Talk:Gudimallam Lingam

Picture

The photo of the Lingam is badly needed.Kumarrao (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I just added one.--Elvey (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OR

Also, as there's no indication of what's OR, I'm removing the tag.--Elvey (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Websites

• http://know-your-heritage.blogspot.com/2016/05/shiva-lingam-parasurameshwara-temple.html

Title?

Parasurameswara Swamy temple Gudimallam in Yarpedu, Chittoor

@Utcursch: and others: Should the title be changed?

• Gudimallam is the name of the village, not the lingam
• The temple is officially called "Sri Parasurameswara Swamy Temple"
• The article is almost entirely about the lingam; the sources refer to it as "Parasurameswara Linga" or "Gudimallam Linga" (Pages 281-282, e.g.) or "Gudimallam Lingam" (Page 492 e.g.).

Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, it should not. The temple name is much more obscure. Obviously the lingam is much more famous than either the village or temple, but they are all handily covered in the one article. There's no problem that needs fixing here. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgable about the topic, but if the temple/lingam is notable enough to have its own article, then there should be two separate articles: one about the village, and another about the temple/lingam.

I haven't done a comprehensive survey of the cited sources, but a cursory look suggests that they don't use the word "Gudimallam" to describe the temple/lingam - they clearly distinguish between the geographical place and the religious building/object. If this article is intended to be about the temple/lingam, it should have a different title.

@Ms Sarah Welch: Maybe list the names used in the cited sources, and propose a requested move. utcursch | talk 02:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I visited this village and site a while ago with an ASI official. It is a significant place. There are many temples there, of which three are called Gudimallam temple. The Sri Parasurameswara Swamy Temple is the oldest. There is another that is old and interesting Gudimallam temple, but one younger than Sri Parasurameswara Swamy Temple. They are all notable in that region. Per WP:TITLE, "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". Will create that list of names and cited sources, then post it here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If we had more on the village than the line-and-bit of the first para, we could split the article. The article is clear on the name of the temple with the lingam, so I'm not sure what that fuss is. Equally, it is always referred to as the Gudimallam lingam or in Gudimallam in books on Indian art history (I suggest you do a less cursory search there). I've never seen it called the "Parasurameswara Linga", and neither of the sources you cite above do that. Gudimallam lingam (or linga) would be the name of a split article. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the first list:

• Parasurameswara Linga (least common):

[1] Suresh Pandey (2001), SAIVA ART AND ICONOGRAPHY OF MATHURA, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 2Vol. 61, Part Two, pp. 1248-1262 (note 2), JSTOR 44144438

• Gudimallam Linga or Gudimallam Lingam (very common):

[1] Doris Srinivasan (1984), Unhinging Śiva from the Indus civilization, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Volume 116, Issue 1, Cambridge University Press, pp. 77 - 89

[2] Farid Khan (1993), The Ekamukhalinga from Wanda Shahabkhel Northwest Frontier, Pakistan, South Asian Studies, Volume 9, pp. 87-91

[3] Jitendra Nath Banerjea (1931), Usnisa-siraskata (a mahapurusa-laksana) in the early Buddha images of India, The Indian Historical Quarterly, volume 7, issue 3, p. 511

[4] Abraham Eraly (2011), The First Spring, Penguin Books, p. 709

[5] Wendy Doniger (2011), God's Body, or, The Lingam Made Flesh: Conflicts over the Representation of the Sexual Body of the Hindu God Shiva, Social Research, Vol. 78, No. 2, The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 491-492 etc, JSTOR 23347187

... etc

• (yet to see a source that conflates the village name with the lingam)

Let us split the article into two as suggested. I have seen some sources on the village, and we can mention the other temples there in the village article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Expand on the village first, then we'll see - it's bad practice to create new one-line stubs needlessly - see WP:SPLIT. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Revert on 28 Sept

@Johnbod: Regarding this edit diff, source material: Srinivasan, Sharada. "Shiva as 'cosmic dancer': On Pallava origins for the Nataraja bronze". World Archaeology. p. 434. doi:10.1080/1468936042000282726821.

"[...] stone icon may be a vital 5-foot-high Satavahana depiction from Gudimallam in Andhra Pradesh which dates to c. the second–first century BC. It is of a standing male within a bulbous-ended linga and strikingly exemplifies the merging of aniconic and anthropomorphic manifestations of Shiva. His club identifies him as Lakulisa, Shiva as ascetic, seen in later (sixth–ninthcentury) peninsular Indian sculpture, whose ithyphallic aspect connotes asceticism and conserved procreative potentialities, rather than mere eroticism (O’Flaherty 1973: 80,8). The grimacing dwarf demon under Shiva’s foot too is a precursor to seventhcentury Pallava sculpture [...]"

The source clearly states what I have summarized in my revision of the article. I don't understand how this is a OR or “neither source mentions the statue at all, let alone gives it this identity” —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 18:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but Flaherty doesn't mention this at all. What is the preceding bit here? I see there is a "may" which you have ignored. Have you seen where Lakulisa actually links? Not to mention your bizarre Puranas link. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The word “may” is used in the context where the Srinivasan mentions “overly Hindu stone”. He didn't use the word “may” in the context of Lakulisa. Full sentence,

"However, in peninsular India, the earliest known overtly ‘Hindu’ stone icon may be a vital 5-foot-high Satavahana depiction from Gudimallam [...]"

Flaherty doesn't mention this at all, the reference to Doniger was added because she notes the ithyphallic aspects of Lakulisa isn't eroticism rather asceticism. I'm not sure which bizarre Puranas link you're talking about. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 18:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I know you are rather obsessed by that - I think it is overdone in the article. Since you can't be bothered to check, the link was "manifestation of Shiva is seen in later peninsular Indian sculpture" - especially bizarre as we have Indian sculpture, and there is nothing in Puranas on that topic, unsurprisingly. Sharada Srinivasan is a she, btw. Is carrying a dead gazelle the mark of an ascetic? Other sources regard the figure as shown in "hunter" mode, not quite the same thing. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the linkage to 'Puranas' from 'Indian sculpture' is rather bizarre, because that's a typo, I meant to write 'Indian scriptures'. But why are you saying that an ascetic can't carry a dead gazelle? Not to mention I'm not sure where you're getting your dead gazelle reference from, since Rao only mentions about "hunter" as far as I've read. Again, saying a hunter carrying a dead gazelle cannot be an ascetic is your opinion. I'm including the reference which mentions Lakulisa, not he's in a "hunter mode" or "terminator mode". —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 18:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

To quote the note (13): "Rao, 66 calls it a ram, Blurton, 78 also suggests an antelope. Other sources mention a goat." And Rao thinks he carries an axe, not a club. Even if a hunter can also be an ascetic, he seems more prominently the former than the latter. If we have only one identification of the figure as Lakulisa (for whom we don't have a link anyway), that should be phrased more cautiously, attributed, and probably not in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• WikiLinuz, can you stop spamming Kramsrich everywhere? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I didn't spam like you claim. Kramsrich is an eminent scholar in this subject, so citing a scholar isn't "spamming" in my dictionary. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 22:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiLinuz, first of all, I cannot understand half of what you write.

That being said, your sole activity in all articles concerning Lingam has been to cite Kramsrich and oppose other interpretations (Doniger etc.) with some fervor. As JohnBod says, you are rather obsessed by that. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, TrangaBellam, first off, Dongier herself mentions it connotes as asceticism, rather than erotism. Maybe you should re-read Dongier's work on this? Second off, I'm including the vital material which signifies the interpretation of Lingam, so citing context isn't “showing flavor”, I'm adding context where it's due. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 22:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Also remember when you were talking about the “number of citations” for the Varna addition (and we need to give more weightage to Patrick Olivelle, since other scholar's works have zero or 1-2 citations)? Which is also what you seem to support on the ongoing SP investigations, so citing Kramrisch's scholarly work, which have 325 citations per GScholar, is perfectly fine and definitely not "spamming". —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 23:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If you see my rewrite, I had based the entire section of Kramsrich, and not a single time, I had asked you to not use her scholarship.

However, citing Olivelle or Kramsrich's highly cited works does not translate to writing redundant paragraphs which are barely distinguishable to an average reader. Read this. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're saying not to use Kramsrich's scholarship, mind explaining? (since you're saying I had asked you to not use her scholarship.) —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 23:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

My main concern is that stuff from up to 1,000 years later is being projected back to the Gudimallam sculpture, from a formative period of Hinduism, about whose actual context very little is known. Kramrisch, whose major works are now over 70 years old, is treated with a good deal of caution by modern art historians. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Except it's not 70 years old, this scholarship of Kramrisch is published in 1981, while Doniger's (specific works we cite here) predates that of Kramrisch, 1973 and 1975 —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 03:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, ok, the book may not be, but she was 86 years old when it was published, which is impressive, but .... Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

[...] but she was 86 years old when it was published [...] — I'd think that's an appreciable fact, since that signify her experience, expertise and scholarly aptitude. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 04:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Uff. not a single time, I had asked you to not use her scholarship = I had never asked you to not use her scholarship TrangaBellam (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-constructive edits

@TrangaBellam: You're removing sourced material, like you did in [1] [2] [3], pretty much on your recent edits on this article. The materials are well sourced, the including of urdhvareta. I don't understand why you're conveniently removing those for no reason, I'm thinking of reverting your non-constructive removals. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 22:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We don't need two paragraphs of Kramsrich to understand her POV — half of which was redundant. The current version is excellent. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The current version is excellent, again, you're conveniently removing sourced material for no reason and stating your POV as a reason. Stripping off everything, including content, sources and citation isn't a “excellent revision”. If you're not giving a solid reason for removing substantial amount of material on your revisions, I'm restoring few materials that you've removed. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 22:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you wish to re-incorporate from the second paragraph?

Sivananda/Anantharaman - HISTRS.

due to incomplete or impure understanding of the underlying refined principles - UNDUE.

stands for "seminal retention" - buzzwords, conveying nothing to an average reader.

What do you wish to re-incorporate from the first paragraph?

Urdhva Retas - Why do we need the Sanskrit/IATS? Show me a policy.

desirelessness - is not even a proper word. The theme is already covered.

"through the spinal cord to the brain", retaining its integrity as 'creative substance', while being transformed and absorbed mentally - fancy stuff. Aids nothing to our understanding.

"Shiva stands on top of a Apasmara (demon) dwarf, ...." - Might restore.

mukhalinga - More, tomorrow. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

And, it is a policy that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. You seem to have a very hard time understanding that. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me list few materials you've removed during the course of your editing, which doesn't have paragraphs which are barely distinguishable,

1. 1 — On your revision, you removed a distinct piece of information: the reason why Lakulisa was standing on top of Apasmara, which is one of the notable characteristic from the figure.
2. 2 — Urdhva Retas, is a Sanskrit term with very specific meaning, and it's also one of the fundamental interpretation of Lingam. We also do the same, include IATS and Sanskrit, on articles under Hinduism. Given that, it's good practice that we follow the pattern and do the same in this case. (maybe show me the policy for not including IATS/Sanskrit terms within Hinduism? since we pretty much include in Hinduism related articles.) That being said, it's equally important to write why it's point up in the first place. Which, per the source, "[...] retaining its integrity as 'creative substance', while being transformed and absorbed mentally as Bodhicitta, the "thought of Awakening" and to attain Samadhi.
3. 3 — The material, and a direct quote from the scholar, mentions the reason why Shiva in particular is seen with ithyphallic descriptions, and this quote bring that in, [...] represents Shiva as "he stands for the complete control of the senses, and for the supreme carnal renunciation". and mentions the practice in particular it stands for, in this case (like the sources mentions) Brahmacarya.
4. 4 — Here we talk about visual connotation of Bodhicitta, which the Mukhalinga represents (when the vital fluid is ascented and absorbed), which supports and concludes the Bodhicitta's point (as the face symbolically represents mind in Mukhalinga sculpture).
5. 5 & 6 — This material mentions, why do someone, in the path of Sannyasa or Brahmacarya, need to follow this, because one does not deny sexual urges but re-direct procreation as creative faculty., which is distinct point that you've removed, instead of summarizing it. Also note that, including an important interpretation of Lingam (and related topics) isn't an obsession as I was accused to be, rather I'm adding material where it's lacking or totally missing a foremost point.

Given that, can you explain why these distinctive points from the mainspace was removed instead of being summarized, TrangaBellam? —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 00:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

References

@TrangaBellam: Are you gonna respond to this anytime soon? Honestly, I don't have a whole lot of time to sit around with this article; if you're occupied with something else, I can include the above additions by myself to move on. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 07:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should be very cautious in restoring, and should only use material where the sources actually mention this object. At Gudimallam the Shiva is not ithyphallic (or even naked) so without such a specific source including material dealing with philosophy from up to a thousand years later is prima facie WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTHESIS. I suggest drafts of revisions are discussed here first. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Unmistakably phallic?

please add citation on who has accepted this symbol unmistakably phallic? If referring to Rao's research, it needs to be quoted, else it's just bias. Truthseeker0311 (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

take your pick - which ones do you think are best? Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Oldest Linga Statue

The squatting figure on which the Shiva idol is said to standing is actually the Greko-Roman figure Atlas. 103.173.194.112 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Not according to the WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

THE GUDIMALLAM LINGA IS NOT A PHALLUS

The Gudimallam Lingam, located in the Sri Parasurameswara Temple, represents a unique and symbolic representation that transcends simple physical interpretations. Scholars like Stella Kramrisch have emphasized that interpreting the Gudimallam lingam merely as a phallic symbol of fertility or sexuality is incorrect. Instead, it symbolizes 'Urdhva Retas' — the ascent of vital energy, which is a spiritual concept involving the sublimation of physical energy into spiritual advancement【22†source】.

The Lingam is notably one of the oldest, dating back to the 2nd or 3rd century BC, and features a depiction of a human figure, identified as Lord Shiva himself. This form, known as 'Ekapadamurti', is integrated into the lingam, showcasing Shiva in a hunter or forest dweller guise, which further underscores its thematic elements of cosmic and spiritual significance rather than mere physical fertility【22†source】.

Furthermore, the temple’s architecture and the mythological narratives associated with it reinforce its spiritual and cultural importance. For instance, the temple's location and its historical association with the blessings of the River Swarnamukhi, which touches the deity once in 60 years, contribute to its spiritual allure and significance【24†source】【26†source】.

For a detailed understanding and additional scholarly perspectives, you may refer to the comprehensive entries on sites like Wikipedia and others dedicated to temple tourism and Indian cultural heritage【22†source】.

T. A. Gopinatha Rao, who first published it, clearly identified the lingam as phallic. The shape is so obviously phallic, the conclusion is inevitable, no matter how uncomfortable it makes some Indians. To say it is phallic is not the same is saying it is merely a phallic symbol. There is room for all sorts of additional interpretation. And it is not exactly "unique" among the tiny number of early lingam that we have. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)