![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi everyone:
Back in January 2007, someone added a tag, "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it."
After a few small tweaks here and there over the past several months, I finally undertook to try and comprehensively expand and improve the article. At this point, I am still doing a lot of work and the changes –both large and small – are so extensive it would be almost impossible to note each one. Please be patient with me for a bit longer.
As of this writing, my changes and expansions are basically complete from the top down to the "Puranas" intro. Below that, I have not done much except add heads and subheads for further expansion later, and move around some pre-existing text from the article as it was. So please note when editing: Anything below the Puranas intro is still very raw and very much "under construction."
I will endeavor to complete additions and expansions, within the new template, as soon as possible. Please leave any comments and suggestions for improvement!
Thanks! - Devi ( Devi bhakta 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
References from Subramuniyaswami, Satguru Sivaya's book relating Ganesha were removed from the article as it was considered devotee literature , thus not WP:RS. [1] Same applies to "Merging with Siva".-- Redtigerxyz 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
( Devi bhakta 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
Quoting primary sources e.g Rigveda directly with verese no, is against the WP policy of WP:RS and WP:V. Generally secondary sources e.g a WP:RS which says the verse is in Rigveda, should be referenced and primary sources can be used as notes. I am not removing primary sources til secondary sources are found.-- Redtigerxyz 12:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
^Mahabharata, IV.6 and VI.23. ^ Silappadikaram, Canto XXII remain-- Redtigerxyz 12:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Their theology is complex and multilayered; however, a good basic summary explains:
"The Supreme Mother is the Transcendent Absolute; ineffable, immutable. In the act of creation, she subjects herself to time and space. Though space is actually one vast expanse, for [purposes of] our grasp and understanding we demarcate the invisible and infinite space into ten directions [i.e. the eight cardinal directions, plus above and below. ...] Likewise, the one Truth is sensed in its ten different facets; the Divine Mother is adored and approached as the ten cosmic personalities, the Dasa [Ten] Mahavidyas." [1]
Each of the Mahavidyas is said to lead to ultimate wisdom and spiritual liberation; yet the paths to this end will differ according to the goddess chosen as an aspirant's personal deity [ishtadevata]]:
"Each Vidya is distinct and distinguishable from the other. Each is a particular cosmic function and each leads to a special realisation of the One Reality. [...] If an aspirant wants to reach the Divine, circumscribed as he is by his receptivity and capacity, he chooses one particular path; i.e., takes up for adoration one aspect of the Divine. As his pursuit is exclusive, his progress is quick and his approach becomes direct. Ultimately he attains a perfect identification with the Divine." [2]
In fact, it is believed that the Mahavidyas work collectively guiding their individual devotees through spiritual evolvution, and that "one Mahavidya leads [her] sadhaka to another, depending on the need and aspiration of the sadhaka." [3] Each of the Mahavidyas can be understood at various levels. For example, in some Kalikula systems Matangi is conceived as the "outcaste goddess," taking the form of a Chandali – a tribal woman of a jungle-dwelling, meat-eating hunter-gatherer tribe – while in Srikula systems she is more often described as the daughter of the great sage Matanga, and Prime Minister to the Queen (Lalita-Tripurasundari as Rajarajeshwari)."
Removed this info under WP:UNDUE to Mahavidyas discussion. This info is better suited for Mahavidyas article.-- Redtigerxyz 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Reworked section in accordance with above suggestions. Standardized capitalization of goddess lists for aesthetics and uniformity in keeping with links and brief translation/descriptors. ( 71.245.64.12 14:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD. The lead should be 2-3 paras, giving an overview of the article ahead.-- Redtigerxyz 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! ( Devi bhakta 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
Replacing Image:Bhuvaneshwari1.jpg with Image:4-bhuvanesvari2.jpg as the former is a grainy image while the latter is an image of better resolution, with a additonal yantra (Tantric image) and used in Mahavidya article.-- Redtigerxyz 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Redtiger: Thanks for your latest round of edits. Please remember that, even though I am finally approaching the end of my planned edits, all of these sections are still very much works in progress. More pics will be added as sections fill out; references completed, etc.
Under "Worship in Shaktism" you removed the photo wit comment, "remove img as deity not seen; it can be any other diety." I would just note that (a) I was particularly seeking a "worshiper" pic here, as there will be plenty of deity photos within subsections; (b) the caption clearly notes that this is a Durga Puja crowd, as well as place and date of same, so it is very much "on topic"; (c) as a point of design they are both "facing" the list of Devi's names, visually paying respect to their holiness (while graphically balancing the text); and (d) I kinda like the fact that the photo is in Bangladesh, to kind of visually add to the textual assertions about the wide geographic spread of Shaktism.
I know the shot's not particularly strong (it's not mine either; just a Wikimedia Commons upload), but I liked it and found it charming and good for "mood" I wanted to set for opening of this section. Unless you feel incredibly strongly about it, I'd really like to let it stand. ( Devi bhakta 20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
removed:
# Santoshi Mata: The Goddess of Contentment, a "recent" goddess form, made famous in the 1975 film, " Jai Santoshi Ma"
Again she is a "recent" goddess, with no Puranic evidence. Emerging after 1975. Thus not part of the ancient cult of Shaktism.
-- Redtigerxyz 14:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
A word on the choice and placement of the photo of a Shunga-period yakshini, bridging the "Upanishad" and "Epic" sections of the article:
In the "Upanishad", we discuss the Devi's taking the form of a yakshini in appearing to the Vedic trinity. In the "Epic" section, the Shunga Empire is specifically named as a culture feeding the nascent Shakta impulses appearing in the Epics. So the photo applies to and bridges the two sections.
Aesthetically, the sculpture provides a visual that breaks up a long stretch of unrelieved text. As I've placed it, it not only makes sense thematically as stated above, but also as a nice and relevant illustration falling almost exactly halfway between the Lajja Gauri and the Mahishasura Mardini.
Finally, it nicely balances the list to the left, and relieves the unbalanced white space that had existed there before. - DB ( 71.245.64.12 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
The temple is given WP:UNDUE imp. Thus i request DB to remove one of the 2 images from the article. Image:Devi homam.jpg is looking a little wierd due to big light. -- Redtigerxyz 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
for WP:V. -- Redtigerxyz 12:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thus replacing one with Kali's.
Also the image now in the lead is not fit for the lead as one side is darker compared to rest of the pic.-- Redtigerxyz 14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Devi has done a brilliant work on this article. I believe that very soon it could meet the featured article criteria. Therefore, I'm displaying a peer review here, per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Following the guidances, you can improve this article further.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to draw your attention to Tripura Sundari temple. The state of Tripura is named after her. http://southtripura.gov.in/Data/matabaridetails.htm. Your article is very good. Unfortunately most of the Sri Vidya Upasakas at least in Tamil Nadu do not consider themselves Sakthas.-- Sankarrukku 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Many Samaya sadhaks (in Tamil Nadu, for example) explicitly deny being Shakta and/or Tantric, though Brooks argues that their practices are technically both, "even if Samayins would reject this appellation."[111]
( Devi bhakta 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
The article seems to be getting a bit intimidatingly long. It's currently at just over 86 KB, about 69 KB of which is readable prose (where 32 KB is the recommended limit,) so you might want to reduce it per. Wikipedia:Article size. The best way to do this is probably by taking some of the longer sections and either making them into their own article or merging them into some other article, and then just have a summary here that refers to the main article. There's no rush to do this, however it is something to keep in mind while editing. Thanks. -- Hi Ev 13:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed:
"In the first age of the gods, existence was born from non-existence. The quarters of the sky were born from she who crouched with legs spread. The earth was born from she who crouched with legs spread, and from the earth the quarters of the sky were born." [4]
Removed: and also that the term "Tantra" is itself extremely fluid:
"Tantra is a highly variable and shifting category, whose meaning may differ depending on the particular historical moment, cultural milieu, and political context. If tantra in the Sanskrit texts simply means a particular treatise that "spreads knowledge and saves," tantra in the popular imagination means something quite different indeed – a frightening, dangerous path that leads to other-worldly power and control over the occult forces on the dark side of reality." [5]
UNDUE to Tantra.-- Redtigerxyz 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I criticize the citation of Bhattacharya on the depiction of Shaktism responsible for destroying secretarianism of mainstream Hinduism. Before commenting on the Tantric tradition one should be aware of the fact that this very sect of Hinduism is still kept highly secret. In considering texts it is always advicable to refer those 64 tantras that were mentioned by Adi Sankarachariya because other texts may be polluted from the Vajrajana Tantra, which has nothing to do with Hindu mainstream thought but a degraded Buddhist practice. The real interpretation of 5 Ms and other text must be sought to different lineages of Gurus and I didn't find citation of a single lineage in the article. Tantra was developed because in Kali Yuga the Yama and Niyama of Yoga was difficult and nearly impossible to practice. This Yama and Niyama under Yoga and Samkhya restricts sexual desire, anger, greed, attachment, pride, jealousy (6 ripu) completely and Tantra was developed because man cannot at once renunce all the six ripus in Kali Yuga as his powers are limited compared to other Yugas. Tantra prescribes controlled fulfillment of desire and renunciation of ripus step by step to achieve the perfect state of Yama, Niyama and renunciation. In this process Kama (Sexual desire) is given up by removing the orgasm and by and by the whole Kama is destroyed. Similarly greed and other ripus are removed. In the Tantric tradition a student first begins his lesson being in the animal state (pashu)in this state he removes last traces of Sexual desire (charectaristic of animal nature) in himself through controlled sex. Then he starts his lessons in Rajas state to remove other ripus and finally achieves perfect Satvic state of perfection. So Tantra is best be called a controlled fullfillment of desires leading to desireless state. And the erotic and sexual depiction of the development of the philosophy of tantra (based on Freudian Psychoanalysis, which itself emphesises excessively on erotic nature of man) is unfortunate and insults the Tradition of India. If psychoanalysis is needed Samkhya is to be used for studing Indian Philosophy.
I notice that, in addition to the Aditi birth-giving passage being expunged, we've also had Radha changed from "Krishna's lover" to "Krishna's consort" ...
I guess I'd ask for some input on this. There is no doubt that Krishna and Radha are a Cosmic Pairing – but Radha is a married woman and her relationship with Krishna is, in worldly terms at least, illicit. I thus chose the term lover rather than consort as the more accurate term because of this unusual arrangement.
I agree, as with the Aditi case, that the term "consort" is less shocking to the sensibilities than the blunter term "lover," but – again as with Aditi – is being delicate more important than being accurate?
Would welcome any input, and will let "Consort" edit stand for now ... DB ( 71.245.64.12 04:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
Reasons:
Kalikula: Family of Kali gives only the Bengali side of the cult.-- Redtigerxyz 12:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The term Kali Kula is a categorization by some writers. But in actual practice it is not true anymore. I had posted about Lalita Tripurasundari temple. Here Lalita Tripurasundari is Shodasi, a Maha Vidya considered by the local people to be a form of Kali. This is the temple where daily animal sacrifices are done at the government's cost. The Kakaradhi Kali Sahasranamam from Rudra Yamala seems to have been written by a south Indian who calls her Kaveri Thira Vasini. This is obviously a Sri Vidya text. May be we could avoid this classification. Thanks.-- Sankarrukku 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
UNDUE to Animal Sacrifice practice.-- Redtigerxyz 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of the sampradhayas of Sakthism allow the women to perform Yagnas. The women are also allowed to become Bhairavis. The Tantrik guru of Sri Ramakrishna was Bhairavi Brahmani who was a Vaishnavite Bhairavi. As this right is denied by the traditional Hindu religion including Sri Vidya, a couple of sentences would be nice. Thanks. -- Sankarrukku 14:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This article does not seem to take into account the Sakthism which is widely prevalent in Bengal, Assam and parts of Maharashtra. Chandi, Durga and Kali are the the main deities. There is no mention of Chandi in in this article. Only one school is covered . The major school of practicing Sakthas who consider the supreme deity to be Maha Kali. Maha Lakshmi, and Maha Saraswathi are not mentioned. Devi Bagvatha is basically followed by South Indians where Sakthism is almost extinct. Just an observation.
Thanks,
-- Sankarrukku 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Devi bhakta. I am right now trying to revise the article on Devī Māhātmya. So I may not be able to contribute here. What I wanted was some coverage for the Devī Māhātmya and Bhakthi tradition of Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir, Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra.
-- Sankarrukku 11:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The article gives covers only South India and Bengal. Even in a list of temples, important Saktha temples like Ambaji temple in Gujarat, Kolhapur Mahalakshmi ( who is mentioned in many of the old Sanskrit studis), Bramhramba in Sri Sailam (one of the oldest Saktha and Buddist centres) are not mentioned. The pure saktha temples of Himachal Pradesh like Vajreswari, Jwalamukhi do not find a place. I could go on. It may be better not to mention any temple.The animal sacrifices at (Government expense) at the Tripura Sundari temple is not mentioned. Animal Sacrifice is offered to Lalita also.-- Sankarrukku 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
REmoved:
REason:
-- Redtigerxyz 11:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Vasant Navaratri same as Chaitra Navaratri?? If no Chaitra Navaratri should also be included else just the name.-- Redtigerxyz 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Vasanta Navaratri is the same as Chitra Navaratri. Vasanta is the name of the season. Chaitra the name of the lunar month.-- Sankarrukku 01:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Vasanta Navaratri is celebrated by all temples in North India. -- Sankarrukku 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the request for citation in caption under Bharat Mata, because (a) footnoting captions is crazy-making; and (b) Shaktism's "pervasive influence" is theme of entire section and is exhaustively footnoted already. ( Devi bhakta 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
association of female gurus with Shaktism can be considered WP:OR.-- Redtigerxyz 11:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Even the conclusion that New Seven Wonders of the World shortlisting was due to it being a Shakta temple is OR.
"Shakta-oriented temples and pilgrimage sites draw ever-growing crowds and recognition. For example, in 2004 the monumental Meenakshi Amman Temple was shortlisted in the '"New Seven Wonders of the World' competition.[80]"
-- Redtigerxyz 11:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Even Bharat Mata seems to be OR. Thus i press for the removal of this text.-- Redtigerxyz 11:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The core policy of Wikipedia, NPOV is meant to provide a framework whereby editors with diverse, often conflicting, even opposing points of view can collaborate on the creation of an encyclopedia. It does so through the principle that while it is often hard for people to agree as to what is the truth, it is much easier for people to agree as to what they and others believe to be the truth. Therefore, Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criteria for inclusion. Instead, it aims to account for different, notable views of the truth.
DB REFERENCED FROM Mother India and Her Militant Matriots NOT FROM Bhattacharyya, Dikshitar, Woodroffe. iF THOSE REF ARE PROVIDED I HAVE NO OBJ TO BHARAT MATA.-- Redtigerxyz 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
fOR GURUS IT IS The Graceful Guru: Hindu Female Gurus in India and the United States NOT Bhattacharyya, Dikshitar, Woodroffe.-- Redtigerxyz 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As both talk Tantric association with Shaktism.-- Redtigerxyz 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Draft:
Another widely misunderstood aspect of Shaktism is its close association with Tantra – an ambiguous, loaded concept that suggests everything from orthodox temple worship in the south of India, to black magic and occult practices in North India, to ritualized sex in the West. [7] It is important to note that not all forms of Shaktism are Tantric in nature, just as not all forms of Tantra are Shaktic in nature. [8]
When the term "Tantra" is used in relation to authentic Hindu Shaktism, it most often refers to a class of ritual manuals, and – more broadly – to an esoteric methodology of Goddess-focused spiritual discipline ( sadhana) involving mantra, yantra, nyasa, mudra and certain elements of traditional kundalini yoga, all practiced under the guidance of a qualified guru after due initiation ( diksha) and oral instruction to supplement various written sources. [9]
In most schools of Shaktism, the Tantras – a large genre of ritual manuals dating from as early as the 7th century CE and as late as the 19th century – are central scriptures. The Tantras "devised two main margas (paths of sadhana) to reach the same goal": [10]
The proper path is generally determined by the guru based upon a given devotee's personal nature – i.e., as a tamasic pasu (i.e., an ordinary person not particularly given to spiritual pursuits, and mainly preoccupied with worldly matters); a rajasic vira (an active and vigorous spiritual seeker, qualified to "heroically" engage more intensive forms of sadhana); or a sattvic divya (a holy-natured person, having already achieved an extremely high level of spiritual maturity) – and various other factors.
Tantric Shaktism received an high-profile boost when the legendary sage Adi Shankara, c. 800 CE, composed his powerful (and still vastly popular) ode to the goddess known as Saundaryalahari ("Waves of Beauty"). Shankara, while "not a Shakta in the sectarian sense, [...] had a soft corner for Shakta religion, perhaps due to its popularity among the masses." [11]Another important Shakta text traditionally attributed to Shankara is the hypnotically exquisite Mahishasura Mardini Stotra, a 21-verse hymn derived from the Devi Mahatmya. [12]
By the thirteenth century, "the Tantras had assimilated a very large number of cults of various origins – regional, tribal and sectarian – [and] had assumed a completely Shakta character." From the fourteenth century onward, "the Shakta-Tantric cults had [...] become woven into the texture of all the religious practices current in India," their spirit and substance infusing regional and sectarian vernacular as well as Sanskritic literature. [13]
In the social sphere, the Tantra is "free from all sorts of caste and patriarchal prejudices. [...] All women are regarded as manifestations of Shakti, and hence they are the object of respect and devotion. Whoever offends them incurs the wrath of the great goddess. Every [male aspirant] has to realize the latent Female Principle within himself, and only by [thus] 'becoming female' is he entitled to worship the Supreme Being" [14]
In sum, the complex social and historical interrelations of Tantric and non-Tantric elements in Shaktism (and Hinduism in general) are an extremely fraught and nuanced topic of discussion. However, as a general rule:
"Ideas and practices that collectively characterize Tantrism pervade classical Hinduism. [...] It would be an error to consider Tantrism apart from its complex interrelations with non-Tantric traditions. Literary history demonstrates that Vedic-oriented brahmins have been involved in Shakta Tantrism from its incipient stages of development, that is, from at least the sixth century. While Shakta Tantrism may have originated in [ancient, indigenous] goddess cults, any attempt to distance Shakta Tantrism from the Sanskritic Hindu traditions [...] will lead us astray." [15]
Just to inform anyone who may know and/or care, I have removed the "under construction" sign from the article. The article still needs polishing and a few good rounds of line-editing, and I will probably be tweaking it for weeks to come ... but I have pretty much finished what I set out to do in expanding and completing it. ( Devi bhakta 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
Redtigerxyz wrote: "Now that the article in out of the under construction phase , I again press for the merger of the sections. I use WP:BOLD and merge the sections."
With all due respect, I have restored the original arrangement, and will offer a structural explanation here as to why – for anyone who may be interested, or who may be able to offer constructive alternative viewpoints:
The article begins with a definition and brief overview of Shaktism, covering the most basic ideas for the casual reader. Then, before reaching into specifics of deities, methods of worship, etc., the article immediately moves to address the two main points of misunderstanding regarding Shaktism -- namely the role of Shiva, and the role of Tantra.
That is why the section begins, "Another widely misunderstood aspect of Shaktism is its close association with Tantra ..." – an intro that no longer made sense in Redtigerxyz's rearrangement. The section goes on to clarify that Tantra in Shaktism is not about black magic or sex, but is rather a practical methodology of spiritual technique. Then it briefly addresses (a) the more liberal socio-spiritual heirarchy implied by Tantra; (b) the complex reality of the infamous 5Ms, and (c) authentic Tantra's intricate relationship with Vedic Hinduism.
Thus the casual reader, reading only the Introduction and Overview, walks away with a sound understanding of Shaktism's essence, and a useful clarification regarding the two most common misunderstandings.
There is a difference between " Tantra" and " Tantras" – as indicated, for example, by the fact that Wikipedia offers two separate articles on the two concepts. "Tantras" refers to the literary genre that produced the so-called Tantric philosophy.
That is why the section begins, "In most schools of Shaktism, the Tantras – a large genre of ritual manuals dating from as early as the 7th century CE and as late as the 19th century – are central scriptures."
It is a more esoteric and technical discussion, and so I place it chronologically within the "Philosophical Development" section of the article (in which the Shakta literature is systematically discussed), for those interested in delving deeper into the concepts introduced in the Overview. After introducing a few "Tantra 101" concepts that dictate the content of these manuals, I move on the Adi Shankara's introduction of Tantric ideas into the Advaita Vedanta school, then to the mutual exchange of ideas between Tantra and the popular religion of the masses.
This provides a logical, fluid segue into the next section, on the "Rise of Popular Shaktism."
By contrast, the proposed reorganization – "bold" though it may be – makes two fatal errors: (1) It buries the important "Tantra" issue far too deeply in the article, where the casual reader is quite unlikely to ever find it, and thus "undoes" an important function of this article, at least as I see it; and (2) By indiscriminately mixing the concept of "Tantra" with the genre of "Tantras," it displays precisely the confusion that this article is attempting to dispel. For what it's worth, however, I did take Redtiger's suggestion of a title change for the top section. Thank you.
Hope that helps? ( Devi bhakta 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Redtigerxyz deleted this article's list of "Shakti Temples" for the stated reason that the "List [is] available in Peethas article." The problem is that, other than the special case of Kamakhya (the premiere Tantric Devi temple), none of the temples in the list Redtigerxyz deleted appear in the Shakti Peethas article. In fact, the list was specifically intended to supplement the linked article.
Redtigerxyz also mentions that the article's "list gives UNDUE to some temples ignoring others." Given that there are literally thousands of Shakti temples, of which quite a small number are particularly famous and/or notable; and also given that the deleted list was duly footnoted to a legitimate source, it appears that this is another case of an editor placing his personal views and prejudices above the larger interest of the article as a whole.
A further purpose of the deleted list was to link the "Shaktism" article to some of the major Shakti temple articles available on Wikipedia. Today my plan was to add brief descriptions of the temples in the list, describing what (beyond the self-explanatory geographic spread) makes each particulalar temple interesting and noteworthy. I am not going to do that now, frankly because it is frustrating to spend that kind of time and energy when arbitrary and unresearched deletions follow literally within hours – with not even enough time to gather one's thoughts and duly consider proper next steps.
Overall I am a patient person; I try to be diplomatic, and in any event I considered my contributions to this article a bit of Navratri sadhana. But I am not going to waste further time improving the "Temples" section until some decision has been taken regarding the inclusion of this list. As it stands now, I do not think the "Temples" category even merits a separate section, because all that's left is an expert comment that Shakta Peetha lists are unreliable – accompanied by a link to just such a list ... and nothing more? It is just too silly. ( Devi bhakta 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
-- Redtigerxyz 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This is for Red Tiger, based on various objections s/he raised above. I hope it will finally put all of this business about Female Saints, Bharat Mother and Shaktism to bed. Here are Red Tiger's various comments and my responses:
"There is no set religious institution or organization in Shaktism, and women mystics become valued for their states of ecstasy, their trance states, and their close relationship with a guru or other religious figure. Women gurus are often charismatic figures, who tend to gather relatives and other friends around them as devoted followers. In Shaktism, women are understood more often than men to be incarnations of the goddess [and] bhakti or devotional mysticism, often mixed with tantric and folk elements, seems the most prominent form of mysticism. Bhakti is a feminine mode, and the female gurus Ammachi, Anandamayi Ma, and Mother Meera [are associated] with this mode; in contrast, the female gurus Nirmala Devi and Gurumayi [are] explicitly anti-feminist leaders of patriarchal traditions that promote sexist teachings. [An even] more relevant concept for understanding what is feminine about female gurus is Shakti, a classical term in Hinduism explicitly associated with the feminine. In Shakta circles, all women are addressed as Maa or Devi or Vira [and] all of the female gurus are associated with the Goddess through the concept of Shakti, for they, like the Goddess, are paramount embodiments of shakti. Further, many of the female gurus are understood to embody the essence of specific goddesses, either through their self-interpretation or the interpretation of their followers. For example, Meera Ma is identified with Adiparashakti; Karunamayi Ma is identified with Saraswati, Bala Tripurasundari, Lalita and Lakshmi; [and] Ammachi is identified with Devi."
I think that covers it (*whew!*). Hokay? ( Devi bhakta 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
The authorship of Adi Sankara of Soundharya Lahiri is an issue of debate among scholars for a long time. It is almost inconceivable that the proponent of Nirguna Brahman should write a book based on Saguna Brahman. His commentary on Brahamasutra blasts this argument of Saguna Brahman. I remember Coburn has mentioned about this in his Encountering the Goddess in a footnote. I do not have the book now.
Mahisashura Mardhini Stotram has never been attributed to Adi Sankara. It is attributed to one Ramakrishna Kavi who was supposed to be from Bengal.-- Sankarrukku 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.
The authorship of Soundarya Lahari is mainly disputed by professors of Philosophy as the texts represent different conflicting schools.
Mahisashura Mardhini Stotra's attribution is mainly by the sound recording companies to sell the CDs and cassettes.The recording companies are also in the habit of attributing all the old Shyama Sangeeth to Ramprased Sen.-- Sankarrukku 05:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
As suggested in peer review. The article should be split into Daughter articles as it is TOO LOng. What do you think will be the best content to form a new article. In my view, the Philosophical Development and Origins part can be coupled to form "History of Shaktism" as in Shaivism article.-- Redtigerxyz 08:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Is she really considered a goddess , with reference to her mention in Epic Period section ???-- Redtigerxyz 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I divided this article into two parts -- the main article and a new one, History of Shaktism.
I did this on account of several requests on this page. HiEv stated, on Oct 18:
"The article seems to be getting a bit intimidatingly long. It's currently at just over 86 KB, about 69 KB of which is readable prose (where 32 KB is the recommended limit,) so you might want to reduce it per. Wikipedia:Article size. The best way to do this is probably by taking some of the longer sections and either making them into their own article or merging them into some other article, and then just have a summary here that refers to the main article."
The inevitable Red Tiger followed with, "As suggested in peer review. The article should be split into Daughter articles as it is TOO LOng."
Okay. So my action knocked the size of this article down from 72,795 bytes to 43,537 bytes. I hope that this is pleasing to everyone.
But can I just point something out? The Wikipedia article on Islam – at 95,675 – is more "intimidatingly long" than this article ever was.
And may I point something else out? This vast article on Islam is starred as a "Featured Article," i.e., "considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria."
So what happened to the "32 KB is the recommended limit" rule in the case of Islam? Why does Islam not split its history into a second article? Red Tiger says "In my view, the Philosophical Development and Origins part can be coupled to form 'History of Shaktism' as in Shaivism article."
That's all well and good, but Shaivism is a B-Class article (as this one was rated even before about 100 hours' worth of additions and corrections), and Islam is a Feature-Class Article! So why the double standard? May I have some opinions? Should this article be split in two, following the example of Shaivism? Or revert to its original form, following the example of Islam?
Just curious. - DB ( Devi bhakta 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
I believe this article was assigned class 'B' prior to Devi Bhakta's improvements. With his edits, I think it rates an 'A' Per the discussion of quality: "Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting." and "Peer-review would be helpful at this stage." As noted above, peer review has already been instituted, and feature article status has already been suggested. ( Jd-in-nv 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
Let me step in, guys. First of all, who has rated this article as 'A' (it seems to be an 'A' as it's mentioned above)? Where is the "article milestones" mention? There is a vote for these matters. It's weird. I personally feel that the article is good enough to be an FAC very soon.
The quality scale goes like this (from low to high, please see this for further information):
Redtigerxyz says: "cancel the A promotion". So it hasn't been promoted yet? If it hasn't, so why I see an 'A' in the above table. I think that's what confuses me. As for the GAC, there are two major concerns you have to take into account, before nominating it.
A) Basically, I do agree with Redtigerxyz, you can take it to a GAC, but why? Please take into account the fact that it takes ages. I've promoted the Preity Zinta article to a GA (it took nearly two months), and then to 'A'. The FAC was not promoted, and now some users took it to a "Good article reassessment" (the same can happen to this article, and it hurts). So you can also see that GA is not such a big concern, GA is still too low for this article, and as I gave you the example, it won't help to its FAC promotion.
B) Redtigerxyz has also said: "Going for WP:GAC will help encourage editors to read through the article." - it's not right, because an article's promotion to GA is being made by only one editor. It doesn't give you many suggestions to improve and/or promote the article, because, I repeat, only one editor makes the GAC review, and it's him to decide whether it's a GA or not. There is no vote for a GAC.
Therefore, I think, a massive FAC will help you. Many editors go through it and give suggestions, comments etc, and you just have to address them. Even if it's not promoted to a FA after that, it will be improved.
Regarding the peer review. I had requested a peer review for Asha Bhosle once, but nobody took care and nobody replied. So I just moved up the article link again and again on the PR page, and finally someone replied. I will do the same with this article now. If within three days-one week suggestions are not displayed, just take it to an FAC -- you have absolutely nothing to lose.
Please contact me if you need some help. Good luck and best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 16:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Clarification:
User:Jd-in-nv, who has 6 contributions to WP as of 5 nov elevated the rating of article from B to A by simply changing the class in the template. I am changing the class back to B - "Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process(like GAC and FAC)". I suggested a GAC as it is better to be a Good article first than a failed FAC. My experience with Ganesha FAC (now FA) compelled me to suggest a GAC first, There are many editors with an eagle eye to detect WP policy violations, who vote at the FAC, which leads to the article to fail a FAC. Before confronting them, i thought the easier, less tough GAC process should be initiated, after peeer review is archived.-- Redtigerxyz 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has come a long way. Wow.
At a quick glance, I've noticed several terms that are linked more than once throughout the article. My understanding of the Manual of style is that we generally link to a term the first time it is used and not thereafter (except with exceptionally long articles, which I don't think this one qualifies).
As a suggestion, interested editors, might want to go through the article and do a little copy editing to remove those multiple wikilinks.
TheRingess ( talk) 16:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It is barely mentioned in the article. It is now the second most visited religous shrine in India after Tirupati. Punjabi and Jammu have traditionally gone here and people from other parts of India now have started to visit. Jai Mata Di. Gizza Discuss © 10:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi everyone:
Back in January 2007, someone added a tag, "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it."
After a few small tweaks here and there over the past several months, I finally undertook to try and comprehensively expand and improve the article. At this point, I am still doing a lot of work and the changes –both large and small – are so extensive it would be almost impossible to note each one. Please be patient with me for a bit longer.
As of this writing, my changes and expansions are basically complete from the top down to the "Puranas" intro. Below that, I have not done much except add heads and subheads for further expansion later, and move around some pre-existing text from the article as it was. So please note when editing: Anything below the Puranas intro is still very raw and very much "under construction."
I will endeavor to complete additions and expansions, within the new template, as soon as possible. Please leave any comments and suggestions for improvement!
Thanks! - Devi ( Devi bhakta 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
References from Subramuniyaswami, Satguru Sivaya's book relating Ganesha were removed from the article as it was considered devotee literature , thus not WP:RS. [1] Same applies to "Merging with Siva".-- Redtigerxyz 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
( Devi bhakta 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
Quoting primary sources e.g Rigveda directly with verese no, is against the WP policy of WP:RS and WP:V. Generally secondary sources e.g a WP:RS which says the verse is in Rigveda, should be referenced and primary sources can be used as notes. I am not removing primary sources til secondary sources are found.-- Redtigerxyz 12:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
^Mahabharata, IV.6 and VI.23. ^ Silappadikaram, Canto XXII remain-- Redtigerxyz 12:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Their theology is complex and multilayered; however, a good basic summary explains:
"The Supreme Mother is the Transcendent Absolute; ineffable, immutable. In the act of creation, she subjects herself to time and space. Though space is actually one vast expanse, for [purposes of] our grasp and understanding we demarcate the invisible and infinite space into ten directions [i.e. the eight cardinal directions, plus above and below. ...] Likewise, the one Truth is sensed in its ten different facets; the Divine Mother is adored and approached as the ten cosmic personalities, the Dasa [Ten] Mahavidyas." [1]
Each of the Mahavidyas is said to lead to ultimate wisdom and spiritual liberation; yet the paths to this end will differ according to the goddess chosen as an aspirant's personal deity [ishtadevata]]:
"Each Vidya is distinct and distinguishable from the other. Each is a particular cosmic function and each leads to a special realisation of the One Reality. [...] If an aspirant wants to reach the Divine, circumscribed as he is by his receptivity and capacity, he chooses one particular path; i.e., takes up for adoration one aspect of the Divine. As his pursuit is exclusive, his progress is quick and his approach becomes direct. Ultimately he attains a perfect identification with the Divine." [2]
In fact, it is believed that the Mahavidyas work collectively guiding their individual devotees through spiritual evolvution, and that "one Mahavidya leads [her] sadhaka to another, depending on the need and aspiration of the sadhaka." [3] Each of the Mahavidyas can be understood at various levels. For example, in some Kalikula systems Matangi is conceived as the "outcaste goddess," taking the form of a Chandali – a tribal woman of a jungle-dwelling, meat-eating hunter-gatherer tribe – while in Srikula systems she is more often described as the daughter of the great sage Matanga, and Prime Minister to the Queen (Lalita-Tripurasundari as Rajarajeshwari)."
Removed this info under WP:UNDUE to Mahavidyas discussion. This info is better suited for Mahavidyas article.-- Redtigerxyz 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Reworked section in accordance with above suggestions. Standardized capitalization of goddess lists for aesthetics and uniformity in keeping with links and brief translation/descriptors. ( 71.245.64.12 14:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD. The lead should be 2-3 paras, giving an overview of the article ahead.-- Redtigerxyz 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! ( Devi bhakta 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
Replacing Image:Bhuvaneshwari1.jpg with Image:4-bhuvanesvari2.jpg as the former is a grainy image while the latter is an image of better resolution, with a additonal yantra (Tantric image) and used in Mahavidya article.-- Redtigerxyz 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Redtiger: Thanks for your latest round of edits. Please remember that, even though I am finally approaching the end of my planned edits, all of these sections are still very much works in progress. More pics will be added as sections fill out; references completed, etc.
Under "Worship in Shaktism" you removed the photo wit comment, "remove img as deity not seen; it can be any other diety." I would just note that (a) I was particularly seeking a "worshiper" pic here, as there will be plenty of deity photos within subsections; (b) the caption clearly notes that this is a Durga Puja crowd, as well as place and date of same, so it is very much "on topic"; (c) as a point of design they are both "facing" the list of Devi's names, visually paying respect to their holiness (while graphically balancing the text); and (d) I kinda like the fact that the photo is in Bangladesh, to kind of visually add to the textual assertions about the wide geographic spread of Shaktism.
I know the shot's not particularly strong (it's not mine either; just a Wikimedia Commons upload), but I liked it and found it charming and good for "mood" I wanted to set for opening of this section. Unless you feel incredibly strongly about it, I'd really like to let it stand. ( Devi bhakta 20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
removed:
# Santoshi Mata: The Goddess of Contentment, a "recent" goddess form, made famous in the 1975 film, " Jai Santoshi Ma"
Again she is a "recent" goddess, with no Puranic evidence. Emerging after 1975. Thus not part of the ancient cult of Shaktism.
-- Redtigerxyz 14:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
A word on the choice and placement of the photo of a Shunga-period yakshini, bridging the "Upanishad" and "Epic" sections of the article:
In the "Upanishad", we discuss the Devi's taking the form of a yakshini in appearing to the Vedic trinity. In the "Epic" section, the Shunga Empire is specifically named as a culture feeding the nascent Shakta impulses appearing in the Epics. So the photo applies to and bridges the two sections.
Aesthetically, the sculpture provides a visual that breaks up a long stretch of unrelieved text. As I've placed it, it not only makes sense thematically as stated above, but also as a nice and relevant illustration falling almost exactly halfway between the Lajja Gauri and the Mahishasura Mardini.
Finally, it nicely balances the list to the left, and relieves the unbalanced white space that had existed there before. - DB ( 71.245.64.12 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
The temple is given WP:UNDUE imp. Thus i request DB to remove one of the 2 images from the article. Image:Devi homam.jpg is looking a little wierd due to big light. -- Redtigerxyz 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
for WP:V. -- Redtigerxyz 12:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thus replacing one with Kali's.
Also the image now in the lead is not fit for the lead as one side is darker compared to rest of the pic.-- Redtigerxyz 14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Devi has done a brilliant work on this article. I believe that very soon it could meet the featured article criteria. Therefore, I'm displaying a peer review here, per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Following the guidances, you can improve this article further.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to draw your attention to Tripura Sundari temple. The state of Tripura is named after her. http://southtripura.gov.in/Data/matabaridetails.htm. Your article is very good. Unfortunately most of the Sri Vidya Upasakas at least in Tamil Nadu do not consider themselves Sakthas.-- Sankarrukku 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Many Samaya sadhaks (in Tamil Nadu, for example) explicitly deny being Shakta and/or Tantric, though Brooks argues that their practices are technically both, "even if Samayins would reject this appellation."[111]
( Devi bhakta 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
The article seems to be getting a bit intimidatingly long. It's currently at just over 86 KB, about 69 KB of which is readable prose (where 32 KB is the recommended limit,) so you might want to reduce it per. Wikipedia:Article size. The best way to do this is probably by taking some of the longer sections and either making them into their own article or merging them into some other article, and then just have a summary here that refers to the main article. There's no rush to do this, however it is something to keep in mind while editing. Thanks. -- Hi Ev 13:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed:
"In the first age of the gods, existence was born from non-existence. The quarters of the sky were born from she who crouched with legs spread. The earth was born from she who crouched with legs spread, and from the earth the quarters of the sky were born." [4]
Removed: and also that the term "Tantra" is itself extremely fluid:
"Tantra is a highly variable and shifting category, whose meaning may differ depending on the particular historical moment, cultural milieu, and political context. If tantra in the Sanskrit texts simply means a particular treatise that "spreads knowledge and saves," tantra in the popular imagination means something quite different indeed – a frightening, dangerous path that leads to other-worldly power and control over the occult forces on the dark side of reality." [5]
UNDUE to Tantra.-- Redtigerxyz 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I criticize the citation of Bhattacharya on the depiction of Shaktism responsible for destroying secretarianism of mainstream Hinduism. Before commenting on the Tantric tradition one should be aware of the fact that this very sect of Hinduism is still kept highly secret. In considering texts it is always advicable to refer those 64 tantras that were mentioned by Adi Sankarachariya because other texts may be polluted from the Vajrajana Tantra, which has nothing to do with Hindu mainstream thought but a degraded Buddhist practice. The real interpretation of 5 Ms and other text must be sought to different lineages of Gurus and I didn't find citation of a single lineage in the article. Tantra was developed because in Kali Yuga the Yama and Niyama of Yoga was difficult and nearly impossible to practice. This Yama and Niyama under Yoga and Samkhya restricts sexual desire, anger, greed, attachment, pride, jealousy (6 ripu) completely and Tantra was developed because man cannot at once renunce all the six ripus in Kali Yuga as his powers are limited compared to other Yugas. Tantra prescribes controlled fulfillment of desire and renunciation of ripus step by step to achieve the perfect state of Yama, Niyama and renunciation. In this process Kama (Sexual desire) is given up by removing the orgasm and by and by the whole Kama is destroyed. Similarly greed and other ripus are removed. In the Tantric tradition a student first begins his lesson being in the animal state (pashu)in this state he removes last traces of Sexual desire (charectaristic of animal nature) in himself through controlled sex. Then he starts his lessons in Rajas state to remove other ripus and finally achieves perfect Satvic state of perfection. So Tantra is best be called a controlled fullfillment of desires leading to desireless state. And the erotic and sexual depiction of the development of the philosophy of tantra (based on Freudian Psychoanalysis, which itself emphesises excessively on erotic nature of man) is unfortunate and insults the Tradition of India. If psychoanalysis is needed Samkhya is to be used for studing Indian Philosophy.
I notice that, in addition to the Aditi birth-giving passage being expunged, we've also had Radha changed from "Krishna's lover" to "Krishna's consort" ...
I guess I'd ask for some input on this. There is no doubt that Krishna and Radha are a Cosmic Pairing – but Radha is a married woman and her relationship with Krishna is, in worldly terms at least, illicit. I thus chose the term lover rather than consort as the more accurate term because of this unusual arrangement.
I agree, as with the Aditi case, that the term "consort" is less shocking to the sensibilities than the blunter term "lover," but – again as with Aditi – is being delicate more important than being accurate?
Would welcome any input, and will let "Consort" edit stand for now ... DB ( 71.245.64.12 04:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
Reasons:
Kalikula: Family of Kali gives only the Bengali side of the cult.-- Redtigerxyz 12:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The term Kali Kula is a categorization by some writers. But in actual practice it is not true anymore. I had posted about Lalita Tripurasundari temple. Here Lalita Tripurasundari is Shodasi, a Maha Vidya considered by the local people to be a form of Kali. This is the temple where daily animal sacrifices are done at the government's cost. The Kakaradhi Kali Sahasranamam from Rudra Yamala seems to have been written by a south Indian who calls her Kaveri Thira Vasini. This is obviously a Sri Vidya text. May be we could avoid this classification. Thanks.-- Sankarrukku 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
UNDUE to Animal Sacrifice practice.-- Redtigerxyz 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of the sampradhayas of Sakthism allow the women to perform Yagnas. The women are also allowed to become Bhairavis. The Tantrik guru of Sri Ramakrishna was Bhairavi Brahmani who was a Vaishnavite Bhairavi. As this right is denied by the traditional Hindu religion including Sri Vidya, a couple of sentences would be nice. Thanks. -- Sankarrukku 14:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This article does not seem to take into account the Sakthism which is widely prevalent in Bengal, Assam and parts of Maharashtra. Chandi, Durga and Kali are the the main deities. There is no mention of Chandi in in this article. Only one school is covered . The major school of practicing Sakthas who consider the supreme deity to be Maha Kali. Maha Lakshmi, and Maha Saraswathi are not mentioned. Devi Bagvatha is basically followed by South Indians where Sakthism is almost extinct. Just an observation.
Thanks,
-- Sankarrukku 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Devi bhakta. I am right now trying to revise the article on Devī Māhātmya. So I may not be able to contribute here. What I wanted was some coverage for the Devī Māhātmya and Bhakthi tradition of Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir, Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra.
-- Sankarrukku 11:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The article gives covers only South India and Bengal. Even in a list of temples, important Saktha temples like Ambaji temple in Gujarat, Kolhapur Mahalakshmi ( who is mentioned in many of the old Sanskrit studis), Bramhramba in Sri Sailam (one of the oldest Saktha and Buddist centres) are not mentioned. The pure saktha temples of Himachal Pradesh like Vajreswari, Jwalamukhi do not find a place. I could go on. It may be better not to mention any temple.The animal sacrifices at (Government expense) at the Tripura Sundari temple is not mentioned. Animal Sacrifice is offered to Lalita also.-- Sankarrukku 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
REmoved:
REason:
-- Redtigerxyz 11:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Vasant Navaratri same as Chaitra Navaratri?? If no Chaitra Navaratri should also be included else just the name.-- Redtigerxyz 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Vasanta Navaratri is the same as Chitra Navaratri. Vasanta is the name of the season. Chaitra the name of the lunar month.-- Sankarrukku 01:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Vasanta Navaratri is celebrated by all temples in North India. -- Sankarrukku 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the request for citation in caption under Bharat Mata, because (a) footnoting captions is crazy-making; and (b) Shaktism's "pervasive influence" is theme of entire section and is exhaustively footnoted already. ( Devi bhakta 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
association of female gurus with Shaktism can be considered WP:OR.-- Redtigerxyz 11:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Even the conclusion that New Seven Wonders of the World shortlisting was due to it being a Shakta temple is OR.
"Shakta-oriented temples and pilgrimage sites draw ever-growing crowds and recognition. For example, in 2004 the monumental Meenakshi Amman Temple was shortlisted in the '"New Seven Wonders of the World' competition.[80]"
-- Redtigerxyz 11:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Even Bharat Mata seems to be OR. Thus i press for the removal of this text.-- Redtigerxyz 11:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The core policy of Wikipedia, NPOV is meant to provide a framework whereby editors with diverse, often conflicting, even opposing points of view can collaborate on the creation of an encyclopedia. It does so through the principle that while it is often hard for people to agree as to what is the truth, it is much easier for people to agree as to what they and others believe to be the truth. Therefore, Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criteria for inclusion. Instead, it aims to account for different, notable views of the truth.
DB REFERENCED FROM Mother India and Her Militant Matriots NOT FROM Bhattacharyya, Dikshitar, Woodroffe. iF THOSE REF ARE PROVIDED I HAVE NO OBJ TO BHARAT MATA.-- Redtigerxyz 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
fOR GURUS IT IS The Graceful Guru: Hindu Female Gurus in India and the United States NOT Bhattacharyya, Dikshitar, Woodroffe.-- Redtigerxyz 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As both talk Tantric association with Shaktism.-- Redtigerxyz 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Draft:
Another widely misunderstood aspect of Shaktism is its close association with Tantra – an ambiguous, loaded concept that suggests everything from orthodox temple worship in the south of India, to black magic and occult practices in North India, to ritualized sex in the West. [7] It is important to note that not all forms of Shaktism are Tantric in nature, just as not all forms of Tantra are Shaktic in nature. [8]
When the term "Tantra" is used in relation to authentic Hindu Shaktism, it most often refers to a class of ritual manuals, and – more broadly – to an esoteric methodology of Goddess-focused spiritual discipline ( sadhana) involving mantra, yantra, nyasa, mudra and certain elements of traditional kundalini yoga, all practiced under the guidance of a qualified guru after due initiation ( diksha) and oral instruction to supplement various written sources. [9]
In most schools of Shaktism, the Tantras – a large genre of ritual manuals dating from as early as the 7th century CE and as late as the 19th century – are central scriptures. The Tantras "devised two main margas (paths of sadhana) to reach the same goal": [10]
The proper path is generally determined by the guru based upon a given devotee's personal nature – i.e., as a tamasic pasu (i.e., an ordinary person not particularly given to spiritual pursuits, and mainly preoccupied with worldly matters); a rajasic vira (an active and vigorous spiritual seeker, qualified to "heroically" engage more intensive forms of sadhana); or a sattvic divya (a holy-natured person, having already achieved an extremely high level of spiritual maturity) – and various other factors.
Tantric Shaktism received an high-profile boost when the legendary sage Adi Shankara, c. 800 CE, composed his powerful (and still vastly popular) ode to the goddess known as Saundaryalahari ("Waves of Beauty"). Shankara, while "not a Shakta in the sectarian sense, [...] had a soft corner for Shakta religion, perhaps due to its popularity among the masses." [11]Another important Shakta text traditionally attributed to Shankara is the hypnotically exquisite Mahishasura Mardini Stotra, a 21-verse hymn derived from the Devi Mahatmya. [12]
By the thirteenth century, "the Tantras had assimilated a very large number of cults of various origins – regional, tribal and sectarian – [and] had assumed a completely Shakta character." From the fourteenth century onward, "the Shakta-Tantric cults had [...] become woven into the texture of all the religious practices current in India," their spirit and substance infusing regional and sectarian vernacular as well as Sanskritic literature. [13]
In the social sphere, the Tantra is "free from all sorts of caste and patriarchal prejudices. [...] All women are regarded as manifestations of Shakti, and hence they are the object of respect and devotion. Whoever offends them incurs the wrath of the great goddess. Every [male aspirant] has to realize the latent Female Principle within himself, and only by [thus] 'becoming female' is he entitled to worship the Supreme Being" [14]
In sum, the complex social and historical interrelations of Tantric and non-Tantric elements in Shaktism (and Hinduism in general) are an extremely fraught and nuanced topic of discussion. However, as a general rule:
"Ideas and practices that collectively characterize Tantrism pervade classical Hinduism. [...] It would be an error to consider Tantrism apart from its complex interrelations with non-Tantric traditions. Literary history demonstrates that Vedic-oriented brahmins have been involved in Shakta Tantrism from its incipient stages of development, that is, from at least the sixth century. While Shakta Tantrism may have originated in [ancient, indigenous] goddess cults, any attempt to distance Shakta Tantrism from the Sanskritic Hindu traditions [...] will lead us astray." [15]
Just to inform anyone who may know and/or care, I have removed the "under construction" sign from the article. The article still needs polishing and a few good rounds of line-editing, and I will probably be tweaking it for weeks to come ... but I have pretty much finished what I set out to do in expanding and completing it. ( Devi bhakta 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
Redtigerxyz wrote: "Now that the article in out of the under construction phase , I again press for the merger of the sections. I use WP:BOLD and merge the sections."
With all due respect, I have restored the original arrangement, and will offer a structural explanation here as to why – for anyone who may be interested, or who may be able to offer constructive alternative viewpoints:
The article begins with a definition and brief overview of Shaktism, covering the most basic ideas for the casual reader. Then, before reaching into specifics of deities, methods of worship, etc., the article immediately moves to address the two main points of misunderstanding regarding Shaktism -- namely the role of Shiva, and the role of Tantra.
That is why the section begins, "Another widely misunderstood aspect of Shaktism is its close association with Tantra ..." – an intro that no longer made sense in Redtigerxyz's rearrangement. The section goes on to clarify that Tantra in Shaktism is not about black magic or sex, but is rather a practical methodology of spiritual technique. Then it briefly addresses (a) the more liberal socio-spiritual heirarchy implied by Tantra; (b) the complex reality of the infamous 5Ms, and (c) authentic Tantra's intricate relationship with Vedic Hinduism.
Thus the casual reader, reading only the Introduction and Overview, walks away with a sound understanding of Shaktism's essence, and a useful clarification regarding the two most common misunderstandings.
There is a difference between " Tantra" and " Tantras" – as indicated, for example, by the fact that Wikipedia offers two separate articles on the two concepts. "Tantras" refers to the literary genre that produced the so-called Tantric philosophy.
That is why the section begins, "In most schools of Shaktism, the Tantras – a large genre of ritual manuals dating from as early as the 7th century CE and as late as the 19th century – are central scriptures."
It is a more esoteric and technical discussion, and so I place it chronologically within the "Philosophical Development" section of the article (in which the Shakta literature is systematically discussed), for those interested in delving deeper into the concepts introduced in the Overview. After introducing a few "Tantra 101" concepts that dictate the content of these manuals, I move on the Adi Shankara's introduction of Tantric ideas into the Advaita Vedanta school, then to the mutual exchange of ideas between Tantra and the popular religion of the masses.
This provides a logical, fluid segue into the next section, on the "Rise of Popular Shaktism."
By contrast, the proposed reorganization – "bold" though it may be – makes two fatal errors: (1) It buries the important "Tantra" issue far too deeply in the article, where the casual reader is quite unlikely to ever find it, and thus "undoes" an important function of this article, at least as I see it; and (2) By indiscriminately mixing the concept of "Tantra" with the genre of "Tantras," it displays precisely the confusion that this article is attempting to dispel. For what it's worth, however, I did take Redtiger's suggestion of a title change for the top section. Thank you.
Hope that helps? ( Devi bhakta 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Redtigerxyz deleted this article's list of "Shakti Temples" for the stated reason that the "List [is] available in Peethas article." The problem is that, other than the special case of Kamakhya (the premiere Tantric Devi temple), none of the temples in the list Redtigerxyz deleted appear in the Shakti Peethas article. In fact, the list was specifically intended to supplement the linked article.
Redtigerxyz also mentions that the article's "list gives UNDUE to some temples ignoring others." Given that there are literally thousands of Shakti temples, of which quite a small number are particularly famous and/or notable; and also given that the deleted list was duly footnoted to a legitimate source, it appears that this is another case of an editor placing his personal views and prejudices above the larger interest of the article as a whole.
A further purpose of the deleted list was to link the "Shaktism" article to some of the major Shakti temple articles available on Wikipedia. Today my plan was to add brief descriptions of the temples in the list, describing what (beyond the self-explanatory geographic spread) makes each particulalar temple interesting and noteworthy. I am not going to do that now, frankly because it is frustrating to spend that kind of time and energy when arbitrary and unresearched deletions follow literally within hours – with not even enough time to gather one's thoughts and duly consider proper next steps.
Overall I am a patient person; I try to be diplomatic, and in any event I considered my contributions to this article a bit of Navratri sadhana. But I am not going to waste further time improving the "Temples" section until some decision has been taken regarding the inclusion of this list. As it stands now, I do not think the "Temples" category even merits a separate section, because all that's left is an expert comment that Shakta Peetha lists are unreliable – accompanied by a link to just such a list ... and nothing more? It is just too silly. ( Devi bhakta 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
-- Redtigerxyz 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This is for Red Tiger, based on various objections s/he raised above. I hope it will finally put all of this business about Female Saints, Bharat Mother and Shaktism to bed. Here are Red Tiger's various comments and my responses:
"There is no set religious institution or organization in Shaktism, and women mystics become valued for their states of ecstasy, their trance states, and their close relationship with a guru or other religious figure. Women gurus are often charismatic figures, who tend to gather relatives and other friends around them as devoted followers. In Shaktism, women are understood more often than men to be incarnations of the goddess [and] bhakti or devotional mysticism, often mixed with tantric and folk elements, seems the most prominent form of mysticism. Bhakti is a feminine mode, and the female gurus Ammachi, Anandamayi Ma, and Mother Meera [are associated] with this mode; in contrast, the female gurus Nirmala Devi and Gurumayi [are] explicitly anti-feminist leaders of patriarchal traditions that promote sexist teachings. [An even] more relevant concept for understanding what is feminine about female gurus is Shakti, a classical term in Hinduism explicitly associated with the feminine. In Shakta circles, all women are addressed as Maa or Devi or Vira [and] all of the female gurus are associated with the Goddess through the concept of Shakti, for they, like the Goddess, are paramount embodiments of shakti. Further, many of the female gurus are understood to embody the essence of specific goddesses, either through their self-interpretation or the interpretation of their followers. For example, Meera Ma is identified with Adiparashakti; Karunamayi Ma is identified with Saraswati, Bala Tripurasundari, Lalita and Lakshmi; [and] Ammachi is identified with Devi."
I think that covers it (*whew!*). Hokay? ( Devi bhakta 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
The authorship of Adi Sankara of Soundharya Lahiri is an issue of debate among scholars for a long time. It is almost inconceivable that the proponent of Nirguna Brahman should write a book based on Saguna Brahman. His commentary on Brahamasutra blasts this argument of Saguna Brahman. I remember Coburn has mentioned about this in his Encountering the Goddess in a footnote. I do not have the book now.
Mahisashura Mardhini Stotram has never been attributed to Adi Sankara. It is attributed to one Ramakrishna Kavi who was supposed to be from Bengal.-- Sankarrukku 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.
The authorship of Soundarya Lahari is mainly disputed by professors of Philosophy as the texts represent different conflicting schools.
Mahisashura Mardhini Stotra's attribution is mainly by the sound recording companies to sell the CDs and cassettes.The recording companies are also in the habit of attributing all the old Shyama Sangeeth to Ramprased Sen.-- Sankarrukku 05:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
As suggested in peer review. The article should be split into Daughter articles as it is TOO LOng. What do you think will be the best content to form a new article. In my view, the Philosophical Development and Origins part can be coupled to form "History of Shaktism" as in Shaivism article.-- Redtigerxyz 08:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Is she really considered a goddess , with reference to her mention in Epic Period section ???-- Redtigerxyz 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I divided this article into two parts -- the main article and a new one, History of Shaktism.
I did this on account of several requests on this page. HiEv stated, on Oct 18:
"The article seems to be getting a bit intimidatingly long. It's currently at just over 86 KB, about 69 KB of which is readable prose (where 32 KB is the recommended limit,) so you might want to reduce it per. Wikipedia:Article size. The best way to do this is probably by taking some of the longer sections and either making them into their own article or merging them into some other article, and then just have a summary here that refers to the main article."
The inevitable Red Tiger followed with, "As suggested in peer review. The article should be split into Daughter articles as it is TOO LOng."
Okay. So my action knocked the size of this article down from 72,795 bytes to 43,537 bytes. I hope that this is pleasing to everyone.
But can I just point something out? The Wikipedia article on Islam – at 95,675 – is more "intimidatingly long" than this article ever was.
And may I point something else out? This vast article on Islam is starred as a "Featured Article," i.e., "considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria."
So what happened to the "32 KB is the recommended limit" rule in the case of Islam? Why does Islam not split its history into a second article? Red Tiger says "In my view, the Philosophical Development and Origins part can be coupled to form 'History of Shaktism' as in Shaivism article."
That's all well and good, but Shaivism is a B-Class article (as this one was rated even before about 100 hours' worth of additions and corrections), and Islam is a Feature-Class Article! So why the double standard? May I have some opinions? Should this article be split in two, following the example of Shaivism? Or revert to its original form, following the example of Islam?
Just curious. - DB ( Devi bhakta 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
I believe this article was assigned class 'B' prior to Devi Bhakta's improvements. With his edits, I think it rates an 'A' Per the discussion of quality: "Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting." and "Peer-review would be helpful at this stage." As noted above, peer review has already been instituted, and feature article status has already been suggested. ( Jd-in-nv 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
Let me step in, guys. First of all, who has rated this article as 'A' (it seems to be an 'A' as it's mentioned above)? Where is the "article milestones" mention? There is a vote for these matters. It's weird. I personally feel that the article is good enough to be an FAC very soon.
The quality scale goes like this (from low to high, please see this for further information):
Redtigerxyz says: "cancel the A promotion". So it hasn't been promoted yet? If it hasn't, so why I see an 'A' in the above table. I think that's what confuses me. As for the GAC, there are two major concerns you have to take into account, before nominating it.
A) Basically, I do agree with Redtigerxyz, you can take it to a GAC, but why? Please take into account the fact that it takes ages. I've promoted the Preity Zinta article to a GA (it took nearly two months), and then to 'A'. The FAC was not promoted, and now some users took it to a "Good article reassessment" (the same can happen to this article, and it hurts). So you can also see that GA is not such a big concern, GA is still too low for this article, and as I gave you the example, it won't help to its FAC promotion.
B) Redtigerxyz has also said: "Going for WP:GAC will help encourage editors to read through the article." - it's not right, because an article's promotion to GA is being made by only one editor. It doesn't give you many suggestions to improve and/or promote the article, because, I repeat, only one editor makes the GAC review, and it's him to decide whether it's a GA or not. There is no vote for a GAC.
Therefore, I think, a massive FAC will help you. Many editors go through it and give suggestions, comments etc, and you just have to address them. Even if it's not promoted to a FA after that, it will be improved.
Regarding the peer review. I had requested a peer review for Asha Bhosle once, but nobody took care and nobody replied. So I just moved up the article link again and again on the PR page, and finally someone replied. I will do the same with this article now. If within three days-one week suggestions are not displayed, just take it to an FAC -- you have absolutely nothing to lose.
Please contact me if you need some help. Good luck and best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 16:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Clarification:
User:Jd-in-nv, who has 6 contributions to WP as of 5 nov elevated the rating of article from B to A by simply changing the class in the template. I am changing the class back to B - "Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process(like GAC and FAC)". I suggested a GAC as it is better to be a Good article first than a failed FAC. My experience with Ganesha FAC (now FA) compelled me to suggest a GAC first, There are many editors with an eagle eye to detect WP policy violations, who vote at the FAC, which leads to the article to fail a FAC. Before confronting them, i thought the easier, less tough GAC process should be initiated, after peeer review is archived.-- Redtigerxyz 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has come a long way. Wow.
At a quick glance, I've noticed several terms that are linked more than once throughout the article. My understanding of the Manual of style is that we generally link to a term the first time it is used and not thereafter (except with exceptionally long articles, which I don't think this one qualifies).
As a suggestion, interested editors, might want to go through the article and do a little copy editing to remove those multiple wikilinks.
TheRingess ( talk) 16:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It is barely mentioned in the article. It is now the second most visited religous shrine in India after Tirupati. Punjabi and Jammu have traditionally gone here and people from other parts of India now have started to visit. Jai Mata Di. Gizza Discuss © 10:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)