Talk:Shaivism

Six Schools of Shaivism

To reduce forking I think that Six Schools of Shaivism should be merged into Shaivism. There are more than six schools of Shaivism, and the six schools article is only sourced by one non-reliable source. An overview diagram in Flood (1996), p. 152, can be used as a simple starting point for citations on major schools. I have moved over the only material from that article that I think needs to be kept. Do other editors agree that the six schools article can be redirected to Shaivism? Buddhipriya 01:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been no discussion on this since I posted it, and as I have moved the useful material from Six Schools of Shaivism to Shaivism, I just put a redirect on Six Schools of Shaivism to go to Shaivism. Buddhipriya 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

@Buddhipriya: I have found a link where information about all 6 MAJOR sub-tradition of Shaivism are given i.e. Śaiva Siddhānta,Pāśupata Śaivism, Vīra Śaivism, Kashmīr Śaivism, siddha siddhanta and Śiva Advaita. We WOULD NOT have do divide the article between Theism and Monism. Citation:https://www.himalayanacademy.com/media/books/dancing-with-siva/web/r1_22.html. If this acceptable then we can re-wite this sectionशिव साहिल (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

wonderful work you've done..

Since it seems Buddhipriya only works on this page I'll address my concerns in first person.

I'm a relatively New(very) editor here, so i do not wish to get cocky around here.. This article and other works of your are of such a fine quality thatt i should thank(or praise?) you for doing somuch ..

The Following are my concerns and are very minor in nature, but to preserve th Standard of the article kindly consider changing them as well.

1,The stark thing one notices is the image of the Sri Re/angam Gopuram, whic technically is a Vaishnavite Temple housing Sri Ranganathar..rather than it, the "Vimaana" of the Thiruvanaikovil should be presented if available..

2, i don't think Dakshinamurthy can be translated as "on the southern part of an outer perimeter path of the sanctum sanctorum" .

But, "Dakshinamurthi" literally translates to the either "the lord facing south" or "Overlord of South", this is simply an anagram as Shiva is Considered to be in Himalaas/kailas, the entire India is in the southern direction relative to Himalayas.

Also, as interpretted by Sukumari Bhattacharji, in "The Indian Theogony" , "Dakshinamurthy is the one who can manifest & transcend many forms but desists" ..Pg 212 , The Indian Teogony, ISBN 0-14-029570-4 , Her Reference is from Rig Veda X:72, Slokas 5,6, & 7.

on a practical sense, Dakshinam means descending /death (literally more used to refer death/end/change as Yama's corner is south)

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Swraj (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Temples of Shaivism

Srirangam temple is not a Shiva temple. This is an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youonlylivetwice (talk • contribs) 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fails B criteria

• <tag>...</tag>, {{expand}} tags added. Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

More information regarding beleifs of Saivites?

Reading this article as somebody who was itnerested in finding more about Saivite beleifs, and their basis, I find that this article does not fully explore this. I am not qualified to make such additions but I have no doubt that others on here are. If you compare it with the Vaisnavism article, you will see what I mean. Harrifer (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Found a link describing the "cosmology" on hinduwebsite.com. About what Śiva is up to and how the individuals are going about to circumvent karma-mechanics. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And this one from experiencefestival.com seems to be a heavily reworked version of our article, providing lots of pieces that might profitably be used in our one. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

moon god cult

moon god is widely considered directly related to hinduism. what is the Hindu view point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.4.16 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Shaivism not Shivaism

Introduction referred to Shivaism. In title and all other parts the term Shaivism is used. Now corrected. Centrepull (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a correction if you delete the name entirely. It's a common term. — LlywelynII 03:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Propose to merge History of Shaivism into Shaivism. The history-section of the Shaivism-article is too short; adding info would double the histpry-article. Both articles are short; merging them would result in a still reasonable lenghty article. And it's handosme to have the info together. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - per above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support The merged article should add sections on history of Shaivism in Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam. You will find literature spelling it as Siwa there, and temples as Candi. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History

The Shiva article also contains a history-section, which maybe could use some expansion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tarakeshwara

Not sure where it fits into the current setup of the article, but it's worth mentioning the importance of the psychopomp Tarakeshwara tradition at Benares where anyone dying in/near Shiva's temple at Manikarnika Ghat is supposed to have a mantra whispered into their ear that grants instamoksha. It's an old tradition and a fairly major source of the city's importance to Shaivism/tourist income. — LlywelynII 02:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Move?

This article is probably at the wrong place. Aside from the need to restore "Shivaism" to the lead [fixt], ngram has "Saivism" as by far the more common name of this faith. What makes it tricky is the number of sources that give it as Śaivism, which is effectively "Shaivism". — LlywelynII 03:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Development of Shaivism

@Joshua Jonathan: @Kautilya3: kindly help develop the Shaivism article. Ms Sarah Welch is contributing the article, please guys your help is certainly helpful.--Anandmoorti (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The section on the various sub traditions should be changed

This article divides the various Shaiva traditions between Theism and Monism, which doesn't make sense because many Shaiva traditions are both monistic and theistic. Alexis Sanderson, the top scholar on Shaivism, divides the religion into "Atimarga" and "Mantramarga", each with further divisions. I propose this section be reorganized along the lines set out by the latest scholarship on this matter (as outlined in the works of Sanderson such as "Saivism and the Tantric traditions"). Javierfv1212 (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sanderson does present Shaiva streams (strotra) as Atimarga and Mantramarga, per the 1st and early 2nd millennium Indian texts. Does he deny there were theistic/dualistic and non-theistic/monist ideas in Shaivism, if so which page number? Do you have other specific sources in mind, other than this Sanderson's chapter 36 in the Sutherland edited book published by Routledge, and the Saiva Age paper published by the University of Tokyo?

I had thought along the lines of what you are suggesting, but then decided otherwise and retained some of the old content of this article. For two reasons: [1] we need to avoid WP:RECENTISM; [2] The most NPOV version would avoid taking sides, nor make this article into exclusively Sanderson-pedia (he needs to be cited, and is already highly cited in the article, far more now than ever in this article's history).

The best summary would include both the "theism and monism" scholarship, as well as the "atimarga and mantramarga" scholarship. We already mention the latter in "Beliefs and practices" section. But, a bit more atimarga etc summary in the "Sub-traditions" section is planned. This may come by early next week, sooner may be. But if you or someone has something to contribute, by all means add it, save me some effort. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I added a few sentences to the sub-traditions section for now. More later. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Good work. As for Sanderson, he is really the best source on this, all other scholars that I have read on this topic (C. Wallis, G. Flood) are working off Sanderson and citing his work. I understand your view of preventing recentism, but Sanderson revolutionized the academic study of Shaivism, and few would disagree that he is the source to work from.

Ultimately, the uselessness of the "monism" vs "theism" or dualism distinction is that these sects changed over time. For example, the Shaiva Siddhanta, which is the main dualistic tradition, adopted non-dualism by the 12th century in Tamil Nadu. So placing them under "theism" or "dualism" is just not completely accurate.

Of course one could just list traditions without categorizing them into any divisions.

I have made some changes, also adding some key traditions that were missing. Let me know what you think. If the Atimarga and Mantramarga division is just too unpalatable for you for some reason, then I suggest just listing the traditions historically without categorizing them back into Theism / Monism. All the best.Javierfv1212 (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Javierfv1212: your contribution is welcome! I see some of your text is without cites, or too vague a cite (e.g. you cite chapter 2). Please add page numbers, and source(s), where that is missing. Each sentence, or collection of sentences, should point to one or more WP:RS with page number(s) that verify it... as a GA review would normally check. I will give you some time for this, then do a source check in the coming days. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Javierfv1212: While we are discussing Sanderson, you actually added heavily from Wallis, that too with a vague cite of chapter 2. I took that out, as undue. Let us stick with Sanderson, Flood, and such. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Javierfv1212:@Ms Sarah Welch: This section is too vague and without any proper understanding. I have found a link where information about all 6 sub-tradition of Shaivism are given i.e. Śaiva Siddhānta,Pāśupata Śaivism, Vīra Śaivism, Kashmīr Śaivism, siddha siddhanta and Śiva Advaita. We WOULD NOT have do divide the article between Theism and Monism. Citation:https://www.himalayanacademy.com/media/books/dancing-with-siva/web/r1_22.html. If this acceptable then we can re-wite this section. शिव साहिल (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Shaivism is a religion since pre-vedic period

Why are this page still portraying Shaivism is a tradition of Hinduism?

There are thousands of sources claiming Shaivism were religion of Chola Dynasty and Pandya Dynasty. Most of the matured Wikipedia editors know Hinduism, which developed out of the merger of Vedic religion with numerous local religious traditions.

Shaivism remained the dominant religion in India until the arrival of the Aryans, who violently attacked the Shiva cult. Shaivism — which continued to be the religion of the people integrated into Brahmanic religion, of which it now forms an essential aspect. - The brief history of India

Other refs: 1. A Manual of the Salem District in the Presidency of Madras: The district 2. Community Dominance and Political Modernisation 3. Yearning to Belong Discovering a New Religious Movement 2401:4900:4ACB:4695:ACA0:1A60:628C:DBFD (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not an issue requiring the use of the administrator tools. All editors are free to to work on this article. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)