Jump to content

Talk:Lingam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shvetashvatara Upanishad

[edit]

I am not happy that the entire subsection is based on Kramrisch's work. See these two reviews: 1 and 2. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not wrong, the part. Upanishada is accepted to be ~5/6th century creation. Why is it placed right after IVC? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is some not-so-subtle POV pushing accompanying this over reliance on Kramrisch. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe WikiLinuz will explain why the self-published works of Sivananda Saraswati - a Yoga Guru and not an academic - would be used to critique scholars like Doniger. Or the works of Swami Vivekananda who predated Doniger by about a century, in what is a light-year for the field of Indology.
Balagangadhara is another strange personality from the decolonial lands of Hindutva. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote me the line from Kramrisch (p. 14) that supports her rejection of Doniger. All I see is her interpretation of the Pashupati Seal, which is now rejected by most scholars. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote me the line from Kramrisch (p. 14) [..] "The phallus or Iiṅga pointing upward and pressing against the abdomen is a visual convention rendering the concept of ūrdhvaretas or the ascent of the semen" (line 4). Also see p. 107 "The liṇga of Śiva has three significations. They are liṇga as sign; liṇga as phallus, and liṇga as cosmic substance[..]". On the other hand, Doniger is far from denying that Lingam represents more than a 'mere' phallus(you can also see on the Appendix C Glossary on p. 324 on Doniger's Siva: The Erotic Ascetic, 2009 work.) although other scholars cited does mention the Purusha nature of the Lingam.
a Yoga Guru and not an academic - would be used to critique scholars like Doniger[..] We're talking about the Purusha rendering of the Lingam, which was explicitly states by Saraswati supported by later scholars. [..] who predated Doniger by about a century, in what [..] This is from the source that mentions about Vivekananda's critiques about Western Indologists who 'merely' considering Lingam to be a phallus and nothing more. Wiki Linuz (Ping me!)
Also, on Doniger's On Hindus, 2013, she is didn't mention of the rendering of Urdhva Retas even once when that's the whole concept of Lingam as phallus's significance comes into context. She mentioned Urdhva-Medhrva on p. 193 and once on Siva: The Erotic Ascetic, 2009 on p. 25 with a vague explanation without going into the spiritual nature of Brahmacarya and Urdhva Retas, although multiple other scholars does go into more detail in explaining. There is also no mention of Brahmacarya or practice of celibacy which the phallic iconography of Lingam represents on Doniger's works. Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 14:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't find that quote on that page of the book. Are there different editions perhaps? Either way, the quote you provide here from Kramrisch is not a critique; it is a thesis. So, that citation as it is presented is erroneous. I think this citation should instead be included where the theory of Linga as phallus is introduced perhaps? :-) FaresM (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That is a bias. ~2026-22133-74 (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shivling is not phallus

[edit]

this is just pure demonization of Hindu gods. We all know what will happen to the writer who is blaspheming against islam. And we also know hindus won't do that. But that doesn't mean you just abuse Hindu gods without repercussions. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy need to removed false notion of wendy dongier like scholars which are far from any traditional sources and using colonial standard and psychoanalysis regarding the text and misinterpret it. She is same scholar which also psychoanalysis the ganesha god which is very derogatory in nature and also called the bhagavad geeta text which promoting violence and ridicule the bhagavad geeta. Cite such controversial scholar which is far from authority over hinduism show biasedness of this article. 223.233.83.34 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy dongier is controversial for her psychoanalysis of hindu text and concept which extremely problematic and denigrated. As view of scholar cannot taken as authority over text which entirely opposite of traditional scholars and text. So I request pleased removed the her citation and shivlanga is not phallic symbol from any stretch of imagination. So better removed this citation and reference of her to stop spreading wrong strerotype regarding shivalingam. 223.233.83.34 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thin that say lingam (or shiva linga) cannot be a phallic symbol for Shiva as absurd for modern day English usage when it is clearly the common name. Consider the following definitions for lingam:
    • The aniconic phallic representation traditionally worshipped as a symbol of or in connection with Shiva. – wiktionary:lingam. Retrieved 2023-12-31.
    • Among the Hindus, a phallus, worshipped as a symbol of the god Shiva. – "lingam - Quick search results". Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 2023-12-31.
    • Hinduism: A stylized phallus worshiped as a symbol of the god Shiva. – "The American Heritage Dictionary entry: lingam". ahdictionary.com. Retrieved 2023-12-31.
    • a stylized phallic symbol that is worshipped in Hinduism as a sign of generative power and that represents the god Shiva – "Definition of LINGAM". Merriam-Webster. 2023-12-19. Retrieved 2023-12-31.
This is simlilar to the situation for swastika (see Talk:Swastika as well). People object to using that word because of its association with Nazis, but it is clear that swastika is the common name for hakenkreuz. Lingam is clearly a common name for a phallic symbol for Shiva in today's English. Peaceray (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Swastika certainly commonly used for hakencruz after when british colonial scholars started calling it swastika which strongly objected by other contemporary scholars. However scripture clearly mentioned the meaning shivalinga in shiva purana and linga purana. Alain Danielou in his work "Shiva And Primordial Tradition From Tantras To The Science Of Dreams" clearly mentioned it as linga as distinctive sign. ReckoningOfIgorance (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the sexual part pls.

[edit]

my brother was using this website and ask me about it. So,for the kids using this , pls remove it 2400:1A00:4B8A:446A:C047:959:888A:D6A1 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2026

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – LuniZunie(talk) 07:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lingam → LingaLinga – While liṅgaṃ is certainly a valid spelling, I don't believe it is the most common one, especially in scholarly sources. At least in the history-related sources I've read, the usual spelling is liṅga, without the anusvāra, although sources specifically dealing with Hinduism would probably be more authoritative here. The Monier-Williams dictionary, which is currently cited in the etymology section, has the entry under liṅga, and the entry doesn't mention the spelling "liṅgaṃ" at all. Liṅgaṃ appears a grand total of once in the entire dictionary, as part of a specialized definition, whereas liṅga is used many times in other definitions. (It's a pretty old source, though, and potentially outdated, so if something more recent indicates that liṅgaṃ is indeed the standard Sanskrit spelling, then I will defer to that.)

A previous move discussion in 2017 got bogged down by a discussion of whether a cited Google ngram chart was accurate. At the risk of potentially going down that same path, I would like to propose my own data point: a JSTOR search for "linga" gets some 6,800 results, whereas searching for "lingam" gets only about 3,000. I haven't personally certified every single one of them to weed out irrelevant results (there are plenty on both sides), but I think it does point toward liṅga being the more common spelling.

I'm having a hard time checking the sources currently used in our article -- a lot of them are cited using Google Books, and I'm having weird technical difficulties there where it won't return search results or go to linked page numbers -- but basically all of the listings in the External Links section use the spelling "liṅga", and several of the cited sources using "liṅgaṃ" are fairly recent news items that could basically be a circular reference in terms of the name -- our article has been at "lingam" for a while, and people might be seeing that and assuming that's the usual name.

So most of the scholarly sources I could verify from our article use the spelling liṅga. A couple use liṅgaṃ -- again, both spellings are valid -- but there's a clear preference for liṅga, especially in sources that deal directly with this subject (as opposed to, say, "Presenting Cultural Artifacts in the Art Museum" or Cultural Encyclopedia of the Penis). 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds convincing, but it would be helpful to have a summary of what past and present Indian languages use each version. I'm guessing Classical Sanskrit uses "linga", but what about modern Hindi? We use Shiva, for example. Whatever we do, I think diacritic marks are best avoided. Where was the 2017 discussion? I can't see it in the archive - please link. I notice Britannica uses "lingam", & most of the upset Hindu editors who turn up here seem content to use it. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking on Wiktionary, it looks like linga is used in Marathi, Nepali, Odia, and Kannada; ling (which basically comes straight from linga) is used in Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, and Gujarati; lingo is used in Bengali; lingam in Malayalam; and lingamu in Telugu (with lingam listed as a variant). I don't see the Tamil form listed on Wiktionary but I assume it would be lingam or something similar. I'm not a native speaker of any of these languages, though, so someone please correct me if any of this is wrong.
As for the 2017 discussion, you should be able to find it here. Let me know if the link doesn't work -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, in Hindi, "linga" is a common technical term for biological sex. Hindi speakers pretty much never say "linga" to refer the subject of this article. It's always "Shivalinga"; that's where the Hindi Wikipedia article is located: hi:शिवलिंग. Hindi speakers would probably prefer "lingam" in English for this subject since it clearly disambiguates the intended meaning from the other one. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move to Linga per WP:COMMONNAME - scholarly sources mostly use Linga - agree with not using diacritic marks. Asteramellus (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that these are still a vital part of worship for hundreds of millions of Hindus today, almost none of whom read "scholarly sources", the WP:COMMONNAME should be what they mostly use, if we can determine that. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Johnbod - not quite sure, but do you think the word is "Linga" and is spoken with -m at the end? I also read the analysis below by AlbusWulfricDumbledore, and I do agree with that analysis and can change from Support to Oppose. Asteramellus (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose after considering further analysis of the terms. Asteramellus (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH - in English-language usage, lingam is more common than linga, as shown by its use as the headword in major reference works and general dictionaries, which typically list linga only as a variant. Many academic titles and museum or historical publications also prefer lingam when writing for an English-speaking audience. Media reports across English pages overwhelmingly use lingam.
In English reference works, the primary term is lingam - linga is almost always treated as a variant:
1. Encyclopaedia Britannica - lingam used as topic headword
2. Merriam-Webster - lingam - lingam as main term (linga as variant)
3. Collins Dictionary - as above
4. Oxford English Dictionary uses "lingam" (linga not given as variant but notes "Etymons: Sanskrit liŋga)
Sources don't use linga exclusively as you have already mentioned, with substantial academic usage of "lingam" too.
The Monier-Williams reference is a 19th century Sanskrit dictionary so not very representative.
JSTOR hit counts should be taken with a pinch of salt, as is Google Ngrams often on Wikipedia, especially since linga has a wide range of meanings in Sanskrit (e.g., mark, sign, as a grammatical gender) as the article notes.
Specialist articles may prefer linga, reflecting an academic tendency to stay closer to the Sanskrit stem rather than the dominant form in general English, which is far more relevant for the title of an article.
Journalistic sources overwhelmingly use lingam, reflecting its status as the common English term. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that "lingam" may well be the more common spelling in journalistic sources, but overwhelmingly? That's a pretty strong claim to make and I don't see any words to that effect in any of the sources you linked; what are you basing it on? 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Based on the balance of evidence presented so far in this discussion, it does appear that linga exceeds lingam in usage right now, and seems to be backed up by local sources and languages too.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Hinduism-related topics notice board, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Nepal, and WikiProject Hinduism/Shaivism have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 05:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to include foundational philosophical and etymological definitions of "Linga"

[edit]

Hi everyone, TheKun10 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC) I would like to suggest an update to the "Etymology and nomenclature" and "Meaning" sections to provide a more comprehensive view of the term "Linga" based on primary Sanskrit philosophical texts (Darshanas). Currently, the article focuses heavily on later literal interpretations, often overlooking the technical definitions found in foundational Indian logic and philosophy. I propose the inclusion of the following scholarly references: Sankhya Karika (Karika 5): As translated by S.S. Suryanarayana Sastri (Motilal Banarsidass), the term "Linga" is defined as a technical "mark" or "sign" used for inference (Anumāna). It states that inference is preceded by the knowledge of the Linga (the middle term or the mark) and the Lingin (the possessor of the mark). Vaisheshika Sutra (1.1.8): Translated by Nandalal Sinha, it defines "Linga" as a characteristic mark or sign from which an object is inferred. This establishes "Linga" as a core term in Indian epistemology (logic), meaning a "symptom" or "evidence." Shiva Purana (Vidyeśvara-saṃhitā, 5.10-11): In the translation by J.L. Shastri (MLBD, Vol. 1), it is explicitly stated: "Since He (Shiva) has no form, He is worshipped in the form of a Linga (Symbol/Mark)... It is the symbol of the Nishkala (formless) Shiva." Linga Purana (Chapter 3, Verse 1): Defines the "Pradhana" (Primordial Nature/Prakriti) as "Linga," which is beyond physical attributes. Including these academic citations will ensure a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) by showing that in Sanskrit grammar and philosophy, the term "Linga" primarily functions as an abstract representation of "Formless Reality" or a "Logical Mark." I am happy to provide more specific page numbers from the MLBD editions if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKun10 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC) TheKun10 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note on the Iconography of "Peetham" and "Yoni": TheKun10 (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I would like to suggest a review of how the base of the Lingam is described. The current article often conflates the architectural base (Peetham) with a literal biological Yoni. In Shaiva Siddhanta and Agamic texts, the base is explicitly termed as Peetham, representing Parashakti (the supreme cosmic energy that holds and sustains the universe), while the Lingam represents Parashiva. Even in Shaktism traditions (such as the Kalika Purana's description of the Kamakhya Shakti Peeth), the term Yoni is used in a profound philosophical sense denoting the "Cosmic Womb" or the ultimate source of creation (Prakriti), rather than a mere anatomical reference. Scholars like Stella Kramrisch and Sir John Woodroffe have extensively criticized the 19th-century colonial translations for stripping these symbols of their macrocosmic meaning (the union of pure consciousness and primordial matter). I request that the article properly distinguishes between the architectural Peetham and the philosophical concept of the Cosmic Womb, giving due weight to the actual theological framework. TheKun10 (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lingam&oldid=1356115354"