated as "male organ" or some such term, but that is not the primary meaning of the term, it is a secondary meaning of the term. I will add dictionary citations now to try to make this more clear. It is also true that Westerners often read things into this symbol that Hindus do not see. In general I think that Hindus are more conservative regarding sexual matters and particularly can be offended by the phrasing of ideas. Buddhipriya 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added citations to the etymology section and moved things that were not related to etymology out of that section. I have tried to give a balanced version of the Western interpretations, adding two citations to WP:RS.  For those who may not know, Monier-Williams is a standard Sanskrit dictionary, and Gavin Flood's text is found on many "Hinduism 101" college reading lists.  In working on these edits I see that part of the problem is that the article is titled "Lingam" but it really talks about "Shivalingam", a specific type of lingam.  The broad use of the word lingam in Sanskrit texts is probably not known by the average reader.  It comes up over and over again in philosophical texts with the generally means of "sign".  For example, Monier-William's quotes the example in logic that "there is fire because there is smoke", where in logic, smoke is the linga of fire. Buddhipriya 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya's buddhi seems to be declining! Anyways how can you say Shivaram Apte's dictionary provides proper meaning.When it says "The sign of gender" how can it be only male penetrating organ where is female gone.Then u tell yoni and put one over the other and say this is India's genesis.Mother India would be so proud to have you as her offspring. There is no need for you to be so nice to westerner's theories which demean Indian core ideologies.This topic is not so easy to be kept inside a dictionary and used off.This has evolution in it energy in it and any constrictions would be insensitivity. About sexuality you seem to have removed all obligations about sex.Well even it is a part of Sanathana which is defeated time and again and hence popularly it is told to be conserved duly as it should be.I think you can write about Britney more than this topic. Don't you read all the discussions above and understand.Don't u have that maturity. It has reaches into human civilisation and spirituality from idolism to non idolism to meditation. You seem to one who is trying to be smooth and friendly with English.They aren't ur friends in these matters to come to an agreement .It is people like you who have brought India into such tatters.Making agreements ,making fornications and alliances and defying the own motherland - its all weak ones like you who starting from East India company till partition of India have prostituted the land. Why don't you go and ask all the Archakas of temples listed in the articles.Get the information.They are the ones who have got knowledge passed the Indian way through Gurukula.There is no original book for Mahabharata or dictionary or websites for Indian topics as they can be malignated by weak ones like you but are passed from Guru to Shishya. There are somethings which are mystical and remain mystical to commoner and Sanathana tries to explore it. This same attitude had also lead to tussles between shaiva and vaishnava theories which has created some misunderstanding between Vishnu and Shiva and people like you add more fuel to it. I would like you to learn and reshape the article with the things in proper places. Philosopher1 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Namaste. I agree that Hindu views on this matter tend to differ from those of Westerners. In matters of faith I believe it is important that all views be respected. From the point of view of Wikipedia policy, I think what we need to try to do is work together to comply with the guidelines of WP:POV which basically call for differences of opinion to be noted when they occur, and that responsible views be treated with respect.  These differences of opinion are opportunities for mutual dialog and learning so that we may build a stronger and more complete view of things.  Having seen on the talk page here that Westerners seemed increasingly frustrated by an inability to have their perspective noted, my feeling is that providing some mention of the disagreement is better than denying that it exists.  Regarding the Sanskrit translation of the term, it would be possible to provide references to materials such as the Kama Sutra where the term lingam does indeed refer to the organ of generation, but do we really need to do that? This is a good case where the meaning of the Sanskrit term लिंगम् is dependent on context.  When used in philosophical writing it generally means "sign" which is the crux of the difference with the usual Western view. ॐ शिवाय नमः ॥ ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॐ ॥ Buddhipriya 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"I agree that Hindu views on this matter tend to differ from those of Westerners." Lingam is an Indian topic and I don;t know when did westerners start to worship it differently. "From the point of view of Wikipedia policy, ...." Can I call Christian doctrines by my POV and tell them to put it in christianity page. "These differences of opinion are opportunities....." Maligning some others faith by assumptions are not oppurtunities, they are ... "Westerners seemed increasingly frustrated ...." So what have you taken contract or are u a slave to remove their frustrations.Why do they need to interfere so wrongly. "Regarding the Sanskrit translation of the term, it would be possible to provide references to materials such as the Kama Sutra " No one questions it can be used at such place but etymology cannot give it a 7th or 8th meaning as a organ.This shows that Shivram Apte has given himself to westerner's demands or to Shaiva Vaishnava conflict.You can encyclopaedically mention it citing all the available evidences including forces of nature but not define it as an organ - that removes the whole essence of the topic constricting it. Does wiki says that "usual Western view" should be the first priority .I never got that. If that's the case u can start a new page of "Western Lingam" or "Lingam:The democratic perverted view" or "Lingam:The dictionary view" and so on. I am entirely rewriting article and locking it. Philosopher1 09:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Philosopher,
 * I am entirely confused.
 * Your article says: "...numerous rishis across timezones have worshipped the simplest looking Linga..."
 * Need they not have worshipped only Lord Shiva ?
 * Or is it true what Swami Sivananda said: " This vast world of countless forms is a Linga (a signal pointing to an inference) of the omnipotent Lord..."
 * Surely, among countless forms some are simple and some are complex ?
 * Maybe the more simple the greater its treasure as a mark, a sign, a Linga ? Help me judge that.
 * I have up till now (perhaps only) understood great temple art (Khajuraho) and strange depictions (Kama Sutra) as a complex sign of Lord Shiva. And while I admit to be far more unworthy than yourself in my need to look for what is beyond symbol when it comes to Lord Shiva, I can only attribute the vanity of man to man himself.
 * That is why I can -judging your philosophy- only see your intervention as a sign of injustice, a mark standing in the way to what promissed to be a well documented and wonderfull yourney of learning.
 * I sorry that you are so full of hate, where Sanathana Sarati has guided so many already on the path of Love.
 * Lunarian 11:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Could it be that Wikipedia is only one complex sign among many ? And if whe need not worship it we may at least strive not to misinterpret ?
 * Lunarian 11:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * as soon as people involve "the Hindu view", you know something is wrong. "Hindu" refers to two millennia of history of an entire subcontinent. There is no single topic on which there is a single unified "Hindu" view. Nigh any disupte allegdly between "Hindu" and "Western" views can be documented as existing within India. There is no denying that the primary meaning of lingam is *not* phallus, but generic "mark, etc.", just as there is no denying that the Shivalingam in particular has a phallic symbolism. Insisting to call mainstream academic view (which is decisive for Wikipedia, like it or not) "Western" is a tendentious red herring used by those who have otherwise no case, or no patience to build it. dab (𒁳) 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it is true that in this case Hindu sensibilities in general differ from people who are external to the culture. That seems to be what the conflict has been about on this article.  I do not think it is a red herring to draw attention to the fact that there seems to be a systematic tendency for some people to see it one way or another.  In looking over the sources at hand, sorting by ethnicity of the author, there does seem to be consistency in use of the symbolic interpretation by native authors, who by using the term "sign" are not explicitly denying the phallic associations, they are simply using a more abstract way of referring to the concepts that are being represented.  I have not seen any citations given here that the Hindu authors are denying phallic associations entirely, they simply do not go to that as a first choice for what to say about it.  When I say citations here I am referring to the WP:RS that I can personally examine, not the statements made during discussions on these talk pages, which often do not cite any sources and which show very strong points of view. Buddhipriya 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability
According to 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)

Merge? Merged!
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)

Why is there no South Indian interpretation of the origin of the cult of worshipping Siva as in Sangam literature and word Siva? User:Senthilkumaras

Why the association with a phallus?
Except for "becuz someone said so" of course. Surprise me. How would a god even care about social rules? The Shiva Lingum has nothing to do with a Phallus. You people who say so are ignorant fools! —Preceding unsigned comment added by N33 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read . For association of Shiva with phallus, book by Indian Hindu author and not a westerner.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The association with the phallus has been started by western Indologists just to demonize and denigrate Hinduism/India. People like Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty (U.Chicago head of Religious Studies) insist on giving homoerotic descriptions of various deities including the Lingam. The Lingam actually depicts the FORMLESS aspect of the Supreme; as alluded to in the article--"beyond the three gunas"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats just shameless prudence. Why would "phallic" be bad? Whats wrong with genitals? Its not the idea of the lingam being phallic that is imported into India, but the prudence is imported in India. And its not becuz you may be Indian yourself that you are right! Many lingams have details (d**khead for instance) carved in it. But you probably think that only represents the brain. Patriarchic bullshit, thats what it is.--N33 (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lingam does mean Phallus and association with IS NOT bad. In fact, in Ramayana, there is a clear referece of Lord Rama creating a shiv lingam (phallus) in sea sand and explaining that the Lingam is the source of life. I'd call it a significantly advanced culture that worshipped source of life (as known), Lingam, the phallus, often also depicted as penetrating the vagina. Let's not distort facts here and change the article accordingly. Calling Lingam a "sign" is not exactly inaccurate but not sufficient. Here's what the m-w dictionary says about it a stylized phallic symbol often depicted in conjunction with the yoni, connoting maleness, vitality, and creative power, and being an emblem of the Indian god Siva 59.184.246.158 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Cham lingams in Vietnam. I've never seen such an obvious phallus--though stilized, they are highly detailed and anatomically correct--they are not mere stone pillars. In combination with the yoni and constant motifs of the female breast in Cham decorative arts, it is obvious to even the must unstudied, that the ancient Cham would have been aware of their phallic nature. I can only assume Isherwood must be ignorant of Cham culture to make the quoted statements here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.7.8.86 (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only with the Cham, but with the Indus Valley culture also. But this is the common underlying error in this outdated "Indian history started with some 'Aryan Invasion'" school. The original use of the lingam - where Vedic India got it from - may well have been as a phallic symbol just like a herma; but nobody really knows.
 * What we know, however, is that all scientific attempts to prove a direct cultural connection of the Indus Valley and the Vedic cultures have hitherto been in vain. So what was picked up by the "invading" Aryans was merely the symbol, for practical purposes stripped of its original significance and cult. And since the yoni has probably the same origin, the most parsimonious explanation is that here we do indeed have the remains of an ancient fertility cult that were co-opted later (after the cult in its original form was long gone) to evolve into their modern form. Thus, it is not necessarily a penis/vagina symbolism, but the symbology is obvious and thus this interpretation surfaces times and again - it does not take a Nobel laureate to figure out such an interpretation of an erect stele and a piece of stone with a hole worshipped together ;-) Evolutionarily, the sexual interpretation would be considered an atavism, as the evidence is also rather clear that the lingam/yoni did not have as overtly sexual connotations in the Vedic era as they have in some context today. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something very simple, but the explanation here and in the article seems inconsistent with the way the word is used in the Kama Sutra. It has hundreds of passages like "When, holding the man's lingam with his hand, and placing it between his lips, the eunuch moves about his mouth, it is called the 'nominal congress'.", where the word "lingam" can only mean one thing, and it isn't the image of a god. Art LaPella (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on the translator, few westener scholars choose this translation and few like isherwood dont! but in the orignial works of vatsayana, this is term is not in use...But yes, I think lingam might have been associated with symbol of fertility, the male creator principle...59.92.131.85 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Art LaPella—In sanskrit (and most indian languages) words have different shades of meaning, check the vedabase for the different shades of meaning with which the word lingam are used, and these shades of meaning can easily be misused, for ex, one of the controversies of Kali's Child was that vyakulata which means "longing for god" was translated as "erotic passion". Nvineeth (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the yoni article it states: "The yoni is often associated with the linga, the representation of the phallus and symbol of the god Siva" so there is inconsistency between these views and the yoni article referencing the encyclopedia britanica. I'm not going to make changes getting me into the controversy but in western culture especially from widespread reading of the translated kamasutra, however mistranslated, lingam is synonymous with penis. This may not be a popular opinion amongst the current editors but a widespread belief and not to be ignored according to NPOV. :Also in the article on kamasutra it states that "to a modern Hindu "lingam" and "yoni" mean specifically the sexual organs of the god Shiva and his wife, and using those words to refer to humans' sexual organs would seem irreligious." So in that article it implies Linga is the specific name for Siva's phallus and not to be used for common mans penis. Yet this article does not mention 'linga' referring to Siva's own phallus.  The three articles seem not to be in harmony. Alatari (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2009

(UTC)
 * Coming to the "to a modern Hindu...", deserves a cn tag, and also other academics like S.N.Balagangadhara dont agree with this either. Nor does Britannica—"modern Hindus do not think of the linga in these terms". The word itself has a big list of meanings, see . --Nvineeth (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's understandable that "lingam" has a big list of meanings; so does the English word "dick" (or maybe the two given definitions for "virgin birth" would be a more sensitive analogy). But the last meaning of "lingam" on the list is "masculine symbol"; I'm not sure if that simply means "penis" but it seems clear that "penis" is one of the meanings. So why does the article say "Western commentators often use the concept of 'male generative organ' ..." as if only Westerners would say that? Art LaPella (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If one culture considers 'penis' the definition then it's to be presented according to NPOV. Searching the article for 'penis' turns up nothing.  A reference to the widely distributed versions of the Kama Sutra should be a reliable enough source.  The article is in violation of NPOV until editors can come up with an acceptable phrase describing this meaning. I'll be bold and try a wording. Alatari (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Added this change and hopefully it is worded succinctly and in a way acceptable to all the editors. Alatari (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Including the phallus theory in at least some detail seems to be the majority opinion of this discussion. Alatari (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)