Talk:Shiva/Archive 2

Devanagari Spelling

I was just wondering why the Devanagari spelling of Shiva (Siva) is incorrect. The way its spelled it says Savi, and not Siva.

Savi !!!!! It's always Shiva or Śiva--Redtigerxyz 12:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What does Shiva represent . . . . .

An answer to this seems to be missing here. Maybe this is difficult point to raise, but it :Dseems absolutely central. There seems to be no "explanation" (if I can put it like that) of what Shiva "represents" as a God. I can understand the need to not prosyletize here, but still, a brief contextual explanation of relevence within a religious context, is surely sufficiently neutral to be included. Because such an explanation is both central and indeed critical to any form of understanding of the concept behind the "label", it must feature in any attempt at definition/description? Maybe it's easier to ask this question by giving an example of a possible answer: "Shiva, the destroyer, is worshiped not for the futility and hopelessness of destruction as an end state but for the role of destruction in the creation of the new and what is yet to come. As such Shiva represents a key element of the circle of life.". More simply put "Shiva is the answer to the question 'Can entropy be reversed?'!!" (The subject of The Last Question by Isaac Asimov) Ok, that may well be rubbish. But could someone who knows clarify this? I'm off to hunt elsewhere. I found the reference to the Trimurti (eventually). There seems to be a bias ijn the article towards certain forms of explanation. I'm sure that as a religious article this is a minefield. But a reorganisation of the heding information might help. I've added a reference to the Trimurti at the beginning. It seems crazy to start with the Shaivanistic role unless that is the historical of the word. If so then couldn't that be explained first. The article is great if you already know about Shiva but a bit wobbly if you don't or aren't clear. IMHO

LookingGlass 07:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Where are the names?

In the Name of Shiva section I expected to find at least the names most circulated in common coinage (i.e. Pashupati, Bholanath, Bhutanath, Maheshwar, Kailashpati, Pinakpani), and found none. The scholarly references are fine, but an ordinary person looking for stuff on Lord Shiva would need to know at least some of the names. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rama is the guru of Shiva

According to Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna):"Rama is the guru of Shiva, Shiva is the guru of Rama".82.123.51.141 (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)alexisbaba

GA review

I have looked over the article. It is a very well-sourced and well-written article. I also think it is broad in its coverage, but I could be wrong since I have little background in the dharmic faiths. The article, however, seems to have too many blockquotes.

There is one problem. The section on worship: Shiva#Worship is completely unsourced. Please source it, and also consider splitting the list from the article and making a new article for it.Bless sins (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is template to give a basic overview of my review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Shiva#Worship needs more sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   A lot of images. Image:Shiva and Parvati.jpg seems to be missing some author info. Please fix that.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   pending until Shiva#Worship is sourced.

Bless sins (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Per discussion here, I will move the unsourced section below to talk. The section can be re-added as soon as it is sourced again. By moving the section, the remaining article will be sourced, and thus I'll pass it for GA. Any objections?Bless sins (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have made invisible the section 'Shiva#Worship'. It can be made visible if someone can reference it to reliable sources.

Finally, since this article no longer contains unsourced sections, I think it meets the GA criteria. Therefore I'm passing it.Bless sins (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

shiva sutras

shouldn't the shiva sutras be mentioned in the article? Teardrop onthefire (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I’m also curious if this is relevant information that needs mentioning.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to Shiva (Hinduism) and let plain Shiva be a disambig page?

• Move to Shiva (Hinduism) and let plain Shiva be a disambig page? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• In Judaism, "Shiva" is a well-recognized term for the mourning period. Even a lot of people who are not Jewish know what the term "Shiva" in Judaism is. Given this fact, I would feel that the term should be given equal weight globally. The general Wikipedia custom is, when a word is associated with two or more terms both of high importance to some group in the world, its plain entry leads straight to a disambiguation page. An example is Georgia, since there is both a country and a U.S. state called "Georgia" (besides other uses).
• Also, I am in favor of having "Shiva" and "Siva" be separate disambiguation pages, each with a "see also" leading to the other. Since both spellings in English are recognized for the Hindu diety, the link should be listed under both. (In the Hebrew language, there are also times when the S and SH sounds are interchangeable with the letter Shin (letter) שׂ, but Shiva in Judaism is never known as Siva).Xyz7890 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Dozens of incoming links expect page Shiva to be the Hindu god. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Temples

I have re-written deleting the not so encyclopedic, long list of temples to include only important temples as done in FA Ganesha.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Shiva in Devanagari script

At the top of the article, the name Shiva is given in Deva Nagari script. There is an error in the text. It actualy reads as "Shavi" and not as "Shiva". The crescent mark appearing on the top of the second letter, marking short vowel "e" should appear on the first letter 'Sha". I do not know how to do this. Someone capable of doing so may correct it. Gururajbn (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)B.N.Gururaj.

Please see Help:Multilingual support (Indic). You must have an older computer operating system and/or internet browser. Please view the page I linked to you to see how to fix this problem. Thanks Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring the article

This article, I feel, needs serious editing. Many details are superficial. There is no mention of the origin of Siva. The section on the historical origin is unacceptably large. why cant we create a new section for that one? Also, the lead contains information that are recurring. --213.130.121.43 (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)OpelC (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In general this article is too LONG - and it's language is very unclear for the average wikipedia-user. I could not even read through the whole thing, it's that chaotic. I agree that at the very least it could use some serious restructuring... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.138.62 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Linga and Yoni

I was wondering if we should add the linga and yoni to the attributes section. My knowledge of Hinduism isn't the best so I'll leave it up to more learned to people to decide whether or not to add it.Gpshaw (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The word Shiva means infinite.it is a science beyond science.when i luk at the form of shiva i strongly believe dat d moon represents d fact that our thoughts n actions r controlled by it like the waves are.ganga beside him, the life giving river and he himself in a human form is truly beautiful.when they say he is a destroyer it means keeping him in mind all the time our ego will be destroyed which stops us from learning further.his form of ardhnareshwar truly states the human mind which is formed dat way.it is better to live within d self,the silence there provides a better understanding of things around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikholai (talk • contribs) 10:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sivar

Sivar is ancient and first king of both Kilrathi and Kzinti, and he is not any god at all, because he is only member of one of many species, which never were older than our Universe.

Sivar Eshrad was performed properly and repatedly on many Kilrathi planets, including Kilrah homeworld itself but nowhere in Bharat placed on our planet Earth called by Kilrathi as Nak’tara. When and where you saw Sivar Eshrad or something alike in Rameshwaram, Amarnath, Bhradeeshwar, Periya? Nowhere. Thus without Sivar Eshrad any support for Kilrathi ancestor Lord Sivar in India is pointless. Additionally, Bharati can have in future serious political and security problems with our Terran Confederation since year 2416 in future. Supporting of Kilrathi ancestor - Lord Sivar by some Terrans, for example Bharati when Terran Confederation will be at war with Kilrathi will be treated and judged severely as grave treason of state punishable very seriously by sending traitors into worst battles against Kilrathi.

Here are shown the lord Sivar and his things related to himself, how they are bravely and fiercely supported on Kilrah, compared with his very weak support on Terran country Bharat. Note that lord Sivar on Earth is much more softened in comparison to his real appearance properly preserved on Kilrah and Nargrast:

Lord Sivar, destroyer of worlds depicted very mightily and powerfully as he REALLY looks by his brave Kilrathi followers: http://www.wcnews.com/newshots/full/wcart6a.jpg

Lord Sivar, destroyer of worlds depicted very softly and filigranous as he really never ever looked by his mild Terran followers: http://www.balagokulam.org/images/la-siva.jpg

Prince Thrakhath nar Kiranka, the hard fang of Sivar, destroyer of worlds: http://www.wcnews.com/articles/mythicarchiving/mythicarchiving40t.jpg

Prince Siddhartha Gautama, the soft tooth of Sivar, destroyer of worlds: http://1.1.1.1/bmi/www.crystalinks.com/buddhablue2.jpg

Massive fortress of Sivar in Kilrah Imperial Space, planet H’rekkah: http://wedge009.net/wc/wcp/introduction.jpg

Filigran palace of Sivar outside Kilrah Imperial Space, planet Nak'tara (Earth): http://www.srikumar.com/tdtemplecochin/udyaneswara.jpg 91.94.163.42 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Mistranslation

The section , "Origin of Linga" says,

In the Pine Forest, Shiva seduces the wives of the sages, so the sages curse him for this immoral behavior:

"When the sages saw Siva naked and excited they beat him and they said, 'Tear out your linga.' The great yogi said to them, 'I will do it, if you hate my linga', and he tore it out and vanished."

and the reference is : Kurma Purana 2:38:39-41

This is nothing but hopelessly mistranslated text, and the verse 41 doesnt even exit! The verses in reference are:[1]

brahmā viṣṇustathā cendro vidyādharagaṇaiḥ saha // KūrmP_2,38.38 //
pradakṣiṇaṃ tu yaḥ kuryāt parvataṃ hyamarakaṇṭakam /

pauṇḍarīkasya yajñasya phalaṃ prāpnoti mānaḥ // KūrmP_2,38.39 //
kāverī nāma vipulā nadī kalpaṣanāśinī /

tatra snātvā mahādevamarcayed vṛṣabhadhvajam /
saṃgame narmadāyāstu rudraloke mahīyate // KūrmP_2,38.40 //

Which dont come even a bit closer to what has been said in the sources, I wonder if this was an unnoticed vandalism... I will be rewriting this section.

--Nvineeth (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The edits by Powerprowess (talk · contribs) adds texts as it is from Wendy Doniger's book and gives undue weight age ( + copy vio )., I have at least 10 references which counter Wendy's views: Antionio de Nicolas, Kazanas, S.N.Balagangadhara, Krishnan Ramaswamy, Aditie Banerjee, BBC, Michael Witzel, Swami Tyagananda, Rajiv Malhotra to mention a few. Wendy's views are being projected as the main view.. These edits also adds Original research, "But in Hari Vanśa, Vishńu compels Śiva to fly, after taking him by the throat and nearly strangling him. The blackness of Śiva's neck arose from this throttling, and not, as " I will be reverting these, --Nvineeth (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me quote from WP:Profanity, the official wikipedia guideline,

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

Now coming to main point, does omission of Wendy Doniger's works cause "the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate"? In fact I can add material from the above sources and let the facts speak for themselves. But the article will be no longer on Shiva, it will sound like a "Wendy Doniger Vs Others" article. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to Vishnu

The section , " Relationship to Vishnu" says,

Difference in viewpoints between the two sects is apparent in the story of Śarabha (also spelled "Sharabha"), the name of Shiva's incarnation in the composite form of man, bird, and beast. Shiva assumed that unusual form to chastise Vishnu in his hybrid form as Narasimha, the man-lion, who killed Hiranyakashipu, an ardent devotee of Shiva

The quote would bring the conclusion of supremacy of Shiva over lord Vishnu.The exact reason for Shiva to incarnate in this form is not at all clear. Now coming to main point, does omission of quote cause "the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate"? In fact I can add material from the above sources and let the facts speak for themselves. But the article will be no longer on Shiva, it will sound like a "Shiva Vs Vishnu" article.I am deleting. Powerprowess (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not surprising that Shaiva and Vaishnava literatures try to project Shiva, and Vishnu as the supreme deity respectively. We need to present an appropriately brief summary of these views; not delete the view an editor find objectionable. Please avoid such deletions in the future, and discuss them calmly and intelligibly here instead. Abecedare (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare. The omission of Sharabha makes the article less informative. I think, only the "Difference in viewpoints between the two sects is apparent" fact is illustrated and the sentence can be toned down a bit by replacing "chastise" by a milder word. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Incompleteness

Without, "In the Hari Vanśa, Vishńu compels Shiva to fly, after taking him by the throat and nearly strangling him. The blueness of Shiva's neck arose from this throttling, and not, as elsewhere described, from his drinking the poison produced at the churning of the ocean" the reason behind formation of blue throat of Shiva would be incomplete.I am re-adding this....... Powerprowess (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The tale is relatively unknown, the other explanation is popular and retold in scriptures. Thus, this one can be abridged a bit. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(sorry for the ec Redtigerxyz) I have copyedited and referenced the tale. I assume it is satisfactory now. Abecedare (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Linga

I am creating a new section because the interpretation of Linga on this page (on Linga too) is an eternal problem, inviting many anon "defenders of Hindu faith". The interpretation of the linga as the phallus is disputed, but a well-known one, thus should be noted. Another interpretation is the Linga is an infinite pillar of fire or stambha as noted. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are tales in Hindu legends which refer explicitly to the linga as the phallus of Shiva, so It should be noted. [2]. “Lin̄ga” as Lord Supreme in the Vacana-S of Basava by R. Blake Michael, [3] refers to this fact too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! I don't understand why editors try to project a simplistic viewpoint in terms of "linga = phallus is eother right or wrong", instead of honestly conveying that their are differing views both in scriptural literature as well as in modern day readings. Abecedare (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Accepted! I dont understand why editors do not agree to the fact that Linga=Phallus is also a view. The section Linga need the view of Phallus too.---Editorcade (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes another view of linga as phallus is valid, but often it is projected as linga = "phallus and phallus only". phallus is viewed as symbol of fertility and there is nothing bad / wrong with this view, but matters dont stop there, the so called scholars like Wendy Doniger, Paul Courtright apply freudian psychoanalysis and come up with amazing "distortions" and for a sample of this refer to the additions I removed, which clearly comes under WP:Profanity. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Shiva identification

The identification of vedic Rudra with later Shiva is not all valid. Both are terrible gods and destroying god. But rudra is also a God of healing in vedas. His healing and beneficent powers would then have been founded partly on the fertilizing and purifying action of the thunderstorm, and partly on the negative action of sparing those whom be might slay. It is not valid to identify Shiva with older Rudra. The name is used as an epithet for puranic Shiva. The Puranic Rudra might be differing from vedic Rudra. The romoval of the identification of vdic Rudra with Shiva would make the article less informative. But it might be the truth.Truth may not be accepted at first. But it would the ultimate atlast.

This god occupies a subordinate position in the RV., being celebrated in only three entire hymns, in part of another, and in one conjointly with Soma. His hand, his arms, and his limbs are mentioned. He has beautiful lips and wears braided hair. His colour is brown; his form is dazzling, for he shines like the radiant sun, like gold. He is arrayed with golden ornaments, and wears a glorious necklace (niská). He drives in a car. His weapons are often referred to: he holds the thunderbolt in his arm, and discharges his lightning shaft from the sky; but he is usually said to be armed with a bow and arrows, which are strong and swift. Rudra is very often associated with the Maruts (i. 85). He is their father, and is said to have generated them from the shining udder of the cow Prsni.

Shiva's weapon is trident(Trishula). But Rudra's weapon is thunderbolt as Indra.Hence, The identification of vedic Rudra with later Shiva should be discarded.--59.97.80.30 (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! vedic Rudra cannot be Shiva. Let see what other editors say for this. You must have an account. Dont comment unlogged.--Powerprowess (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not agreed. The rationale given here amounts to WP:original research and contradicts WP:reliable sources given in the article. If and only if reliable sources are available, then the theory can be included. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If this story, "Difference in viewpoints between the two sects is apparent in the story of Śarabha (also spelled "Sharabha"), the name of Shiva's incarnation in the composite form of man, bird, and beast. Shiva assumed that unusual form to chastise Vishnu in his hybrid form as Narasimha, the man-lion, who killed Hiranyakashipu, an ardent devotee of Shiva" persists. It would be the article of clash between Vishnu Vs Shiva. I am deleting.... Please give a valid reason for this story reversion.--Powerprowess (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

see discussion above at Relationship to Vishnu. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This story

• http://www.exoticindia.com/article/sati_and_shiva/
• http://www.exoticindia.com/acrobat/sati_and_shiva.pdf

Can we add it to references?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.91.59 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Pashupati seal Vs Rishabha Vs Bull Seal

There appears to be lot of unsupported assertions in this section.

Can someone who is knowledgeable clean it up?

Raj2004 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The current unreferenced part of the section is primarily added by an anon, and can be a hoax or WP:OR too. Removing it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

shiva shell

sometimes known as the Pacific Cat's Eye, is a shell said to be named after the god Shiva however i cannot find any reliable online source to verify this. Help - anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.116.37 (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Below

I don't understand what is below the Natarajar Shiva. Is it a baby or something? —Preceding [Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by 173.74.158.177 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the demon (or dwarf) of ignorance, Apasmara. 70.177.94.136 (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shiva's Cosmic Dance at CERN

Shiva statue at Cern -European Center for Research in Particle Physics in Geneva
This article could be vastly improved by also including the esoteric Shiva concept beyond the literal .I have reproduced here some content from the physicist Fritjof Capras site .

“ More recently, Fritjof Capra explained that "Modern physics has shown that the rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of the seasons and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but is also the very essence of inorganic matter," and that "For the modern physicists, then, Shiva's dance is the dance of subatomic matter. ”

“ The parallel between Shiva's dance and the dance of subatomic particles was first discussed by Fritjof Capra in an article titled "The Dance of Shiva: The Hindu View of Matter in the Light of Modern Physics," published in Main Currents in Modern Thought in 1972. Shiva's cosmic dance then became a central metaphor in Capra's international bestseller The Tao of Physics, first published in 1975 and still in print in over 40 editions around the world. ”

Intothefire (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This interpretation will be an WP:UNDUE here, though it would a good addition to Nataraja.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Gender

So, is the bit in the intro in which Shiva is described as "she" supposed to be a troll, or a statement on gender fluidity, or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.235.87 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Shiva/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Some references tagged as unreliable from January 2010, disputed statements tagged from January 2010. Unsourced statements tagged from October 2007, April 2010 and December 2009, Tom B (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

References added, reworded. Disputed creditability reference/content removed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep, Tom B (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than depending upon British historians, one must refer to the original sources like Sanatan Dharma gurus. Only then a clarity sort of can be achieved. See, I say Sanatan Dharma, because Hindu Dharma doesn't exist. In Sanskrit, a lot of nouns can be used as adjectives also and vice versa. The basic point to be kept in mind is that these names are sort of titles (like Sultan is a title for a muslim king). So, the king of Swarg (Indian equivalent of Heaven) is titled as Indra. The Indra change every four Ages according to Karma theory (No one can live permanently in Heaven). The word Indra means the one who rules. The actual name of Indra may be something else. The creator of all the creation is titled as Brahma. The preserver of all the creation is titled as Vishnu. The destroyer of the creation is titled as Shiva. These three are the physical forms (Moortya swaroop) of The One Supreme God who exists in non-physical form also(Amoortya swaroop), who is also known as SadaShiv/Parbrahma. Its not uncommon in, Sanatan Dharma, for a god to be addressed with a number of adjectives (Just like Mughal Emperor Akbar's name was almost as long as a train due to a number of adjectives used while announcing him). So, it is not uncommon for Indra to be addressed as Shiva or Shiva to be addressed as Indra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffingreat (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Blue Throat

I have removed the lines that The Hari Vanśa Purana, on the other hand, attributes the colour of Shiva's throat to an episode in which Vishnu compels Shiva to fly after taking him by the throat and nearly strangling him. Reason :(1) The episode is not defined :(2) I have not heard of any such episode in any Hindu scriptures. (3)Further, refrence and page reffered can not be seen. If any one wants to re-instate this line : please give further readable references : Becasue never in any Hindu scripture there is an episode of Vishnu taking Shiva by throat. Rather, there are instances of Rama an avtar of Vishnu, worshiping and installing Rameshwaram Jyotirlings. Similarly, there are episode of Vishu taking Mohini form to help Shiva. But never any episode of both of them involved in a fight. All the Hindu scriptures atrribute Shiva's blue throat due to deadly posion Halahala, which no one else but Shiva had the power to hold it within it's throat.R P Jethwa (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If the episode is mentioned in Harivamsa Purana , the there must be many sites mentioning such incident. or Indian re-print of such books, which can be cited as additional reference R P Jethwa (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Neelakanta.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Neelakanta.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Shiv is preceptor of All humans.Shiv Guru Hai (Shiv shishya pariwar)

We All know about Lord shiva .Shiva has many Rups such as Mahadev,sambhu,shankar,tripurari etc....tese all have own behave and nature .All gods which you know in the World all are belong to God Shiva .It means God shiv is the superb in the world .And also he is Master "Guru" out of the various religious books and started realizing the truth about the need of master "Guru" in life. The SSP family is an initative taken by Shri Harinadranada to spread the light of Shiv Shisyata in universe so that every individual can be benifited to it.For more information (www.shivshishyapariwar.org)and (https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalssp).Here you can find that lord shiva has one role Which is known as "PRECEPTOR" means "GURU" .In ancient we can heard by ours grantha "SAMBHAWAY GURUWAY NAMAH" that means shiv is preceptor .and also many more Examples in our grantha .But Point is that if lord shiva is Preceptor of many ancient people in the world then why you can not accept his shishyta .So it is happen When a Great man born on Earth "SAHAB Sri Harindranand jee" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.244.27.45 (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add this information

Please add the information from scholar Gavin Flood's Shiva chapter from The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, starting from page 200. Thigle (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have one request for improvement. Please avoid/remove the comment/personal remarks of any western experts on Shiva. This is not good. If you can't trust Indian scholars who are well versed in Hindi/Sanskrit/Tamil than how we can trust Western Scholars who learned them and in many cases they misinterpret them. Please avoid these biases. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.224.79.225 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Needs Work for Clarity

I am more or less completely ignorant of this subject, so I don't feel competent to edit the article, but the sentences: "God Shiva is a yogi who has notice of everything that happens in the world and is the main aspect of life. Yet one with great power lives a life of a sage at Mount Kailash." are confusing to me.

Can someone edit, or, if you are shy aobut doing so clarify the explanation here in the discussion and I will attempt to edit. Thanks.? --Mark Asread (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Kashi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kashi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong image,

The photograph of shiva tagged as statue of shiva at sanga karve is actually the statue of shiva at gurgaon-delhi border. It is wrongly tagged as one in nepal. Nepal statue is the tallest statue of shiva. Both look very similar. This needs to be changed. Adityasaxena.corp (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

...

big brother.....whats up??? body building all the time.////give me some muscle ya.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.99.151 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Earrings

Something should be added under Attributes about Shiva's special earrings. Please read http://www.hindu-blog.com/2010/11/symbolism-of-earrings-or-kundalas-of.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjvanb (talk • contribs) 07:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

However, Shiva is also depicted with two identical earrings, which seem like crescent moons: http://www.flickr.com/photos/svaoum/1451643895/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjvanb (talk • contribs) 07:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Cosorts of Lord Shiva

Shiva is not consort of Adi Shakti. Complete Material Incarnations of Adi Parashakti i.e. Durga, Parvati, Sati are consorts of Shiva. However Adi shakti is energy beyond all universes hence equivalent as Ultimate GOD or Param Brahman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.49.138 (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Shiva Etymology Question

Can someone explain why the speculation on the name Shiva's Tamil origin was dropped from the etymology section? Lack of references? Mr.Falcon (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2012 (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)

Merge

How about merging Nilkanth into this article? I think the article is a WP:PERMASTUB and has no hope of expanding. Any opinions? If yes please do post here. Thanks! Forgot to put name (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Shiva's consorts

User:24.215.203.133 has removed five times diff diff diff diff diff the names of Durga and Kali as consorts of Shiva. Can anybody provide a source? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sati and Parvati are the primary consorts. Other goddesses are considered manifestations of Parvati and in this context, consorts of Shiva. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

But shouldn't they somehow be mentioned? It's probably clear for a Hindu how this pantheon works, but not for an outsider. A section on his consorts might be a good idea. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Shakti is being mentioned in the to-do list. Very interesting links; it's beginning to dawn on me how vast a topic Hinduism is - and that only a few aspects are being popularized in the west. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a very interesting question. The editor Joshua Jonathan rightly points out that the various forms can be confusing. Redtigerxyz-ji has correctly pointed out that some of these feminine forms are more widely-known and worshipped than others, and so some care needs to be taken in deciding which of them to discuss. Śiva is worshipped in many aspects, and some of these forms have corresponding feminine counterparts, which are personifications of Śiva's energy or capacity (Śakti). For example, when worshipped as Bhairava, his consort is called Bhairavī, who has her own special aspects. A citation for Bhairava/ Bhairavī can be found in Stutley, The Illustrated Dictionary of Hindu Iconography, 2003, pp. 19-20. Stutley's book is already accepted as a WP:RS in the main article. A citation for Durgā as a "śakti" of Śiva can be found in Stutley 2003, p. 41, however the same citation also points out that Durgā is also greatly respected among Vaiṣṇavas. A citation for Kālī as a "śakti" of Śiva can be found in Stutley 2003, p. 63, however the same citation also points out that this is only one of the ways that Kālī is understood. Calling these feminine forms of the divine "consorts" is one way to think of them, but I prefer the term "śakti". Many Hindus believe that there is only one Mother, and she takes infinite forms, just as does Śiva. The article on Shaktism may be helpful to identify major forms, some of which are more closely connected with Śiva than others. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The following edit introduces material into the article that is primarily a discussion of what the concept of shakti involves, citing some examples of specific forms: [4]. I think some of this material is not entirely appropriate here. If you work backward from the shakti tradition to list many forms, theoretically all of these could be listed as consorts of Shiva. But that is not the focus of this article, which is on how Shiva is most commonly understood. The reference to tantric issues also is not worded well and would be better if phrased something like "In tantric tradition, Shiva is considered... etc." Buddhipriya (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Orthography/transliteration

Shiva (pron.: /ˈʃɪvə/; Sanskrit: शिव Śhiva; Tamil: சிவன் sivan , meaning "auspicious one")

Is Śhiva rather than Śiva correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.58.48 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

RELATED TO PICTURE OF A SCULPTURE

It is mentioned as three headed Shiv but it should have been Dattatreya an incarnation of of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva(left) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitendra.paliye (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sadasiva

Perhaps someone knowledgeable who has a good secondary source could describe the Sadasiva aspect of Shiva?

Here is a brief description quoted from an external site:

At the end of Pralaya, the Supreme Lord thinks of re-creation of the world. He is then known by the name Sadasiva. He is the root-cause of creation.... In Manusmriti He is called Svayambhu. Sadasiva is unmanifested, He destroys the Tamas caused by Pralaya and shines as the self-resplendent light bringing forth the five great elements, etc., into being.

— mailerindia.com

Ringbang (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Names of Shiva

The section "Names of Shiva" has previously been removed; what are the arguments pro and contra? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

popular culture section

Should we add popular culture section here as there had been many TV serials depicting Shiva and mythology. Recently books depicting Shiva as a fictional character by Amish Tripathi became best sellers. Should we mention this here?--Nizil (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If you write such section, where will it end? Shiva is seen in so many art forms. There are so many films and TV shows. Not to forget all the minor mentions like heroines going and praying in a Shiv temple. Would you mention "Jai Jai Shiv Shankar, Kaata Lage Na Kankad" also? And books would be so many. Also, many people consider this whole stuff as fictional. For them Tripathi's version is just another take. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Worship?

Is this subsection properly titled? Perhaps it should be "Pagan religions" or something like that. --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree - the subsection is not properly titled -- but "Pagan religions" - is something different and also not fits properly, - perhaps - Shiva in Central Asia" . Jethwarp (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Temples

I moved the list of temples out of here and into a List of Shiva temples in India article. Figure that makes more sense (and less clutter)! --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources mess

Over a month ago, this edit messed up the Sources section, and it hasnt been fixed yet. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Lead

I had added useful fully referenced information about Lord Shiva in the introduction section but was removed by some apparently biased people. I will add back the changes and put this page on watch. Apalaria (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't attack other editors. I've reverted you. 2 of the sources are websites that fail WP:RS, and I'm not convinced that Debnath, not a full professor and at a minor college, meets WP:RS for such a statement - take him to WP:RSN if you disagree. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I will keep reverting to my version unless you specify which websites fail WP:RS because I do not see any problem. Apalaria (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, Debnath is actually a Professor and Head of the Department of History at Alipurduar College in West Bengal. His book has been published by a leading publication house of India. It is natural to trust Indian sources on Indian mythology way more than Western sources. If you have problem with any other source, kindly specify. Apalaria (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, he is not a full professor. He is an associate professor at Alipurduar College. The history department comprises only 3 members of staff, only one, Debnath, with a PhD.

Dr. Sailen Debnath, Associate Professor, M.A., Ph.D Jahirul Haque, Asstt. Professor, M.A. Smt. Srabani Ghosh, Asstt. Professor, M.A., M.Phil Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Being a full Professor has nothing to do with the ability of his book to be listed as a source. Unlike in the West, several professors even retire as associate professors in India because getting promoted to full Professor takes a long time. Debnath has a PhD and has written a book that has been published by a leading publication house, and the source stated here is such. Apalaria (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I see following problems with [5] Lead:

• Lead sentence concentrates on Shaivism. It appears other Hindus may not worship him.
• "In the Vedic epic Mahabharata,Krishna refers to Lord Shiva as the Brahman..." Vedic epic.... Mahabharata is hardly described as a Vedic epic. Also the sentence reflects Shaiva WP:POV. Krishna, a god of the rival Vaishnavism, is described acknowledging Shiva's greatness. introducing Mahabharata and Krishna in lead of Shiva is WP:UNDUE. Same applies to "In Mahabharata, Lord Krishna calls Lord Shiva Yogadhyaksha, the Lord of all Yogas"
• Bombarding of Great God synonyms reflects Shaiva WP:POV again.
• "Shiva is commonly also known by one of these names..." The reference does not say that he is commonly known by... In fact, Devendra is a popular epithet of Indra, rather than Shiva.
• "Because He is described as having no particular form, idols of human form are generally not used to worship Him." Pure WP:OR
• "The Shiva Linga is merely a sign .... " is a WP:POV. What about phallus view? This is not the lead of Linga, so IMO "the aniconic form of Lingam" suffices
• Image File:Lord Shiva on banks of Ganga Rishikesh.jpg has license issues.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz is reverting well-sourced information. This article is about Lord Shiva and the lead needs to provide complete information about who Shiva is. The version Redtigerxyz reverted to is only partly correct and lacks vital information. If Redtigerxyz has specific issues, he/ she needs to point them out individually before reverting. Apalaria (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC) @Apalaria:, specific issues are already highlighted on 15 August (see my comment above), which are not replied.

More issues: Removing from the lead. The same text can be incorporated in the main article text.

• "Though a prominent Vedic Hindu deity, Shiva's importance in Indian religion may have pre-dated the Vedic period." There is a big may here. There is a theory that Pashupati seal may feature a proto-Shiva. Also, Rudra, an ancestor of the Puranic Shiva, is a prominent Vedic Hindu deity; not Shiva himself.
• "Shiva is commonly associated with the practices of Raja Yogaand Jnana Yoga." This is an article which will be a large non-Hindu audience and jargon should be as less as possible. Also, I have read many encyclopaedia entries about Shiva. Nowhere did I find this association being noteworthy of mention. WP:UNDUE in lead.
• "Shiva is perceived at three levels...." is Shaiva Siddhanta POV and WP:SYNTHESIS. Only Davis talks of the three levels that too of a view of Shaiva Siddhanta, not of entire Shaivism as conveyed in the article.
• "Shaivas see Shiva as Parabrahma..." already stated: "considered the Supreme God within Shaivism". Also names part. Already objections listed in 15 August reply. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• "There is a theory that Pashupati seal may feature a proto-Shiva. Also, Rudra, an ancestor of the Puranic Shiva, is a prominent Vedic Hindu deity; not Shiva himself." Glad that you are aware of the Pashupati seal. Pashupati is another name for Shiva and so is Rudra. Regarding Rudra, Rudra is one of the deities that evolved into the deity Shiva as we know today. For your information and to correct you, besides Rudra, "Shiva" term is also used in the Vedas. If it were not, how would there be the mantra "Om Namah Shivaya" in the Vedas? In later times, Rudra became just an embodiment of Shiva. (I do not know who did it and why, but the point here is that the Shiva term and Rudra term are both used in the Vedas.) So saying "Shiva" was an prominent Vedic god is correct literally (though Indra is probably the primary god of Rigveda - though, once again, there is no claim of the degree of importance being made here, just that Shiva was one of the important deities in that period of history). Moreover, there is no claim being made that the Pashupati of the Indus Valley, the Rudra of the Vedas and the Shiva of today are all exactly the same. The point is there is a continuum of deities that have evolved or merged into Shiva (because they share Shiva's attributes) and this continuum started before the Vedic period. Shiva has gained many attributes and aspects over the years, certainly several since the Lingas or Pashupati of the Indus valley.

• Shiva was "an prominent Vedic god" is pure WP:SYNTHESIS and contradicts "During the Vedic period, both Vishnu and Shiva (as identified with Rudra) played relatively minor roles, but by the time of the Brahmanas (c. 1000 - 700 BC), both were gaining ascendance". More references that even Rudra was minor [6][7].-Pashupati being an epithet of Shiva does not make it concrete that it is Shiva. [8] challenges the notion it is Shiva. FA Ganesha lead does not theories of possible Vedic presence of Shiva, but just of the concrete, unchallenged presence in later centuries. -Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• The Lead does not claim that Shiva was one of the most prominent deities. It only says Shiva (Rudra) was a prominent deity. First of all, your references do not show Rudra was minor. They only show Rudra was not the leading deity. Even if they did, the Lead is not claiming major or minor. It is simply stating a historical fact. Yes, that Pashupati is Shiva has been challenged, and being a historical topic that is expected. However, a much larger majority of historians support that Pashupati is an early form of Shiva than refute it. Hence the use of the word "may". And for your information, it is not just Pashupati that accounts for the claim that aspects of Shiva were worshipped before Vedic period. Lingas have also been found. So there is a two-way support. If not already mentioned in the body, that needs to be added. If the statement, as it is now written, is contradicting something in the body, then the statement in the Lead just needs to be rephrased, but relevant and important information does not have to be suppressed, particularly because such articles are of interest not just to the religious/ mythology community, but also to the historical community - once again look at the article on Jesus or even Ganesha. Apalaria (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Read references carefully. They call Rudra as a minor Vedic god, the lead calls him "prominent". It is the popular view that Rudra evolved into Shiva, but there are disputes about the Pashupati seal. Shiva as we know him with Hindu epic and Puranic, not Vedic.

Added Rudra to lead, which does not have a "may" (a possibility), but is a historical fact. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Adding Indus Valley. See Jesus as an example. It is perfectly ok to mention a disputed fact in the lead, so long a balanced view is presented. Apalaria (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• "This is an article which will be a large non-Hindu audience and jargon should be as less as possible." - that is as ridiculous an argument as can be: you are telling me to not state an important point just because some people may not understand it. The terms have been properly linked and interested people can read more about them just by clicking on them. "Also, I have read many encyclopaedia entries about Shiva." This has nothing to do with what YOU have read or not. We are talking about whether the information is important here and can be sufficiently referenced. Several people today including non-Hindus practise Hatha Yoga across the world and this loops back on your argument that information should be relevant for a wider audience.

• WP:LEADs are supposed to summarize, not add new information. Is hatha yoga central to Shiva's identity? IMO, No. Hatha yoga is WP:UNDUE in lead. Describing him as a "yogi" is enough. To prove me wrong, please present at least 3 encyclopaedia entries where it is mentioned in Shiva entry. 3 encyclopaedia entries about Shiva which do not include specific yogas: [9],[10]-[11]-Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, first of all, I do not have to provide encyclopedic references because Wikipedia is not meant for merely copying what is in other encyclopedia. As regards Hatha Yoga, yes, today it is probably more important than the Cosmic Dancer form of Shiva: Millions of non-Hindus across the world may visit this article because they have heard about Shiva from their Hatha yoga instructor. I wonder how many will do that because they are interested in Indian dance. Perhaps it would have been different a century back, but not today. I have already stated this importance in my previous response. Apalaria (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please provide references to "As regards Hatha Yoga, yes, today it is probably more important than the Cosmic Dancer form of Shiva", because most encyclopaedia entries mention Nataraja, not Hatha yoga. As I said, his relation to Yoga (yogi) is already covered. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean provide references. There were already references in the Lead. Or are you making the ridiculous suggestion to provide you reference for the number of Hatha Yoga practitioners around the world?? Regarding you "yogi" argument, several Hindu deities are represented as yogi - for example, even Brahma is represented as meditating, that does not mean He is associated with Raja Yoga. Apalaria (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Only Davis talks of the three levels that too of a view of Shaiva Siddhanta, not of entire Shaivism as conveyed in the article." This is just your claim. I have provided more references than just Davis that talk about Parama-Shiva and Sada-Shiva. Provide sufficient references to prove your claim that Shiva is NOT also perceived as Parama-Shiva and Sada-Shiva. Parama-Shiva is the Ultimate Reality for non-dual Shaivas. Majority of Hindus worship Shiva, not as statue of Mahesh, but as aniconic linga representation of Parama-Shiva. Moreover, Param-Shiva's relevance percolates beyond Shaivism into Tantra and Shaktism as well - of course, all that additional information may not be relevant for the lead. But Davis or no Davis, I do not agree that the lead should carry information about Shiva as Mahesh and completely ignore Parama-Shiva and Sada-Shiva (which, by the way, also happens to be the form in which most of the individual statues and representations of Shiva can be found from history - coming back to your argument about larger audience). Talking about Parama-Shiva and Sada-Shiva is important from a historical point of view because lingas have been found from pre-Vedic times. Those lingas obviously cannot be associated with the post-Vedic and Puranic Mahadev or Mahesh. I can keep writing on this all day long and keep adding references from history and religion alike, but the point is that describing Shiva as an ascetic, householder, etc. without talking about Parama-Shiva and Sada-Shiva is absolutely INCOMPLETE information.

• The three-part classification is Shaiva Siddhanta POV. Parama-Shiva is not a pan-Shaiva view; it is generally associated with Tantric Shaiva schools like Shaiva Siddhanta and Kashmir Shaivism. Sadashiva is different Shaiva schools, but not categorized with Parama Shiva or Mahesh. Mahesh is also different in different schools. [12][13]. Mahesh denotes the Supreme God as Shiva in some schools, unlike views expresed in the lead. Also, other encyclopaedias also not talk about it in detail in the lead. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Shaiva Siddhanta POV? On the contrary, I am claiming lack of information on other levels of Shiva("classification", as you call it) is monotheism (or Shaiva Siddhanta) POV. You can go in loops on this one, but this information is essential for the lead. I agree with you that the body of the article needs a full new section on it. I will work on that. In any case, the point is that irrespective of the Shaiva school, all Shaivites perceive Shiva at a formless level (presently called Parama-Shiva in the article) - I agree with you that not all Shaiva schools call the perceptions of Shiva by the same names and that certainly needs to be rephrased, but once again, the information about the perceptions of Shiva is just too important to be suppressed in the Lead because it goes to the very essence of who Shiva is. Almost all Shaivas - Pashupata, Kashmir, Siddha Siddhanta, Shiva Advaita - except the Lingayatas (but even their primary deity is not the Shiva meditating on Mount Kailash, but the formless Lingam - hence the focus on the formless, unchanging Shiva), some modern Shaiva Siddhantas (who are, to quite an extent, monotheistic like the Vaishnavas, but even they have two opinions on this and some of them favor non-dualism) - follow a philosophy of non-dualism and monism where the formless, unchanging and unconceivable Shiva is more important than the Shiva in human form. You have provided some additional good references (beyond the ones we already have in the article) that claim the same. What the various denominations call that formless, unchanging Shiva can differ among denominations. In fact, this idea of a formless "Ultimate Shiva" is also essential to the philosophy of Tantra and Shaktism. Unlike Vaishnavism, core Shaivism does not focus on form or idol-worship. And even if you forget about Shaivas for now, as I pointed out in my last post, even most non-sectarian Hindus worship (whether in temples or homes) the linga instead of an idol of Mahesh. As a result, an unbalanced and undue emphasis on describing the idolatory characteristics of Shiva in the Lead without talking about the other levels (or perceptions) fails to present a full balanced picture of what Shiva means to people of different philosophies and denominations within Hinduism and Shaivism, and is therefore monotheism WP:POV. I just also noticed that the Talk page already has mention of the philosophical discussion of Shiva among the to-do lists. Apalaria (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Ultimate Shiva" as perceived as formless is OK, but Parama-Shiva = "Ultimate Shiva" is not the Shaiva POV. Mahesha is also called "Ultimate Shiva". I am incorporating: "Within Shaivism, Shiva of the highest level is the limitless, transcendent, formless and unchanging", without names as this aspect is called by different names: Parama shiva, Mahesha, Sada Shiva, Maha sada shiva in different sects. "Shiva is perceived at three levels." is still a Shaiva Siddhanta POV, not a Shaiva POV. The use of Shaiva Siddhanta terms in lead, is pushing that POV. Shaiva Siddhanta terms can be incoporated in main article: philosophical views on Shiva. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I like it now. The Lead looks much more balanced now. Adding the word "anthromorhpic" to "the most rceognizable attributes..." Apalaria (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with your point about the repetition of Parabrahma and Pramatman and will merge that with the first paragraph. This information has been in this article from before, so I am not sure it makes sense for me to eliminate it completely. Also, I noticed that the importance of the deity for the followers of a particular religion or denomination has also been highlighted in the lead in other articles (see the article on Jesus for example).

• LEAD summarizes the article and there is no point emphasizing one point again and again. It is Shaiva WP:POV. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• The lead is not demeaning to any other religion or denomination, nor is it providing any biased opinion without providing the proper context (it is not saying "Shiva is the Supreme God" - rather it is saying Shavias see Shiva as Supreme God). Apalaria (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is stated once, why state it 4 times? per WP:UNDUE and WP:POV pushing. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding "names", I am not sure what your point is. These are the names of Shiva (Shiva Sahasranaam) and I have provided enough English translation links that you can go and check if you do not know Sanskrit. Your concern in the past was (or was masked as) problem with reference to Krishna's name. Krishna was already removed in keeping with your sentiments or to not offend anyone who might get offended (even though I personally do not see any reason for that because it is just bare fact of what is in the epic and is widely regarded as the authentic collection of Shiva's names for those who care about them - once again, check out any of the multiple links I have provided). On my part, I had used Krishna's name only to avoid passive voice. Saying Krishna referred to Shiva by those names or referred to himself as his devotee is not the same as saying Shiva is superior (which is apparently what you seem to think) - that is purely a matter of perception - in any case, I removed references to Krishna to avoid any contention. Apalaria (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Also, lead is a summary. We have "Etymology and other names". Add it there. Few common names already in lead. The refs do not say that they are common names of Shiva. WP:OR. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added back some references that were deleted by your edits. They need to be bunched together at several places. Also more references are needed in the Lead. Apalaria (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Since lead is a summary, if facts are cited in the main article, references are not needed. I have made some minor changes, but I think we have a consensus. Thanks for a constructive discussion. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think we have a consensus. The lead reads well. Apalaria (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Significance of Shiva in Jainism

I have added a small section about significance of Shiva in Jainism. Shiva's importance in other religions very-well belong in this article. See Gautama_Buddha#Other_religions, Ganesha#Beyond_India_and_Hinduism, Rama#In_Jainism etc. Rahul Jain (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with you --- the Shiva or Rama mentioned in Jainism are in my opinion Jain mythological people ( though they may have similar names to gods as per Hindu mythology) ------- and they have nothing to do with Hindu God Shiva -- this is article about Hindu God Shiva and Shiva (Jain mythology) - has no space or connection with this article page. So better create a separate article and no need to mention in this page. Jethwarp (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not about my or your opinion, its about what the reliable sources say. The source there clearly mentions the connection of Jain Shiva and the Hindu Shiva. I think the title In Jainism is the source of confusion, so I am replacing it with Other religions. It would be on the similar lines with Gautama_Buddha#Other_religions and Ganesha#Beyond_India_and_Hinduism. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

From your text that Shiva was son of 'jain nun' and Parvati was 'prostitute', I think you are talking about different subject. Also it was supported by only 1 ref. If you have more sources, you should create separate article. neo (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Its the same subject, it does not matter what you think, it matters what the sources say. Significance of Shiva in other religions do belong in the scope of this article. Please respond to my above comments. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It does appear to be well sourced and I can't see enough material for another article on this (even if there is enough material, we'd need a reference here). It needs rewriting and I'd relabel the section to something like "Shiva in Jainism" or "Other depictions". I'll also l verify that the phrasing is accurate this afternoon. --regentspark (comment) 13:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The section was supported by only one reference a book published in 2002, which is not available for on-line reading. The Book is a reliable source or not is a question of debate but my prime contention is that this is story of Shiva in Jain mythology. The subject so mentioned therein seems totally different from Hindu God Shiva. Are there any reliable third party sources - which can be read online - which say that the Jain books mention the character of their story is Shiva, the Hindu God and the Parvati, which Jains claim was a 'prostitute' -- is explicitly same as Parvati - the supreme goddess of Hindus. Well one should apply proper sense of mind before putting up such highly inflammable things on Wikipedia (which we claim is encyclopedia) ......as the matter is highly libelous, offending and can ignite passions. Jethwarp (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me take a look at what the source says. It does appear that the source itself is reliable but let's see how the material is presented before we make up our minds. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Note. I also found a commentary on the Dundas source that adds some context to all this. But, can't look at it in detail right now so hang on. --regentspark (comment) 15:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Would it be helpfull and legal if I write the three paragraphs of Dundas here in the talk page word-by-word? (Unsigned comment by User:The Rahul Jain

I have gone thru source a name Jain Journal, Vol-39, 2004 --which says Jain mythological stories of which there is no dearth.... Siva is here stated to have been killed for his violent behaviour by a prostitute named Uma. In Hindu mythology Uma is known as Parvati and is also worshipped along with Siva. . So the Jain Journal admits - these are charters of Jain mythology and not Hindu about Hindu God Shiva.

I have also gone thru the book by Dundas and the author has written is in comparative terms -- that is --- he has compared Shiva of Jain mythology with Shiva of Hindu as well as other charcterer even of Buddhism. The story says Siva was killed by a prostitute named Uma and just for knowledge of others adds it is one of name of Parvati, Siva's wife (of Hindu myth) . The story says killed by prostitute called Uma. It does not say --- Siva's wife Uma. Author of the book ... points out that Jain Scriptures were written to devalorise Hindu icons and has thus picked up names similar to Hindu Gods......and made them things of scorn. Jethwarp (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So? Rahul Jain (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the Dundas text and the Cort paper, I suggest the following be added to the article: It has been suggested that Rishabha, the founder of Jainism, might be a manifestation of Shiva because, like Shiva, Risabha is a long haired sage who rides a bull. (Dundas, p39). Because of conflicts between Jains and Hindus in antiquity, the character named Shiva (Jain mythology) is often depicted negatively by Jain writers. The seventh century Jain writer Svetambara Jinadasagani Mahattara describes Shiva as “the son of a Jain nun magically impregnated by a wizard” who meets a violent end at the hands of Uma (Jain mythology), who is depicted as a prostitute. In Hindu mythology Uma is another name of Parvati and is also worshiped along with Siva as his consort.(Jain Journal -2004 - Volume 39 - Page 131) (Av Cu. Vol 2 pp:174-6) The poet Harisena describes Shiva as the son of Jain monk and nun who had broken their vows of chastity who kills a group of girls with the heat of his semen.(Dundas, p235-236). This ridiculing of Hindu deities by Jain scholars is thought to have been designed to devalue Hindu texts and philosophical systems.(Cort 2000, p. 335-336).

Don't know about jain mythology. If this story exists in multiple sources then this draft of RegentsPark is good. neo (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems good. We can add it. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not very convinced about all these ( of having a section on Jainism in this page) even than if we are here to build a consensus that the above text should be added here than I have made some minor changes to draft by Regent Park. But I still maintain my view that characters like Shiva (Jain mythology), Uma (Jain mythology) and many other similar named characters (like Rama (Jain mythology)) appearing in Jain books are part of Jain religious texts and have nothing to do with Hindu characters of same names. So, if anyone wants to expand, he/she should create new article pages as suggested above.Jethwarp (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added the section mainly based on above proposed edit. Shouldn't we also include the Jain version of explanation regarding images of Shiva's penis around India? Rahul Jain (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, whatever is added should be enough. If you have more sourced material, create separate article and then remove the material you inserted in the article. Your intention looks inserting derogatory stuff in the article by hiding behind NPOV. neo (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No. I completely agree with User:Neo -Your intention looks inserting derogatory stuff in the article by hiding behind NPOV - create a separate article with reliable third party sources - whatever is added is enough as per consensus. Jethwarp (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So the information must not be added because it is derogatory? Rahul Jain (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Information cannot be added, whether derogatory or not, just because it is sourced. Shiva has got tremendous, plenty of thousands of references from scholars and these sources range from a vast time span. You would have to bring in such considerable number of sources. If you are sourcing it to only one book, like you are currently doing, its as good as a fringe theory, simply published by someone who has resources. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:The Rahul Jain, could you find any more references on this or is it just these two references of "Dundas" and "Cort". And where the hell is the actual reference? This gives just names of authors and page numbers, god knows of what. With just these two dubious refs i am more inclined to removing the whole section as some kind of fringe. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added full citation for Dundas. Regentspark and Jethwarp might provide full citation for "Cort" and the "Journal". Rahul Jain (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And its only these two people who have these opinions about Shiva in Jainism? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that becomes three sources not two. It is not a fringe theory and the content has been added with consensus. (See above) Rahul Jain (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) - that the whole section of Shiva in Jainism falls under fringe theory and have no objection to whole section being removed - in fact if you look at my comments above - I have distinctly made it clear that I was at that time also of opinion that this things are not properly sourced and should not be added. Jethwarp (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think this is a fringe theory? Rahul Jain (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Answered that in advance when i called it so for the first time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You said that it seems to be fringe because there is only one source, now we have three. Then you said that the sources are dubious because they don't have full citation, now we do have full citation, so I guess the earlier objections have been addressed. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Much of the Jainism part in the article is breaking WP:NPOV and was added without consensus. until there is an agreement among all parties, the content shall not be replaced in th article again. Thanks.SupernovaeIA (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

How is it "breaking WP:NPOV"? Also, the content was added with concensus. Rahul Jain (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)