Talk:Parvati/Archive 1

Dakshayani should be merged into this article. Parvati is the most common name. Imc 10:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, unfortunately there are many hinduism pages on wikipedia that should only be one. Before there was Shiva and Mahadeva, and there are many more to still be merged. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 10:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

no....because.......other ppl might look for parvati

What do you mean, that makes no sense. When people are looking for Dakshayani or Parvati, they are looking for the same goddess, until you have some strange sort of Hindu cult. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 08:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I predict that anyone who knows anything about Hindusism would reccomend that the two be merged. Personally, I believe the best course of action is to just change the Dakshayani page to Parvati! Sethie 18:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Merger is not required as there is some differences. I will add fresh inputs to these two pages to make the matter clear. --Bhadani 15:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

I realise that the two wives of Shiva were actually two birth (incarnations) on earth of the same goddess Shakti. The first wife renounced her material self in order to be born "the daughter of a father who she could respect", was thus reborn, and wed the same lord Shiva again. I have made specific mention of all this in the Dakshayani article.

However, when I first created the "Dakshayani" page on 16/July/05, I designed it specifically to deal with the many legend and devotions regarding the FIRST wife of Shiva. This was a daughter of Daksha, hence I chose the appropriate name "Dakshayani" (which cannot be confused with "Parvati") as the title. I know that several names of Dakshayani (including "Sati", "Gowri" and "Lalitha") are also routinely applied to Parvati, second wife of Shiva and daughter of Himavan. However, the cluster of legends associated with Parvati had best be kept on the "Parvati" page while the "Dakshayani" page is devoted to the first Avatara. This is best; please keep it so.

As an anology, Rama & Krishna are both avataras of the same Vishnu; does it make sense to merge the three articles together? Similarly this case. ImpuMozhi 02:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

However, the Dakshayani/Sati page has more information than Parvati, which is just bizarre. Most people would mean Parvati when speaking of Devi in the form of Shiva's consort. Most of the time you'll see Sati described as the originating personality of Parvati rather than the Goddess which is seen to exist beside Shiva in the present tense. It's not so much a case of Rama and Krishna but of the butter-stealing babe versus the lover and the prince. And even then the analogy doesn't entirely work--there are plenty of legends of Parvati, but if you look for the first incarnation, you'll get the self-immolation story and little else: she simply doesn't have as big a role in the mythology and practice as Parvati does. Comparing the two articles on Wikipedia, you'd get the opposite idea, and it strikes me as misinformation--it's wildly in contrast with the info provided in most sources, which would fit a controversial study/interpretation by an independent scholar, but not an encyclopedia article. I don't have an issue about a different aspect having her own page, but I can't see why so many internal links within Wikipedia should point to Sati when what they mean is Parvati. That, I think, is what people want to acheive by a merger. I'd propose moving a lot of the information from Dakshayani to Parvati and fixing internal links to point to Parvati (and include a brief description of her first incarnation within this article) rather than a merger. After all, there's a separate Nataraja page for Shiva, a Narayan page for Vishnu, etc...--Snowgrouse 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoary?

Please see here 3. So old as to inspire veneration; ancient. VMO 11:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a more extensive list of Parvati temples; not just those in Tamil Nadu.

There should especially be some research done into the temples to Parvati in the Himalayan region as she is said to be the daughter of Himalaya, or Haimavat. The trouble is, the Aryan invasion hit the northern region quite hard, and if we assume Parvati to be a non-aryan deity, then a lot of the traces of her worship can be assumed to be lost. I haven't the means at my disposal to research this but I think it's a worthy projectAaronCarson (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed unsourced devotee praise

What is indoprofile - the ref provided by anon???

"Of Goddesses, one stands above all: Parvati. In certain texts she is even called the Goddess of Wealth, Lakshmi, and the Goddess of Learning, Saraswati, in addition to being idolized as the Goddess of power." needs a ref

"The daughter of the snowclad mountains. The consort of Shiva. The one who is incarnation of all energy, she is A Parvati, also called Uma, Gauri, Durga, Kali and so on. " "She, Sati, Parvati, Gauri is the consort of the magnificent Shiva. She, Kali, is also the consort of Time, as Shiva himself is the embodiment of time in his form as Mahakala. "

Names already listed

"A long, long time ago, Brahma created a beautiful maiden called Sati who was born to a king called Daksha. Siva married her. Years of conjugal bliss followed. One day, however, Sati heard that a major religious function was being celebrated in her father’s house. She was a little upset that her parents had not invited her or her husband. After tossing and turning in bed for many a night, one morning she decided she would go even if she were uninvited.

After all it was only to her father’s house, Siva, however, cautioned her. He did not want her to go uninvited. Sati thought a while, but eventually left because she just wanted to go to her parents. There, as Siva had predicted, Sati was insulted. She jumped into the sacred fire burning for the ceremony for she could not bear to go back and tell her husband her parents had insulted her.

Siva was enraged. He was deeply grieved. He just could not bear the loss. As he carried her body across the country, different parts of her body are believed to have fallen off in many places and even today these places are sacred in Hindu mythology."

The story is already written in Dakshayani.

"Of Durga and her ferocious form, the story is told as this: Once upon a time there was a demon called Mahishasura. He was troubling the people on earth. No God could subdue him. All the gods came together and their energies together formed the goddess called Durga. The Gods then empowered her with their weapons which epitomized their strength. Thus armed and blessed, Durga went to tackle Mahishasura. She vanquished him and thereupon came to be called Mahishasura mardini or the killer of Mahisha the demon.

This month, all over India, Dusshera is being celebrated. Dusshera celebrates this story of how Durga conquered Mahishasura. In the eastern part of the country, Dusshera is called Durga puja or praying to Durga."

Already written in Durga. The identification of Durga and Parvati is not unanimous. Discussed in "Other goddessessection"

"For a deity with such a profile, Parvati is rather unassuming. Of course as Durga or Kali she is portrayed as ferocious, but therein too lies a story painted in the live colours of the indignation of the wronged."

The identification of Parvati and Kali is not unanimous.

"A happy marriage lasted many years, and guess where the problem came when it did? Siva and Parvati were playing around when Siva called her, “Kali, Kali”. Now Kali means black and Parvati was very dark complexioned. Brahma had in fact made a deliberate decision to make her so because he did not want the world to know that Sati was being reincarnated. Now Parvati was deeply offended that her husband should think of the colour of her skin to hail her with. He could have called her any number of endearing words instead.

So she told him that she was going. That she would not meet him again till she was fair complexioned. Bewildered Siva was left ruing his tongue while Parvati went into the forests to do severe penance.

Another thousand years of penance, and Brahma appeared before Parvati. She asked for golden coloured skin. Brahma granted her the boon. Thereon Parvati came to be called Gauri or the one with skin the colour of gold."

Story is told once in the article as "The apparent contradiction that Parvati is addressed as the fair one, Gauri as well as the dark one Kali or Shyama can be explained by the following Hindu myth: when Shiva rebuked Parvati about her dark skin colour, the angry Parvati left him and underwent severe penace to get a fair colour as a boon from Brahma."

"As a mother, Parvati is looked upon as the mother, Parvati is looked upon as the mother of all creation; the Mother Goddess." REf needed for "the mother of all creation"

"As a woman Parvati has the distinction of one who had the most devoted husband" Ref

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note for anon editor 59.94.246.157

Dear anon 59.94.246.157, great work done on Parvati but some of the matter written by you is maybe WP:OR and page nos. are needed for kingsley. Please create an account on wikipedia. Wiki needs fine editors like you. Regards. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sentences are WP:OR without refs: so removed from article. "The Parvati River in the region of Himachal Pradesh is a glacial runoff and is cold enough to stop the heart from beating. It is noted for flash floods, and the locals fear the Goddess. Parvati Valley is adjacent to the Kullu Valley (The famous Valley of the Gods) which was once considered to be the last inhabitable place by man. Any region north of Kullu Valley was thought of as the exclusive region of the Gods. Even in her own valley, Parvati’s worship has declined, to be replaced by other Goddesses and a large Sikh Temple (Gurdwar), but even today, traces of the old religion remain." --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Redtiger, Thank you for your consideration and compliments on my editating. I found the reference for the section on Kullu and Parvati valleys and posted them with the reference. I don't want to discuss frivolous topics on Wikipedia, but it would be fun to discuss some of these religious and mystical aspects of Hinduism without some of the restrictions of Wikipedia, so is there a means of dropping you a line? I am 59.94.246.157. Also known asAaronCarson (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed the matter again as it is WP:UNDUE to the valley. A different article for the Valley can be formed and the info added there. If you need to talk to me, write on my talk page, whose link you will find in my sign ahead. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Her complexion is dark brown, but not black." unreferenced and contradiction to she represented as fair.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Parvati's image

• Current image
  Current image
• 
  Alternate #1

The current image (left) was being used before the alternate # 1 image (right). The image on the left used widely in iconography of Shiva and Parvati. The image on the left is highly offensive as it shows Parvati with uncovered breasts, and quite unnatural for the theme of breast-feeding. Has anybody seen a mother breast-feeding a child with both of her breast exposed? The image shows Ganesha sucking on one nipple and consciously fondling with the other one. To me it is utterly offensive, and I don't see the point of the painter. It can be someone's art but it is certainly unfit to be the lead image. Why doesn't Wikipedia have such an image of Jesus and Marry? If Wikipedia does not use such images as lead images for Jesus and Mohammed, then why users like Redtigerxyz are hurting Hindus by putting such content?Truth only truth (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. File:Shiv-parvati.jpg has an inapprppriate copyright. No evidence of PD claim. File:Parvati Ganesha.jpg is old and reliable. Also, if you scroll down the 8th century ellora image, 9th century elephanta image, 10th century Chola image, 11th century sculpture image show the goddess with an exposed upper body. They are symbolic of her fertility. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. Do you have any answer to my questions about representation of Jesus and Mohammed in Wikipedia, and their images? We say A for 'apple', not A for 'azure'! What do say about Raja Ravi Varma's paintings [1] and [2]? -- Truth only truth (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pls dont indulge in personal attacks. The lead image is a traditional painting, depends on how one perceives it. However, I feel this Raja Ravi Varma's painting to be of better quality. I don't think this is Ravi Varma's painting. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. This image is not a symbolic image of Parvati. It's an obscure depiction. If you want to depict the Goddess in the proper way, you must pick something that is more representative. There are hundreds if not thousands of images that are more reflective of Parvati. Let us please change the image. Thank you.LordKrishnaMyHero (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead Parvati image is changed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the alternate#1 ([3]) image even from the second place as it is obscene in many ways. 1) Have you seen mothers feeding their babies with both breast exposed or half covered? The image shows breast feeding obscenity. 2) The image shows the baby Ganesha sucking one nipple and pulling the other -- what is this? The painter did his job but his description does not fit the contemporary vision. Moreover, it would offend many Hindus. I think we can live without that image.All knowledge is free for all (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is my first comment in Wiki. I totally agree with "All Knowledge Is For All". The alternate#1 image is obscene. I have seen thousands of images and sculptures of Parvati and none is of such nature. --Kind creation (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. This is not open to change by consensus. If your reasons for not including the image is that you find it offensive, that's censorship. It's a valid tradition historical image, it's hosted on Wikipedia commons, and it applies to this article. Please don't remove it again. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In context of censoring, let me ask all the proponents of image ([4]), "What does it tell you about Parvati? Is it a mainstream image? How does the inclusion of this image improve the quality of this article?" Quoting the Wiki concept of censoring in a robotic way does not explain anything. In an encyclopedia article on Muhammed, is it needed to display the these controversial cartoons ([5])? No, in my opinion, and this has not been done in Wiki till now. Well, the cartoons are not censored by Wiki, but they make no sense in an article on Muhammed so they are not included there. An encyclopedia can not be a bin for everything. Like many others, I suppose, on grounds of reason and rationality, that this image need not included in article on Parvati. --All knowledge is free for all (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Breasts are not inherently obscene, nor is breastfeeding. Your desire to censor the image says more about you than about the image. You will note that the breastfeeding article shows actual breasts and breastfeeding. Why would we censor a painting of something that is natural and nutritional? Its source is an art gallery. This is not porn! Yworo (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yworo has edited the image without even reading the discussion about it. You did not take out the time to answer any of my questions -- neither about Muhammed nor these: 1) Have you seen mothers feeding their babies with both breast exposed or half covered? The image shows breast feeding obscenity. 2) The image shows the baby Ganesha sucking one nipple and pulling the other -- what is this? I hope we understand what a discussion is. --All knowledge is free for all (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen mothers breastfeed. Children frequently grab the other tittie. There is nothing obscene about it. Yworo (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to read the recent news on the health benefits of breastfeeding for both the mother and the child. For example, [6], [7], [8]. This isn't the Victorian era, thank Parvati! Yworo (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the argument presented by Yworo is out of context. Everyone knows that breast feeding is good, this need not be elaborated. Once again and answer this, "Where have you seen mothers breast feed with both breast uncovered to an extent as shown by the image, where the child is sucking on one nipple and playing with the other exposed nipple?" I stay in Europe and over here it isn't so, and I used to stay in India, where it wasn't so either. Moreover, exposing breasts in public as shown by the image is considered an offense in most countries -- I don't know where you could see such scenes. --All knowledge is free for all (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is completely based on alleged offensiveness. That's censorship pure and simple. We don't censor Wikipedia on the basis of such arguments. Clearly, the image was not considered offensive ca. 1820 when it was created; it's part of the historical corpus surrounding Parvati. Nor is it considered offensive by the museum in which it is publicly displayed. There is no argument which can overcome the fact that this is a publicly-displayed museum piece. It is completely uncontroversial that a piece displayed in a museum be displayed on a Wikipedia article. Except to certain types of people. Yworo (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems Warpedia! I agree with All knowledge is free for all. The picture is not required over here. Dear Yworo take it easy. --Kind creation (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:CENSOR. The image should be retained. — goethean ॐ 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the WP:CENSOR policy and the applicability of this image in this article, the deletion of the image is justified. We cannot and should not include all images of Parvati by all artists of all times in an encyclopedia article on Parvati. Well, the image can be used somewhere else, but keeping in mind the extent and aim of the article it is not required. --All knowledge is free for all (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the Jaipur image down and added File:Ganesha Kangra miniature 18th century Dubost p51.jpg in its place. — goethean ॐ 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We already have an image in the Kangra style, depicting the entire family (including Skanda), so Ganesha Kangra miniature 18th century Dubost p51 may be considered as an UNDUE. I agree that the Jaipur image is needed. Wikipedia is not censored. The breast feeding image is a very effective image stressing her motherhood. Also, as a fertility goddess, Parvati is depicted traditionally with bare breasts. (see other images). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Parvati is not depicted traditionally with bare breasts -- in case of some sculptures it is another story and it is not obscene. Ganesha sucks one nipple and plays with another is obscene in many ways, some of them have been mentioned above. Incest overtones are not required here. Please stop the fight over the image. Really it is not needed at all. --Kind creation (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Then Breastfeeding is obscene???? There are no incest overtones. Are we reading so much between the lines? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Breastfeeding is certainly not obscene but women publicly displaying both the breasts and then using one to feed is certainly considered obscene in almost all countries. I suppose the argument raised by "All knowledge is free for all" is a deeper one. And yes, there has been a very hot debate over the incest issue. Please read Courtright's Ganesa (page 6) of S. N. Balagangadhara's research paper [[9]]. Raising issues that contribute nothing to knowledge and upset almost all, and whose truth is unverifiable is futile. --Infinte loop (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Infinite loop, thanks for raising the issue better. Thanks once again for sharing the documentation by S. N. Balagangadhara -- I wasn't aware of it. His works are quite popular.

I hope we will come to a conclusion soon. Redtigerxyz, your support is anticipated – thanks. –Infinte loop (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I still do not agree that the image is obscene (it is IMO a loving fertility goddess, mother goddess just being a Mother) but like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", obscenity also seems to be in the eye of the beholder too. Though I can buy the argument that there are n no. of images of Parvati, why not drop this one to avoid disputes, vandalism and edit wars? I proposed the same solution for a disputed image in Mumbai. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Redtiger, the Kangra image that I added shows Parvati more clearly. — goethean ॐ 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove other Kangra image. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ashok Sundari

Know very little about this subject not sure how to add the topic of a the new article Ashok Sundari to this article.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I'm hearing about this Goddess. It does seem intriguing. Unfortunately, we probably couldn't include this information in this article until some references had been provided for the Ashok Sundari one. AaronCarson (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

        what is the reason shiva decide to attached elephant haide for ganesha
             

        shiva doesnt know about he is own son  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.145.226 (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 

Also, Lord Shiva was cursed by Rishi Kashyapa, after he had killed Surya dev (sun god). Furthermore, it can be noted that Lord Vinayak had gained quite an ego when he was able to defeat every god that had tried convince him to let his father meet Devi Parvati who Lord Shiva’s wife. (Devi Parvati, his mother, had requested Lord Vinayak to guard her door while she was getting dressed.) When Lord Shiva himself came to respectfully ask his son to let him meet his wife, it is said that Lord Vinayak had attacked Mahadev. With great fury, Lord Shiva attacked his own son back with his trishul, thus decapitating him. Lord Shiva is meant to represent balance, he destructs when to many evils have conquered the world. When he decapitated Lord Vinayak, he destroyed his ego, restoring balance to his son. after the incident, Lord Shiva realized and mourned for the loss of his son. As a result, he restored his son, with the head of an elephant (another long story), bringing Lord Ganesha, the remover of obstacles, to the world! ( I am not justifying that Lord Shiva was right in killing his son but Bhagvan has his reasons behind everything) Om Gam Ganapatiay Namah! Om Namah Shivaya! Om namo Shiv-Parvatiay Namah! 83.110.58.218 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Images Removed

Removing Parvati, India, Chola dynasty, 13th century, bronze, Honolulu Academy of Arts.JPG as it shows Parvati in same iconography as File:Bronze siva.png. Also the image should not in lead as it is a portrayal of Parvati as a subordinate consort, not as an independent goddess, where she is pictured four-armed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Etymology etc

@Redtigerxyz: - Thank you for your helpful edits. Two minor suggestions: (a) Etymology section typically includes the origin of words and the way in which word's meaning has developed or changed through history. Therefore I am wondering if the story about Gauri and Kali would be better in etymology section or the History section. Either way, there is no need to repeat the story in both sections per wiki's manual of style. I will merge the two. I leave it to you to decide where that story should go. (b) The new image in Symbolism section is very dark and it is difficult to appreciate any relevant icongraphy-related information. It is the one with caption "Uma Maheshvara (Parvati with Shiva), 12th-13th..." I suggest that a different image be added, perhaps one which shows more clearly, or in color, what she holds in her hand, her dress and accessories. That would be more in the spirit of image guidelines of wiki. Again I leave the choice of image to you. Abbey kershaw (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Abbey kershaw: IMO, Etymology needs to explain why she is paradoxically called fair and dark complexioned at the same time. Uma Maheshvara is the best known sculptural representation of the couple, where she is depicted on his lap generally and look at each other. I okay with you replace with a similar image from Commons. Many exist on Commons:Category:Shiva and Parvati in sculpture. IMO, File:Bronze siva.png (Rishabhantika, leaning on the bull form) with File:Indian - Festive Image of Shiva and Uma - Walters 543023.jpg (Aligana-murti, embracing Parvati - type of Umasahita) or similar (Umasahita form - with Uma). Also, I plan to reconstruct Legends, which currently has elements of Iconography in it. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Devi Maheshwari - merge?

There was a new article created, Devi Maheshwari, should it be merged with this article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Yes, should be merged to avoid WP:CFORK problems. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:, I have not seen anyone have a concern about this. I can take a stab at performing a merge, but it would be better if someone more familiar with the topic could do it - or at least help make sure I'm not doing harm to this article. Any thoughts about next steps?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:, I just looked at the article again and realized most of the content is uncited. It looks like all that's needed is add Devi Maheshwari as another aka and then redirect. I'll go ahead and do that, and if you think anything else needs to be done, please help out. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Indeed. You did what I would have suggested!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong God was listed in History section

In the Kena Upanishad the story is that the three gods Agni, Vayu, and Indra (not Varuna) were the ones claiming the victory for themselves. The very end of the story it's specifically mentioned that Indra (not Varuna) is elevated above all the other Gods because he was the first to come closest and know Brahman. Since Agni first and Vayu second were not able to 'find out who this being is that fills the gods with wonder' Indra last went to where Brahman was but in his place was Uma Goddess of Divine Wisdom daughter of the mountains of snow. She told Indra the being that filled them with wonder was Brahman and they should rejoice in him because through Brahman they draw all their power and attain all their victories. I have come across two translations of the Kena Upanishad and this is the actual story. Varuna is not involved or if it's somehow a different name for Indra, Indra is always used as the name used for the third God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.235.43 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Parvati

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Parvati's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Flood 1996, p. 17":

• From Vishnu: Gavin Flood, An Introduction to Hinduism (1996), p. 17.
• From Shiva: Flood 1996, pp. 17, 153

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)