Talk:Yoni/Archive 1

Archive 1

old talk

10/10/2005 . . . page empty. What's the dispute over? -- 07:22, 10 October 2005‎ 128.62.98.92

Pic

Might like to add commons:Image:Lingam.jpg (Yoni sculptures, some with associated Lingam) to this page, but currently there's a conflict with a different image of the same name on Wikipedia... AnonMoos 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

yoni yoni ek aisi chij hai jo har mard use rugadna chahta hai usme se bachche paida hote hai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.249.149 (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yoni is a Hebrew Name

Anything about the common Hebrew name Yoni? I think mention should be made, perhaps on another page, -Yoni

Go ahead, no one's stopping you. Log in, click Yoni (name), and start writing. —Keenan Pepper 20:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yoni is short for the herbew name Yonatan.

Yoni (the Hebrew name) is completely unrelated to the word yoni (in Sanskrit), apart from being spelled the same in English transliteration. As such, the Hebrew name probably need not be mentioned on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.25.18.60 (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

yoni and lingam - two articles written by the moralitiy of the victorian age, the primary meaning of these are - seemingly intentionally -edited as the 3rd-4th meanings, because of self-righteousness.

Let me make a non-scientific observation, about the importance of truth, before anything else awkward. The first sentences are circumlocution. Every person who is male, knows how one can mean "divine passage" when he thinks of female generative organ, as everyone calls , the pussy..:) Just someone without testicles can allege something in the article like: the original meaning was the "divine passage"...Looking around in Indian culture, the primary meaning of yoni is not so vague, as the article tries to suggest - the authors were bashful? - its clearly means the vulva. Of course, there are divine yonis, galactical child-bearer yonis, and every kind of yonis, but the original meaning CANNOT BE different, than the vulva, which was - more than possibly - a well-known "thing" in the world before humanity was aware of any divine thing, or maybe even before being aware of any passages....But the way this arcticle starts, I think is unnaturally bashful. I have the same problem with the article lingam, which probably is also a work of someone with the morality of the victorian age...:) I this this should be changed, couse bashfullness is blocking the truth and clearlyness of this article I think.Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

lionsroar.name/tantric_glossary.htm

http://lionsroar.name/tantric_glossary.htm

"yoni (S): Vulva, womb, source; the entire female genital system. A term from India's ancient language, Sanskrit or "devanagari" (divine language). It can be translated by several English concepts ("origin", "source", "womb", "female genitals") and is the most respectful word available with nothing as respectful available in our modern language. The term yoni heralds from a culture and religion in which women have long been regarded and honored as the embodiment of divine female energy - the goddess known as Shakti - and where the female genitals are seen as a sacred symbol of Her."

-- 88.75.220.79 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Many Hindu religious leaders deny it as a fake myth to discourage Hinduism in the eyes of international media. There has been many allegations against the British Empire who fulled this myth in the society to embrace it during their inhuman reign in India.

Before the British came to India this myth was never heard neither has any written proof of existence. It was during their reign that an oxford scholar used this term in his thesis. It reclaimed a powerful resentment from the Hindu community but it was suppressed soon.

The Lingam is an aura of invisible force that surrounds the Almighty and is not that of a Penis as acclaimed by modern media. The Yoni is the yagya Kunda which is used as fire place for offerings during Puja and other rituals.

It is very astonishing to see that even Wikipedia has biased information in this regard. -- 09:46, 27 November 2011‎ User:Rishidevdas

First off, the British were maybe not in a great position to discredit Hindus, considering that the Sheela-na-Gig was found on a number of U.K. churches...

However, I'm not sure that there's much legitimate scholarly dispute on this subject. The word yoni appears to mean "womb" as much as it does "female genitals", and it has many respectable extended metaphorical meanings, but it does mean "female genitals"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The word Lingam is a sanskrit word which is a combination of "Ling" + "Aum". Now Ling means an organ or any part of the human body but not limited to the genitals as proclaimed. Now the word Aum has never been associated with sex delicacy or word of pleasure even in Vedas or other Hindu literature. Now the meaning of Aum means an Aura of "Ananat" - No beginning no end. So how can the word Lingam signify a human sex organ with the word "Aum" related to it in the end.

Another important thing is that the word Ling signifies Lord Shiva - the God of mass power who holds the capacity to destruct if angry. So the aura of destruction which arises from the anger of Shiva is also related to ling. Coming to the shape - A Human genital is not an exact shape as the misrepresented "LINGAM". Just giving some reasoning plus the religious fact to think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishidevdas (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly doubt whether any such "Aum" etymology is accepted by linguists and scholars. Sanskrit has a lot of words which end in "-am" -- are all of them supposed to come from "Aum"?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this becoming some kind of debate here? The very first portion of the debate clearly explains the controversy in the main article. Kindly both of you look into it and clear this make shift explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.88.202 (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In Indian religions

Should there be some explanation that "84 lakh (84,00,000)" uses the Indian system for denoting hundreds and thousands by commas, rather than the Western system, which would interpret 84 lakh as '8,400,000', where a lakh is 100,000? Dawright12 (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We have a link on lakh, and someone interested can follow the link. AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Peter Reynosa painting

Is there any relevance or reason for the inclusion of the (IMHO, terrible) painting with its illiterate caption, which does not depict a yoni or anything related in any way whatsoever to the subject? Liam Proven (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems pointless to me... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to Commons

According to Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links "Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section, not under See also. Two exceptions are Wiktionary and Wikisource links that may even be linked inline, like the last word "inline", i.e. as the text of a document that might not be familiar to all readers."--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That really does not seem to be the common practice for Wikimedia Commons links. The way I set it up is much more typical of what is actually done on articles. AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In most of the articles I see the commons link is more ofter in the External links section or at least in the last section of the article if there is no External links section. In the long run there will probably be more articles which conform to the guideline above than do not.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for about 9 years, and I don't remember seeing CommonsCat under External links before. If it's a new thing, I really don't think it's an improvement over the old style... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead edits (xferred from Cpt.a.haddock's talk page)

First, the Sanskrit meaning of the word is certainly of interest, but how the word is commonly used in English is actually more important for the en.wikipedia article. (For example, the OED first edition defines it as "A figure or symbol of the female organs of generation as an object of veneration among the Hindus and others".) If there's a discrepancy between the most correct Sanskrit meaning and the most common English meaning, then that could be of interest, but it would not automatically override the common English meaning for purposes of English Wikipedia.
Second, it's quite useless and hopeless to attempt to desexualize these symbols now (not to mention historically revisionist). I really don't think you want to start an edit war... AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: (Moving the conversation here) As in my edit summaries, we are simply sticking to the source. The only real source cited in this low quality article is Encyclopaedia Britannica and that begins Yoni, (Sanskrit: “abode,” “source,” “womb,” or “vagina”) which is the same order that the lead now uses ... If you disagree with this, then please add and improve the article using other reliable sources rather than indulging in WP:OR. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edits to the article, and comments above, did not really directly address many of the points I made. However important the abstract metaphorical definitions of the word in Sanksrit, and however relatively unimportant the anatomical definitions ("womb, vagina"), this article on English Wikipedia (not Sanskrit Wikipedia) is about the anatomical meanings of the word (especially as used in religion and cultural practices), so those meanings are the ones which are most important for this article. Also, it's quite inconsistent of you to place great importance on a Sanskrit dictionary entry as a source, while rejecting an English dictionary entry as a source. No amount of chanting of Wikipedia policies such as "not a dictionary" will cover over this inconsistency. The Oxford English Dictionary is the most authoritative and reputable dictionary of the English language, and is acceptable in defining the basic meanings of English words in almost all cases. (I quoted the 1st edition which was most convenient to me, but I doubt if any later edition would be substantively different, though probably less euphemistic -- see https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/yoni ). Finally, I don't want to get into a stupid edit war, but your attempts at retroactive bowdlerization and historical revisionism are unfortunately quite absurd. AnonMoos (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Also, "pockmarking" tagging (adding a citation needed or similar tag robotically at the end of every sentence or paragraph) is quite useless. If there is some assertion in the article which is individually problematic, then it can be signalled and dealt with in various ways, but indiscriminate promiscuous pockmarking really resolves nothing and helps nothing. AnonMoos (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. What is cited for the lead is the Encyclopaedia Britannica and you keep reverting to a version which includes WP:OR or which selectively includes information from EB. I have added another source which explicitly defines yoni as a representation of female genitalia which I'm guessing is your primary grouse. And I disagree with your arbitrary removal of citation needed tags. Everything in the article needs to be covered by a source. If you still disagree and want to revert to the OR version or remove these tags, please point out where it states that the sense of vulva was only introduced since the late 19th century. Or how it is a misinterpretation to state that yoni means vulva when it is actually yonidesha which is the correct term for it. Or where it states that there are 8.4 million yonis. Or where it states that Shiva is "endless fire". Or where it states that the yoni is the object of worship during the Ambubachi Mela.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Your edits might have various merits, but as long as their main tendency was bowdlerization, historical revisionism, and obscuring the main meaning of the word as used in English, they were unacceptable as a package. The latest version shows improvements, but indiscriminate robotic "pockmarking" tagging is still quite useless -- the purpose of a tag such as "cite" is to show a SPECIFIC problem with a SPECIFIC passage. If you merely add them to end of every paragraph, then you're not doing that, so you're misusing the tag. AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

As in my previous message, please provide citations for my specific problems in specific passages. 8.4 million yonis? Endless fire? Yonis worshipped at a menstruation festival? Nonduality of immanent reality? How is Yoni Tha relevant? Who says Yoni Mudra reduces distraction? Yoni cycle of life? Tantric origin of life? Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're still missing the main point -- tagging up everything is functionally the same as tagging up nothing, since in either case NOTHING IS BEING SINGLED OUT (which is actually the whole purpose of tag templates such as "cite"). So indiscriminate pockmarking tagging serves no purpose whatsoever other than making the article look ugly. If you think there are overall problems with the article, then use overall templates at the top... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will be removing all unreferenced material after a while. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

As long as you don't try to impose bowdlerization and historical revisionism onto the article contents, then things will probably go reasonably smoothly. AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Lingam often interpreted as stylised phallus

If you ask me to source this, then I will add a quote from the OED 1st edition entry, and you will object to the OED 1st edition quote, and we'll go back and forth on this several times. How about we shortcut the whole process, and either you add a source acceptable to yourself for something we both know is true, or you stop being a pedantic pain about something we both know is true? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: What is required is that you cite a reliable source when you add information to an article, particularly a sensitive one such as this one. The OED, the first or any subsequent edition, is a less than ideal source for this article, but it is better than nothing (provided that is supports your statement). Also, the editor indulging in pendantry, adding and defending unsourced material and original research is you. I've also warned you on your page to at the very least alert other editors to your penchant for unsourced material, your failure to assume good faith in other editors, and your tendentious nature. It's a shame to see such traits in an editor as experienced as yourself. Thank you.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion (where I told you very specifically what source I was willing to add), your adding a generic warning box to my user talk page seems to be a very deliberate bad-faith malicious annoying maneuver, designed far more to intimidate and harass me than to advance any legitimate objective of article improvement; I would greatly appreciate it if you were not to repeat such a maneuver again in future, since it would then border on "wikistalking".

Furthermore, I'm the one who is trying to keep very widely-accepted and well-known facts on the article, while you seem to have a very intentional agenda of bowdlerization and historical revisionism, so no matter how many names of Wikipedia policies you mumblingly repeat, your editing on this article is far worse than mine (and will likely be found to be so if taken to a neutral dispute forum). AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Professor Sumit Sharma requests

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

Yoni (IAST: yoni; Sanskrit:"vulva", "womb", "abode", or "source") is a stylised representation of female genitalia representing the goddess Shakti in Hinduism.[1][2] Within Shaivism, the sect dedicated to the god Shiva, the Shakti symbolises his consort. The male counterpart of the yoni is the lingam. The union of the yoni and lingam represents the eternal process of creation and regeneration and all existence. In art and sculpture, this is represented by a cylinder (lingam) resting within a spouted dish (yoni).

THE ABOVE PORTION IS A CLEAR VANDALISM AND THIS COULD CREATE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN RELIGIOUS SECTION AND MAY LIKELY TO ATTRACT LEGAL ACTION SO THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

Yoni (IAST: yoni; Sanskrit:"vulva", "abode", or "source") is a stylised representation of the goddess Shakti in Hinduism.[1][2] Within Shaivism, the sect dedicated to the god Shiva, the Shakti symbolises his consort.The union of the yoni and lingam represents the eternal process of creation and regeneration and all existence. In art and sculpture, this is represented by a cylinder resting within a spouted dish Professor Sumit Sharma (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done @Professor Sumit Sharma: thank you. Also see above discussion. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

Yoni (IAST: yoni; Sanskrit:"vulva", "womb", "abode", or "source") is a stylised representation of female genitalia representing the goddess Shakti in Hinduism.[1][2] Within Shaivism, the sect dedicated to the god Shiva, the Shakti symbolises his consort. The male counterpart of the yoni is the lingam. The union of the yoni and lingam represents the eternal process of creation and regeneration and all existence. In art and sculpture, this is represented by a cylinder (lingam) resting within a spouted dish (yoni).

THIS IS CLEAR VANDALISM AND UNAUTHENTIC MISLEADING INFORMATION THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

Yoni (IAST: yoni; Sanskrit:"vulva", "abode", or "source") is a stylised representation of the goddess Shakti in Hinduism.[1][2] Within Shaivism, the sect dedicated to the god Shiva, the Shakti symbolises his consort.The union of the yoni and lingam represents the eternal process of creation and regeneration and all existence. In art and sculpture, this is represented by a cylinder resting within a spouted dish. 2409:4052:81C:71AA:BDE5:C147:6C24:CE32 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Raymond3023 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

Yoni (IAST: yoni; Sanskrit:"vulva", "womb", "abode", or "source") is a stylised representation of female genitalia representing the goddess Shakti in Hinduism.[1][2] Within Shaivism, the sect dedicated to the god Shiva, the Shakti symbolises his consort. The male counterpart of the yoni is the lingam. The union of the yoni and lingam represents the eternal process of creation and regeneration and all existence. In art and sculpture, this is represented by a cylinder (lingam) resting within a spouted dish (yoni).

Now this portion is misleading and has an element of vandalism and why I consider it misleading,the reason being that the word "YONI" is actually a "pun" or in a better way a "homonym"("Anekarthi shabad" in hindi or sanskrit).Indian languages especially Sanskrit and Hindi are full of such words for example consider the word "ambar" it can mean aakash(sky) or "vastra"(cloth),or consider the word "arun" it may mean laal(red) or surya(sun) or just consider the english word "date" it can have different meaning but the important thing in using these grammatical instruments is "context" or situation.Now the word "yoni" may mean different things as per different contexts or situations but to equate it to genital as per the the context of this entire article is wrong,misleading and has an elenet of vandalism and harms the purpose of "wikipedia" as an "encyclopedia".Moreover in my 17 years of teaching indian art and culture in college I have rarely come across some unbiased sources which equate it to genital so I think as per the "context" of this entire article the above portion should be "changed to"

Yoni (IAST: yoni; Sanskrit:"vulva", "abode", or "source") is a stylised representation of the goddess Shakti in Hinduism.[1][2] Within Shaivism, the sect dedicated to the god Shiva, the Shakti symbolises his consort.The union of the yoni and lingam represents the eternal process of creation and regeneration and all existence. In art and sculpture, this is represented by a cylinder resting within a spouted dish Professor Sumit Sharma (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This also appears to be original research and not acceptable on those grounds, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done @Professor Sumit Sharma: thank you. Also see above discussion. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Professor Sumit Sharma bowdlerization requests

First off, as explained previously above on this article talk page above, this article is ultimately about Yoni as the word is commonly used in English. Sanskrit is certainly of interest, but if there is a divergence between the most common meaning of the word as used in English and the most common meaning of the word as used in Sanskrit, then English will prevail. Second, I really don't understand the eagerness to purge the meaning "womb". Third, User:Raymond3023 seems to have seized on Professor Sumit Sharma's bowdlerization requests to make unfortunate unilateral changes to this article (after User:Eggishorn had already rejected such changes). These changes need to be discussed here, and not just high-handedly imposed in the service of bowdlerization... AnonMoos (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't edit the headers or demoralize the edit request of others by calling them "bowdlerization". Eggishorn must be treating the edit request like any, but you have been already told for 2 years now. Read what reliable sources say.[1] What you are attempting to represent is modern view. Capitals00 (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00 is correct, I saw and edit request that depended on the requester's personal knowledge. I did not reject the request because of he substance nor do I have any opinion on that. I see an edit war quickly developed despite the request and I know that administrators are already watching this page so my input is not really needed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00 -- the various Sumit Sharma requests must be grouped under a common header, because they're almost identical. Furthermore, I don't like Google Books, I'm not good at Google Books, and Google Books sometimes comes close to crashing my browser, so a raw Google Books link without the slightest author or title information provided is useless to me. (It would also be unacceptable as an article reference).

Eggishorn -- the "edit war" (such as it was) developed BECAUSE of the edit requests, not despite them, when Raymond3023 used them as an occasion to impose bowdlerizations which were previously discussed at length above on this page... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Confusion created by factually wrong content of "Yoni" page on en.wikipedia.org

This page of "Yoni" on en.Wikipedia is locked for editing due to too much conflicting edits by users which is a good decision.

Yoni word is also used sometimes in a generic concept, as a virtual or spiritual space to create life, not specifically vulva of female. Check Bhagwad Gita, Chapter 14, Shloka 3. https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.a... मम योनिर्महद्ब्रह्म तस्मिन् गर्भं दधाम्यहम्। संभवः सर्वभूतानां ततो भवति भारत।।14.3।। Yoni word is not used in literal biological sense. It is giving generic message to be a container to incubate & create life. Some swamis have no just given translation but description also: Swami Ramsukhdas: तात्पर्य है कि जीवन्मुक्त महापुरुषोंका इस मूल प्रकृतिसे ही सम्बन्धविच्छेद हो जाता है? इसलिये वे महासर्गमें भी पैदा नहीं होते और महाप्रलयमें भी व्यथित नहीं होते।सबका उत्पत्तिस्थान होनेसे इस मूल प्रकृतिको योनि कहा गया है…..यही भगवान्के द्वारा जीवसमुदायरूप गर्भको प्रकृतिरूप योनिमें स्थापन करना है Sawmi Chnimayananda: महद् ब्रह्म योनि यहाँ महद् ब्रह्म को भूतमात्र की योनि अर्थात् कारण कहा गया है। परन्तु? यहाँ महद् ब्रह्म यह शब्द सम्पूर्ण विश्वाधिष्ठान परमात्मा के लिये प्रयुक्त नहीं है। यह शब्द जगत् की अव्यक्त अवस्था अर्थात् जड़ प्रकृति को इंगित करता है। My womb is the sustainer/bhrama/bhrahman/Prakiti, etc. The word womb for translation of Yoni also is giving generic message, not sexual.

However, reading the current version around 9:00 a.m. on 5th June 2018, Tantra is mentioned to be source of all this information. It is also indirectly mentioned that union of Linga & Yoni represents creation & cylindrical Linga is placed inside sprouted dish of Yoni. I would like to enlighten or rather remind everyone that creation of universe & life within involves various Asexually reproduced life forms also which cannot be represented by sexual symbols & depictions in union or individually. Hence, by 98% Hindus in India, Shivling is not considered as symbol of sexual union in general or that of Shiva & his consort(s), this can be confirmed in public in broad daylight by anybody, anytime, anywhere. Shivling is related to Ajna Chakra & to Penial/Pituitary glands. Simple comparative example: ornaments & other gifts given by parents to their daughter in marriage are regarded as memory/sign/mark of parents by daughter but they are not sexual representation even if parents have begotten their daughter.

Let's not forget that M.F. Husain faced arrest warrants & lawsuits for nude painting of Hindu deities & had to flee India. Osho was deported & denied entry by at least 21 countries & lived in India in isolation. Ramrahim & Asaram Bapu were prosecuted. Such is the fate of people who tried to mix sexuality & divinity. Such heterodox, antinomain claim or depiction is in violation of all or subset of IPC sections 295, 124A, 499, 500, 505, 193, etc. The dimension of Shivalingam is similar to human genitals that's why it has been mistaken. No Hindu nation-wide accepted spiritual leader has accepted the phallic concept.

It is the 2% population which is trying its best to propagate heterodox, antinomain & counter-cultural information from manipulated concepts of Tantra inclined towards left-hand path like Vaamaachaara based on 5Ms (panchamakara) including M for Maithuna (sex). There are secret sexual rituals involved. This confuses & tempts the population to think about sexuality of gods which simply tries to equalize divinity with materialistic world & hence eradicates difference between mortal humans & divine gods, contradicting the very concept of god, religion, devotion & divinity. A religion cannot be rated 18+. It should be pure & safe to follow by everybody irrespective of age & gender & should not be offensive in any way. Divine powers does not mean just throwing lightning bolts & death rays at Asuras & teleporting from place to place. Followers & supporters of such heterodox belief can be male/female & belong to any sect, income-group, professional category, age group, etc. However, mostly these people are in age group of 15-35 which is age group of peak physical performance, curiosity, growing knowledge/experience, adventure, confusion, relations, marriage & reproduction. Hence some people are ignorant &/or arrogant.

People should refer to following; Siva Purana, Vidyesvarasamhita, chapter 9.15-22 // Vidyesvarasamhita, Chapter 5 // Sivanubhava Sutra 3.3 // the Kurma Purana (I.26.68-99) // Bodhyana suthra Mahanyasa , section: Shiva archna (shiva worship) //

Since humans manifested, 5 fingers were of different size & hence different groups formed with their own versions of mythology & beliefs with supporting modified versions of texts & art forms like statues, paintings, emblems, monuments & even poetry. Just like Islam world has Shias, Sunnis, Bahais, etc; Christian world has Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc; similarly Hindus have Shaivs (Shiva is prime), Shakts (Devi is prime), Vaishnavs (Vishnu is prime), etc. They describe same mythological events in slightly different way to favor the superiority of their prime deity. Shaktism denounces the male supremacy of gods & supports female supremacy of goddesses. There is no harm is following different versions of fundamentals & seeking personified forms of gods but associating sexuality with divinity is a sin & illogical as I explained in brief in previous paragraphs. Devi can be worshiped fully & womanhood & motherhood can be celebrated easily by respecting the female power to create, grow & deliver life or babies. There is simply no requirement beyond this to get explicitly biological or sexual, which will make it impossible for 18- minors to get religious education & moral values. So owning to the natural conflicts of interests since the nomadic hunting days, the tiny percentage of examples like Lingam of Gudimallam in A.P. or archaeological findings in Harrappa/Mohenjodaro, to cave paintings in Ajanta/Ellora, sexual statues of Konak/Khajuraho temples, to semi-nude Kerala mural paintings, it is no big deal as majority & minority have always existed & will exist. Such depictions don't prove association of sexuality & divinity & hence there is no reason to panic for Hindus who have pious thinking.

The sexuality mentioned in Hindu scriptures are present as an ultimate test of devotion & logic which the Shastras encourage to apply. That's why there are multiple versions of same event producing contradiction. The events are depictions of life situations which we are likely to face & People have to understand the teachings hidden in those, the DOs & DONTs of those situations, which is the prime objective of Shastras, & not to sexually arouse & entertain the population.

Lastly, when every attempt fails to associate sexuality & divinity, some people have mindlessly stated that sex was openly celebrated then Hindus have been influenced by Islam & Christianity who consider sex as sin or dirty. It is a patronizing statement to Hindus stating that we didn't have maturity to think what is good for our family & society. However, it is actually a display of very naive communication. No Hindu needs to care what other religions may choose to think but Hinduism & Hindus have never considered sex as dirty or sin otherwise how would they procreate. Hindus by virtue of Vedas & other books always had dignity & moral sense to understand that sex needs to be private between partners & not public. Everything doesn't need to be religiously associated. The psychological aspects of human nature & behavior tell us that pre-marital, extra-marital & other forms of relations have existed globally since humans gained sense to reproduce & have a family, irrespective of religion. That's why we say that the world is in shades of grey. 117.198.5.159 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 11:45 a.m. (GMT+5:30), 5th June 2018.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2018

Yoni (IAST: yoni; Sanskrit:"vulva", "abode", or "source") should be changed to Yoni (IAST: yoni; Sanskrit:"abode", or "source") for improvement 2405:205:1489:7B4F:9098:4611:88B4:EE9E (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done as Wikipedia is not censored and as this definition - other translations include womb; sacred space and vagina - Arjayay (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)