This is an archive of past discussions about Ganesha. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think it is very close to FA quality. I shall provide my review comments in a day or so irrespective of whether this article is taken to FAC. --Kalyan13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is exstensively referenced, very detailed and well written. It certainly looks like an FA candidate. I'm not entirely sure about a number of lines in the intro:
is one of the best-known and beloved representations of divinity in Hinduism - Using "beloved" doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic, or is that just me being too cold? Also not all schools of Hinduism would see Ganesh as a "representation of divinity". Is there a better way to phrase this? [How about: one of the best-known and popularly worshipped deities in Hinduism]
Today, Ganesha is the most-worshipped divinity in India - This sounds like too bold a statement. I doubt there is any real way to proove/disproove this, but would it not be better to say one of the most-worshipped as we know that is a factual statement. The other version may or may not be correct, but it currently reads as a fact, which is misleading.
I think it is OK to edit the statement that Ganesha is the most-worshipped deity in India as you have done to make it less of a magnet for attention, but the statement was sourced and is likely to be true due to the non-denominational nature of Ganesha worship. I understand that the idea may be surprising to some, but it is entirely consistent with Ganesha's role as the first deity worshipped in any ritual, as part of the process of ensuring success for that ritual. This relates to his historical rise to prominence. The changing of sourced material because it may be controversial is generally not something that I would support. Buddhipriya20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't nominate the article for FA yet; unless all the image license issues are settled. I have started a new section on the topic so that that issue can be compartmentalized. We can continue discussing any remaining issues regarding the article content, or formatting in this section itself. Thanks. Abecedare16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would like to see the completion of the work by the League of Copyeditors before going to FAC. The copyeditor was doing a great job but has not been active recently, so I think checking on status of that would be good. We were doing a very detailed review with a worklist, and that is now archived. Perhaps it should be refactored and restored to the current talk page. I will contact the copyeditor. Buddhipriya19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Almost none of the images included in the article, as far as I can see, have complete sourcing, licensing and/or fair use explanation and therefore the article will perhaps fail the FA criterion 3. For example:
Image:Ganapati.jpg - we cannot use images on unknown copyright status, except under fair use, and it will be almost impossible to justify fair use for any image in the article, since so many alternate images are easily available.
Ganapati.jpg is a very popular image of Ganesha, which can also be found on many sites on the net. [1]I request that this image should not be removed.--Redtigerxyz16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that web sites use it does not make it legal. The problem images should be replaced now in order to get the article into compliance with copyright quidelines. I rather like the authentic old statuary rather than any of the sugar-coated modern pictures and would prefer to see one of the representations dating to before 1500 CE or so used. I moved a picture of an authentic temple murti from the bottom of the article to the top to replace the problem image. Buddhipriya19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:13th_century_Ganesha_statue.jpg is a photograph of an old (>100 years) 3D object. For the photograph to be public domain, we need to establish both that the object is old (which is fine in this case) and that the photographer has release the image in public domain (not yet established). For the latter, we will need to know the source of the photograph, and not only the object. (See Template:PD-Roundart-70, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. or discussions here and here if you are looking for the details or a headache :-) )
Image:Ganesha_on_mouse.jpg: the above issues may also apply here, except that since the idol is ostensibly in an outdoor public location, Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama may apply ... We will still need confirmation from the photographer User:Pratheepps that he has released it in public domain, since it is not clear if he is the uploader.
Image:Shiva_parvati01.jpg is incorrectly license tagged. The image is clearly a modern print and one cannot claim that "In common use for centuries. No author attributed." Perhaps will need to be deleted from wikipedia unless a source is found.
Image:Ganesh_Paris_2004_DSC08471.JPG: This again should be ok, if we have evidence that the copyright holder "Mai-Linh Doan" released it under CC-by-sa-2.5
Image:GanpatiTibetan.jpg This will be OK if we can find out what the depicted object is (so that it can be verified that it is "old"). Since this is a photograph of a 2D object Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies and we need not worry about the photographer.
I have skipped a couple of images for now, but those too need to be checked out. Sorry, if all this appears anal but we don't have the option of disregarding the copyright law, no matter how cumbersome it may be. More importantly yet, the FAC reviewers will raise these issues and fail the article under the FA 3 criterion (Gizza will perhaps recall all the debates at Talk:Cricket_World_Cup). So I urge contributors to either try to correct/complete the licensing information for the included images or to scour wikipedia commons/web for acceptable pictures. Cheers. Abecedare16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an important part of article review, thanks so much for doing it. I would favor getting rid of anything that is dubious right away, as problems with copyright will only cause issues if the article goes to FAC. Buddhipriya19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This image below put up by me in the article was removed by Buddhipriya under the reason 'I do not like it'.[2] Anything wrong about this picture painted by a great artist ? Everyone' comments are welcome.--Redtigerxyz06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
We should make efforts to use pictures that are authentic depictions of Ganesha material. The article discusses the fact that a major line of the tradition considers him a bachelor, and that the saktis are emanations of his nature, not feminine companions. This recent interpretative picture which shows Ganesha snuggling up with his lady friends is completely out of line with his traditional representations, and I am not aware of any other depiction that exactly corresponds to this. It trivializes the issue and personally I find it somewhat offensive. There is no basis for it whatsoever in Ganesha iconographic standards that I know of. Buddhipriya19:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
To disapprove the argument 'Ganesha snuggling up with his lady friends(using his trunk) is completely out of line with his traditional representations', i have put up an image from Sritattvanidhi. --Redtigerxyz14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Painting Named "Riddhi Siddhi" By Raja Ravi Verma (1848-1906). Ganesha flanked by Riddhi and Siddhi.
This image (Ganapati1.jpg) has nothing at all to do with the completely different Verma picture involving a group of females which Ganesha is shown informally gathering with. Please refer to the comments on the standard iconographic forms which I have made below. Keeping track of this is now very difficult because comments are not being made in any logical sequence, so they are hard to find and react to. Buddhipriya06:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the Image of ganesha with the shaktis. In case of other gods also both the interpretation of related goddesses as shaktis (powers) as well as consorts is authentic and so it is in case of Ganesha. A caption that says 'snuggling' might be a bit inappropriate but nothing wrong with the image.
Actually, there is a whole part of ganesha iconography where Ganesha is shown in intimate pose with the shakti. It is a well known and frequently used image in the tantric worship known as Uchchishtaganapati. There is one in Pune in the Trishunda ganapati temple. I am new to wikipedia and am not sure if we can add this content as many people might be 'offended' by it. But if we are worried about authentic information then we should add this iconographic feature as well. I will try to find an image and write something about it. But since I am not in Pune it will take quite some time. --Kaveri18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Gallery of (properly) licensed images
Uploaded two old paintings of Ganesha for hmythobox. Please give your comments about them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtigerxyz (talk • contribs)
Please add below candidate images that you think are appropriate for the Ganesha article. Make sure while doing so that the images have an acceptable copyright license. Abecedare06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Top shows Ganesha with two feminine attendants. This is an example of what the typical form looks like for the two-attendant motif, which is common (note that there is no physical contact with the attendants)
I recommend that we use authentic, historically-significant images for this article. Any of the images from the Sritattvanidhi would be very good choices because they are widely known, and reflect well-documented dhyana traditions. There are 32 images in the sritattvanidhi set. Of these, some are more notworthy than others. Some may be useful for illustrating specific points made in the article, such as the use of the mount of mouse, or lion (in Heramba form). Let me look at the article and comment again on these. I think that the beautiful depiction of him upon the lotus, and red in color, is also a very good depiction which is iconographically correct [3]. I think that would be a fine choice for the upper right corner as shown in the demo. The image Ekadanta.jpg is also incongraphically correct, as it includes a constellation of standard attributes for the four-armed form, as well as the mouse, which is the most common mount. The color is white, however, which is used only for a limited number of ganapatya dhyana images (sometimes associated with the mokshadaya function). I seem to recall seeing a good reproduction of this picture somewhere else, where it was very vivid, but here it seems washed out, particularly in the upper left corner. It may be useful to juxtapose it with the discussion of iconographic elements, as it is an example of the persistence of the four-armed attributes (including the broken tusk in one hand) that are discussed in the article. It is a nice picture and could work in the lead but the red depiction is more striking and has a more antique feel to it, which I like. I have expressed my distaste for the Verma modern interpretations, which are not authentic in any way, being one person's artistic reaction to themes rather than accurate iconographic representations. Buddhipriya19:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I have substituted an authentic image from the Sritattvanidhi to replace the Verma impressionistic one that was in the article. I am unable to locate any authentic image that is very similar to the Verma painting. The image of Mahaganapati, on the other hand, is from an iconographic treatise which is widely regarded by Ganapatya as authoritative for dhyana forms of Ganesha. The picture of Mahaganapati is one of the ones where a shakti is specifically included in the dhyana. This form for Mahaganapati is notable because it is a major form which appears in the Ganesha Purana. The name Mahaganapati is used in the Ganesha Purana in the section where he reveals his sahasranama, for example, and various academic citations for this form can be given if desired. Buddhipriya23:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I wish we could find a high-quality statue of a dancing Ganesha, as this form is very popular and would support some comments about his associations with the arts. I have added a sample from the Sritattvanidhi, but I don't really care for the picture very much. Some of the statues are very charming. Buddhipriya23:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Vakratunda.jpg
Another of the same type
Note similarities with Vakratunda.jpg
The more I look at the picture Vakratunda.jpg the more I think that it reflects a very good understanding of traditional Ganesha iconography. The following comments explain why I believe that the picture is iconographically correct. References to the 1993 edition of the Ganesha Purana version of the Ganesha Sahasranama give names (epithets) that emphasize each feature, and some features are prominent in the Sritattvanidhi.
In the dhyana for I.46, which is the introduction to the sahasranama and recommended meditation procedure prior to chanting it, he is to be meditated upon as "rakto raktāmbaradhara" (red, and wearing red clothing). In verse 38 he says his name is Rakta ("Red"). Note that this association with red is so strong that it carried over to the Tibetan form shown at the bottom of the article, where he is shown as Maharakta (The Great Red One).
He is wearing yellow clothing, which is attested by the name Pītāmbara ("[Wearing] Yellow Clothing") which appears in verse 27. Yellow is one of the colors associated with him. Both red and yellow colors are mentioned in the text of the article already, cited by "The Colors of Ganesha". Martin-Dubost, pp. 221-230. Seeing them both used here seems consciously auspicious.
The pose gives prominent attention to his curving trunk ("Vakratuṇḍa") and this name appears in the very first verse of the Ganesha Sahasranama. It is one of the most important names in Ganapatya tradition.
The lotus seat is associated with the name in verse 27, Hṛtpadmakarṇikāśālī ("Who resides within the interior of the heart-lotus", that is, the anāhata cakra).
In his left lower hand he bears a lotus. In verse 43 he gives his name as Sarojabhṛt ("Bearing a lotus") and in verse 43 he says he is Dhṛtotpala ("Bearing an Utpala-lotus"). For variations in the types of lotus he holds, see Dubost, p. 192. He holds the blue lotus (utpala) in his form as Mahaganapati in the Sritattvanidhi. The connection with lotus has other associations as well, e.g., in sporting lakes which he enjoys, as a weapon for overcoming a demon, etc. It is a wonderful association to a complex of Ganesha ideas.
In his right lower hand he holds a japamala. In verse 44 he says his name is Akṣamālādhara ("Holding an Akṣamālā") and this ties to an idea that he is japa itself in another verse. The akṣamālā as an attribute is specific to the Heramba form, according to Nagar, p. 113-114, but occurs in other forms as well. In the Sritattvanidhi he holds the japamala in his forms as Dhundi Ganapati, Dvija Ganapati, Ucchista Ganapati, Sankatahara Ganapati, and Yoga Ganapati.
In his upper right hand he has an axe which is one of his weapons, and the name Kuṭhāravān, ("Armed with an axe") is in verse 45. The axe come up again and again in his iconography.
In the upper left hand he has an elephant hook (aṅkuśa) which is one of his most common attributes (see; Nagar, etc.). This is such a common attribute that the sahasranama has a sort of pun on it in verse 36, with the name Niraṅkuśa, meaning "Not under the control of the hook" or something along those lines. Since he is the one who controls everything, he himself is not subject to the hook. The aṅkuśa is mentioned in the article for Mahout. Some good pictures of real ones are at: [4] and one looks exactly as shown in the picture.
Overall, it is a wonderful picture and it communicates a great deal of information about the deity in traditional ways. It is a good example of the way traditional iconography was meant to be used, using standard symbols to give the viewer an immediate message about a complex of ideas with which they were expected to be familiar. The same system for communication of ideas is used extensively in Christian iconography, with different cultural associations. Buddhipriya00:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya, I appreciate your reasoning for including the "Vakratunda.jpg" image, but please note that that image along with Image:Ekdanta.jpg do not have proper source/license information that established that they are sufficiently old to fall into public domain. So unless such information is added to the image page, these amazing pictures will have to be deleted from wikipedia. Redtigerxyz, can you please specify where you obtained the two images, and who the original artist is ?
Note too that the Sritattvanidhi images also do not have complete sourcing information, although this should be relatively easy to rectify. Something along the lines of "Scan of page from Sritattvanidhi, originally published in 18??" should be added to all the image description pages, so that it is clear that the images do fall under {{PD-art}} (I am not adding the information myself since I am not certain of the details). Thanks. Abecedare20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have just uploaded a very close match to Vakratunda.jpg which has dating and sourcing information from Martin-Dubost. Please advise if the image is legal or if some further documentation is needed. Now that I have figured out how to do this, I can add others if the legality is clear. Buddhipriya21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not understand the licensing question regarding these two pictures, so I guess I still do not know what to look for on the image documentation pages. The picture was in the above gallery which is title as properly licensed, so could any images that have licensing problems be specifically noted there? I misunderstood the gallery. Regarding the images from the Sritattvanidhi, the editor who has been uploading them apparently has access to one of the primary reproductions of them, and I can confirm that they are the same as given in the reproductions in other sources that are in my library. If it becomes necessary, I could scan the Sritattvanidhi images from pp. vi-ix of S. K. Ramachandra Rao, The Compendium on Gaṇeśa, but those are smaller than the ones uploaded by the other editor and hence will be of lower quality. I will follow up with the editor who did the uploads to try to get the sourcing information added to all of the images he uploaded, based on previous comments made on the talk page. If the images were scanned from a reproduction of the work rather than from the work itself, does that matter? That is, would a reproduction of a reproduction be considered OK? I suspect that the editor may have worked from the reproduction edtion rather than from the original, based on the talk page for that article. I do not understand the rules about image uploads. What link would you suggest as a starting point to understand the rules for uploading pictures of old art works from recently-published books? Buddhipriya23:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya, the images in the gallery are supposed to be properly licensed, but that does not mean that they are (the rules are so complex, that this is understandable).
As far as the Sritattvanidhi images are concerned, all you need to add (as per my understanding) is information regarding the exactly original source, which I assume is the manuscript that Wodeyar commissioned. (For example you can see the information accompanying Image:Rigveda_MS2097.jpg). Let me know if you have any specific questions regarding this. I'll leave a more detailed message regarding general licensing issues on your talk page. Abecedare01:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Mahā Ganapati as shown in the Sritattvanidhi (19th century)
I have added documentation to the Mahā Ganapati image, saying "Depiction of the Mahāganapati form of Ganesha, with a shakti. Upper area shows a description of the form as a meditation verse written in Kannada script. Reproduction from the Śrītattvanidhi ("The Illustrious Treasure of Realities"), an iconographic treatise compiled in the 19th century in Karnataka, India, by order of the then Maharaja of Mysore, Krishnaraja Wodeyar III (b. 1794 - d. 1868)." Please advise if this is satisfactory, or if further detail is needed. Once we can get a satisfactory citation for this image I will add similar language to the other Śrītattvanidhi images. Buddhipriya19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The use of snakes on many parts of the body is very common and an entire section could be added regarding snake associations. The snake around the neck is one of the very authentic aspects of the Basohli picture. I have added a citation to the article explaining that in the Ganesha Purana there is a story of how he wraps Vasuki around his neck as an adornment. In his sahasranama the name Sarpagraiveyakāṅgāda ("Who has a serpent around his neck") refers to this standard iconographic element. For analysis of other aspects of the iconography of the Basohli picture, please review my comments on Vakratunda.jpg which cites many of the same details. I put it in the mythobox because it is a very close parallel to the Vakratunda.jpg image that it replaced (it is clear to me now that they are both probably of a standard iconographic type). The Nurpur image is not bad, but the colors are not so vivid. As the link to Basohli painting explains, that style is considered to be a very fine form, and the example shown fits the description of the style well as given in the Wikipedia article. If the only object is the snakes, I would prefer to begin adding citations to justify the snakes. Overall I think that both images are good, but that artistically the Nurpur image is not as strong as the Basohli picture. Let's see what other editors think. Buddhipriya06:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please also add citations about the crescent moon on the forehead ('Balachandra' epithet) and the third eye in the Basohli image, if possible.--Redtigerxyz13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I will add citations for these. Regarding the third eye, it is possible that the motif is intended, as you suggest, but it is also possible that it is representing one of the Shaiva tilaka, which sometimes include a central dot for the horizontal lines. Both the moon on the forehead and the three eyes motifs are connections to Shaiva iconography, as both of these features are also characteristic of Shiva. Buddhipriya06:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ganesha with the Ashta (8) Siddhis. The Ashtasiddhi are shown as attendants of Ganesha. Painting by Raja Ravi Varma (1848-1906)
I think the Ashtasiddhi to the right should be restored to the article as it depicts the modern iconography of Ganesha with Astha Siddhi. The removal of the image has also made this statement ' Raja Ravi Varma's painting (shown in this section) illustrates a recent example of this iconographic form. The painting includes fans, which establish the feminine figures as attendants. ' in the article [5] redundant. I have put this statement as comment for now. Everyone's comments on this issue are most welcome.--Redtigerxyz12:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the motif of multiple shaktis surrounding Ganesha is mentioned in Martin-Dubost, p. 332, as currently cited, the motif is established. I have restored the picture on that basis and have moved the Mahaganapati with the shakti to the section on the motif of the single shakti, which it specifically illustrates. The picture by Verma is in my opinion a trivializing version of the theme. If a more authentic version of this motif can be found, I would support replacing the Verma picture with something that has more depth of appreciation for the subject matter. Buddhipriya19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you have against Ravi Verma but his paintings of deities and mythological figures are well known, well used and respected in Maharashtra. Maharashtra is an important state for Ganapati worship. Ganesha came to prominance in Maharashtra as Peshves revered ganesha and later Tilak made the ganesh festival a public festival. There are Ganesha temples on every nook and corner in Maharashtra so traditions and depictions in Maharashtra should not be ignored. In Maharashtra we do not necessarily consider Ganesha as Brahmachari so for us it does not seem weird to look at Ganesha with shaktis. --Kaveri18:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The issue that I am trying to get focus on is that in Hindu iconography there are certain standard representations for specific forms of deities. These standard forms are documented in scriptural references and once you become aware of the standard forms, you can easily recognize them, as the following standard organizations of the motifs. There is a detailed discussion of the shakti issue in the article currently. There are at least four different standard motifs involving feminine figures, none of which is followed by the particular picture that I challenged. The three very common standard motifs: 1: Ganesha with one shakti, typically shown seated on his thigh. (There is a specific variation of this motif associated with Ucchista Ganapati in which intimate contact is made, but this form is completely unlike anything in any of the Verma pictures). 2. A motif in which two two feminine figures flank him without contact, who stand on either side. This is a motif of two shaktis. Rarely they are shown seated on his two thighs, but with no intimate contact between them. 3. A similar motif in which he is flanked by two femine figures which are not in contact with him but which are offering food or fanning him. This is a motif of two servants. The Verma pictures do not follow any of the traditional iconographic standards which is the point. For many pictures of these motifs, please refer to one of the overview works cited in the article, including Martin-Dubost, Krishan, or Nagar, all of which include discussions of the iconographic standards. Buddhipriya04:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The term Brahmanism refers to the high-caste formal religious practices (i.e., the orthoprax norm) current at the time when the worship of the five forms was instituted. The Wikipedia article for this is rather poorly done and does not really give the flavor of the issue, which includes very active class movements that were creating some social instability as the old forms were competing with newer modes of worship. The Wikipedia article refers mainly to one aspect of the term, which was its use by some Indologists to refer to all Hindu religious practices at the time, but that mis-interpretation is based on a failure to recognize the complexity of the social scene at the time (giving undue weight to the role of Brahmanism). The historical issue is that "Hinduism" is a very modern umbrella term that does not really reflect the diversity of the religious landscape during the period in question, which was dominated by competing sects vying for popular interest. Brahmanism was the "old guard", upper-class form that was losing its dominance over popular worship practices. Its relevance was being challenged by social movements such as devotionalism and tantrism that did not look to the same ritual authorities as did Brahmanism. Brahmanism is not the same thing as Smartism, which is one of the specific sects that was particularly influenced by the worship of the five forms. The development of Smartism was in effect a solution to a cultural problem at the time. The main thing the article is trying to bring out is that Ganesha must have been quite popular at the time to make it into the "big five" at all (quite an accomplishment for this newcomer) and that the "official" recognition given by the worship of five forms devotional practice further enhanced his position by making him an orthoprax deity within that system. Let me check some references in the next few days and see if I can find another way to say "Brahmanism" that may avoid the use of the term but which would be citable. Buddhipriya
I have been looking over some sources related to this and still am not sure how to avoid use of the term Brahmanism yet. A very clear depiction of the tensions between Vedic Brahmanism and the Smartas is in pp. 165-166 of a brand new book that I am really enjoying: Avari, Burjor. India: The Ancient Past. 2007, Routledge, London. isbn= 978-0-415-35616-9. Avari gives a concise description of the pressures that Vedic Brahmanism was under, and describes the Smartas as "reformist sacrificers" who "operated under the umbrella of Brahmanism, but in their own distinct ways." This citation establishes that the Smartas cannot be considered identical with the Brahmanists. I am still looking for alternate ways to cite the issue which you have raised. Buddhipriya05:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quotation from John Keay's India: A History, which explains why the term brahmanism matters as a technical term: "Instead of 'Hinduism', scholars sometimes use the term 'brahmanism' to distinguish the pre-Bhakti orthodoxies of the post-Vedic era from the teachings of the heterodox sects like the Buddhists and Jains. 'Brahmanism' would have been as meaningless to its supposed adherents as 'Hinduism', but the term does have the advantage of accomodating a variety of orthodox traits, including the authority accorded to the brahman caste, the innumerable cults to which brhamanical acceptance was extended, and the complex philosophical notion of brahman as an impersonal monotheistic entity, which like the Word in Chrisianity, subsumed all deities, the human soul as well as the divine, and indeed all creation." (p. 149) Buddhipriya21:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no literal translation for gaṃ (गं) as it is Ganesha's bija mantra. In the mantric tradition from which this mantra derives, this single-syllable mantra is classified as a non-translatable sound which embodies the divinity himself. So Ganesha is embodied by his seed-sound, which is गं. The mantra ॐ गं गणपतये नमः thus has a mixed structure in which there are two non-translated sounds, ॐ and गं which activate specific spiritual energies, and then a closing portion devoting this salutation to Ganesha, which is translatable as "salutation to Ganapati" (गणपतये नमः). So you are correct, that half of the mantra is not translated. Also note that the bija mantra uses a nasalized anusvara to finish the sound, so correct IAST is gaṃ. Buddhipriya19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hidden comments
These were all the hidden comments on the page that I could find, many of which were left by Galena.
In the lead section: <!-- Within Hinduism, an ''[[Ishta devata]]'' Sanskrit: ''{{IAST|işţadevatā}}'') is a worshipper's "chosen (or beloved) divinity".<ref>Flood, p. 215.</ref> -->
I think this was commented out because it was considered unnecessary detail for the lead. Is it still an open issue? Buddhipriya20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Second para of "Iconography:" <!-- REQUEST: is it possible to get a photo of the statue referred to by Martin-Dubost or Pal (which is much larger), to eliminate this confusion? -->
Regarding the photo of the statue in Martin-Dubost, p. 213, upper right corner, I do not understand the copyright issues. It is a photo of a three-dimensional work, so my understanding is that the photographer holds the right to the photo. The reproduction in Martin-Dubost of this photo credits the photo to the American Institute of Indian Studies, Ramnagar (credit appears on p. 411, for image VIII-31). I suspect that this photo does not qualify for use here, but I really don't know. Can someone else give an opinion on this? The photos from Pal are also of statues, and the two which I mentioned are credited to museums. These probably also are not OK to use, but I am open to legal advice. Buddhipriya20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on my current understanding of the rules, these photos of three-dimensional statues are not suitable for upload, so I will not pursue this. Buddhipriya07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Third para in "Common attributes:" <!-- CLARIFY: if Lambodara is the name of both Ganesha and his avatar, please clarify as you have done in the preceding paragraph.-->
Last para of "Common attributes:" Heramba-Ganapati <!-- TRANSLATION? -->
At the time this issue was raised, we had some discussion regarding how difficult it is to translate the name "Heramba". The problem is that the name as used in modern Sanskrit does not convey the idea given by the religious etymology, which has previously been discussed. I would like to leave the name untranslated, but we can go into the details again if anyone feels it would be helpful to do so. Check the archive page for the prior copyedit round for background citations. Buddhipriya20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Since we are doing so much work on images, I have posted a request on the talk page for the Fair Use issues to see if we can attract any independent review. [6] I think it would be good to nail all of this down now, as it will only cause obstacles later if we do not. Buddhipriya02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Too many images?
I fear that we may go overboard and get too many images into the article. I would prefer to see a maximum of one very good image per section. The problem of excessive images comes up in some article reviews, and it is best to get some awareness of the issue before taking the article to FAC. Buddhipriya06:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This picture now has thirteen pictures, which I think is too many. If any more are added, I thinkthey should be used to replace something that is already there. The article already refers them to Commons where they can find more images. Buddhipriya06:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Of the thirty-two standard meditation forms for Ganesha that appear in the Sritattvanidhi (Śrītattvanidhi), six include a shakti.ref:In Glory of Ganesha, they are: Shakti Ganapati, Ucchista Ganapati, Mahaganapati, Urdhva Ganapati, Uddanda Ganapati, Sankastharana Ganapati. For variations on this list, see: Getty, pp. 20-21.
But the Sritattvanidhi article describes 8 forms with a shakti or 2 of them.(supported by images). The list above misses lakShmI gaNapati(with 2 shaktis) and vara gaNapati.
I think you have caught an error in the drawing of Vara Ganapati as shown in Glory of Ganesha, which I know contains some errors. The paintings of the Sritattvanidhi have been reproduced (or re-imagined) as line drawings in at least three works (Glory of Ganesha being one) and in all cases they have some idiosyncratic changes. The shakti is missing from Vara Ganapati in Glory of Ganesha, but she is mentioned in the meditation verse. I will compare the versions I have on hand and will normalize the list. The situation with Lakshmi-Ganapati is different, as it is an example not of the single shakti motif, but of the two attendant motif. These may be considered as shaktis, but they may also be considered as attendants in some depictions. The issue of iconographic form is the point, and I will add a citation related to this. To be sure of this I will need to get back two books which I currently have out on loan, so it may take a few days to nail them down. I think that the correct list of single-shakti forms in the Sritattvanidhi should be six seven: Vara, Shakti, Ucchista, Maha, Urdhva, Uddanda, and Sankastharana. I think that Lakshmi form is distinct and should be noted as such. Once I have the right books I will confirm this. Buddhipriya07:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have examined the reproductions of the Sritattvanidhi pictures as given in Rao, pp. vi-ix, and compared them with the written descriptions given in Martin-Dubost, pp. 121-123, and have confirmed that the seven using the single-shakti motif are: Vara, Shakti, Ucchista, Maha, Urdhva, Uddanda, and Sankastharana. The dual shakti motif is used in Laksmi Ganapati. I then compared the line drawings in Glory of Ganesha against those two sources and found several problems with their placement. In what may be a printing error, there are clear examples where the line drawings there do not match the descriptions of the meditation forms as given in the Sanskrit descriptions, and the English translations of the Sanskrit are sometimes dubious. I do not know if the problems with the drawings are due to printer error, or some other reason, as some are rather obvious, such as having the wrong number of arms. The same set of line drawings is used on pp. 60-61 of Grimes, but there are three transpositions in which pictures are assigned to different forms than as assigned in Glory of Ganesha. I have not checked all the details of which is which, but I am left with the opinion that Glory of Ganesha is a weak source with regard to the issue of the pictures. I already adjusted the text of the article to bypass the excess detail about which forms have shaktis because it doesn't really matter for purposes of the overview we are giving. I will add a couple of adjustments to the citations, and eventually the place to document the details would be in the article for the Sritattvanidhi. Buddhipriya17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Loving Ganesa: Hinduism's Endearing Elephant - Faced God By Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, Subramuniya p.76: "Varada Ganapati...... His śakti is at His side".(with image)
Please also add citations in Common Attributes about the crescent moon on the forehead ('Balachandra' epithet) and the third eye in the Basohli image(in the hythobox), if possible.--Redtigerxyz 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
the Sanskrit epithet Gajanana(one having an elephant' face) should be put in Common attributes where the elephant head is mentioned. I am not putting it as i dont have a ref to support it.--Redtigerxyz14:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Gajānana ("Elephant-face"), I am not sure that it is wise to keep adding all of these Sanskrit names, as they are likely to only confuse and perhaps annoy the English-speaking reader. I think the article has too many Sanskrit terms in it now. Various citations for Gajānana, are possible. It is a significant name that occurs in the second verse of the Ganesha Purana version of the Ganesha Sahasranama. In that work, almost all of the names that occur in the first few verses are in common use, and that is one of them. Derivation is simply: gaja (elephant) + ānana (mouth, face). But I would like to hear from other editors if we should so some pruning on what is in there already. Buddhipriya07:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Gajanana is one of the most popular names of Ganesha. I feel must be included. To a world audience(aware of core Hinduism), Ganesha is always first the Hindu Elephant Headed God. Thus this attribute is more well-known than other attributes. And since there is no seperate section of names( unlike Shiva or Lakshmi articles), we should try to put as many popular names as possible.--Redtigerxyz11:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The use of lists in articles is covered by Wikipedia:List guideline and in general I would say that the use of lists of divine names (as in Shiva, where it was put there as part of a cleanup effort when the article was a complete mess) is a practice which we should gradually phase out. Much of the material in the name lists for Shiva is a sort of WP:TRIVIA, and the guideline there says that if points are important they should be worked into the text of the article. The problem I see with the Ganesha article now is that it is rather long, and contains too many Sanskrit words which are likely to be annoying to the average English reader. I love the names deeply, but we cannot include all of them. If there is any article where an extensive name review might be called for it would Ganesha Sahasranama, but even there the idea is to discuss what those stotra are, not list their contents in detail. Do any other editors have an opinion on this? Buddhipriya02:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I too think we should create a separate (referenced) list article, such as List of names in Genesha Saharasnama or even List of names for Ganesha, and then simply link to them from here. I don't think adding numerous alternate names in article is of value to a reader who is likely to be interested in learning about Ganesha. An informal rule adopted on the India page is to limit all in text "example" lists to 3 items (else you can imaging the urge to add the name of just one more dance, food item, festival, city etc.) Even though it is not strictly imposed, it does help discipline us editors. Perhaps a similar approach would be of use here too. Abecedare02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I could live with putting a list into the existing article for Ganesha Sahasranama but I would strongly oppose creating an article just to contain a list. Please note also that there are multiple variants of the Ganesha Sahasraname, and probably dozens and dozens of shorter name lists, all of which ideally would be mentioned on the article for Ganesha Sahasranama. But my understanding of the policy is that Wikipedia is not here just to make lists. We must go beyond that and do some referenced analysis. Divine names are generally descriptive epithets which embody some function or attribute of the deity. It seems most logical to mention such names in passing when the attribute being covered in reviewed in the article. Buddhipriya02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As usual, you are right. I still hope that no one creates the article, however, as it will be just another maintenance problem. When the same information is on multiple articles it becomes difficult to keep them all accurate. Buddhipriya03:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As Gizza says, if we do manage to create a table with some/all of the above mentioned fields and with references, such an article in fact will be pretty easy to maintain; since any random fancruft, which will surely be missing most of additional data, can be reverted on sight. But we shouldn't even start such a list till one of us is ready to put in the work.
Aside: A few months back I thought of going through the Hindu deities list and weed out stuff that that didn't link to pages dedicated to Hindu deities. But I was overwelmed by even the thought of the effort involved and eventually weeded out only the red links (including great entries such as Irfanana and Hafsahninii (wife of Irfanana) [7]) I am pretty confident that I can add Tom, Dick and Harry to that list and unless it is reverted on sight, it will stay there forever. Therefore, I would hate to see a Ganesha list follow the same model and feel that providing the extra information is critical. Abecedare03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, please, do not use a table format. They are extremely difficult to edit. It took me two days to correct problems with tables when I purged the shakha material extracted from Vedas. Simple list formats like List of important operas would be much easier to maintain. But are you willing to do the work to source this? I am not. Buddhipriya03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I prefer CE (Common Era) to AD (Anno Domini) but I do not know where the actual Wikipedia documentation is regarding standards for this. Can you give a link regarding this point? Buddhipriya07:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:Dates#Eras. I think we can make a case for using CE in Hinduism related articles, although personally I don't have a strong preference. So you can try to change the AD/BE -> CE/BCE (except in quotes, of course) and see if anyone objects. Abecedare07:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No one has objected to replacing AD with CE so far. Perhaps I should do the replacement, unless someone else wants to. Buddhipriya03:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The only image that seemed out of place was the one in the References section. It may be good to find a good place within the body of the article for that one. Other than that, the only suggestion I have is choosing one spelling of Shiva/Śiva and using that one consistently rather than alternating between the two. Alternating will likely confuse some who may think they are two different individuals rather than two spellings/romanizations of the same. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe02:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say no, as the article does not cite any WP:RS and does not appear to me to be an authoritative source for gneeral information about Ganesha, which is the subject of this article. Adding the link could appear to be promotional spam, since the commercial web site sells CDs related to Ganesha puja. This type of commercial site is not appropriate here. Buddhipriya01:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There are a variety of different traditions related to the marital status of Ganesha, which are covered already in the article. Is there some specific point that you think is unclear in the current text of the article? If you are asking about the idea that Ganesha has no spouse, that is already covered in the article with the text: "Ganesha's marital status varies widely in mythological stories and the issue has been the subject of considerable scholarly review.[132] One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as a brahmacharin (brahmacārin; celibate).[133]" Buddhipriya09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I archived this talk page because it was getting to be 84 KB. Also, the discussions that were started before August did not have any new comments from this month. Happy editing, [sd] 00:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I have adjusted the setting for the Mizabot archiver to 60 days. In order to permit as many editors as possible to get a sense of what is going on with the article, I personally prefer to show at least two months of context on talk pages. I know tht I find it helpful when I go to a new article to see what issues have recently been covered.
"or in a mysterious manner that is discovered by Shiva and Parvati" Comment: Is Ganesha discovered by S&P or is the manner discovered ? The current sentence has the second meaning ref:Brahmavaivarta Purana, Ganesha Khanda, 10.8-37.
Should it be "discovered in a mysterious manner by Shiva and Parvati". To however added the reference or has the reference source , Please check.--Redtigerxyz17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the current version of this sourcing cites only the primary scripture, I will try to find a reference to this story in a secondary source. This may take a few days. Buddhipriya09:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have found a couple of good secondary sources regarding the birth story in Brahmavaivarta Purana, Ganesha Khanda, 10.8-37. Nagar (pp. 11-14) goes into quite a bit of detail not just on the birth story but on other things as well. Winternitz (volume 1, pp. 567-569 and passim) puts the Purana into context and notes the birth story. The big picture is that since this is a Vaisnava Purana, with a specific focus on Krishna as the supreme reality, the Purana includes many stories that put a unique emphasis on things, and book 3 is devoted to stories pertaining to Ganesha. Winternitz (volume 1, p. 568) says "In a very curious way Gaṇeśa is here represented as a kind of incarnation of Kṛṣṇa." The version of the birth story as given in detail in Nagar is a bit long and convoluted, but in a nutshell Vishnu disguised himself as an old beggar and came calling near where Shiva and Parvati were sporting with one another, but disappeared before they could actually encounter him. Shortly thereafter, Shiva and Parvati heard a divine voice from the sky pronouncing that Krishna had manifested himself as the son of Parvati. Parvati investigated this claim by entering her chamber and found the boy Ganesha lying down on a bed therein. Parvati then called Shiva and disclosed to him the "mysterious appearance of an infant, who was taken as a son by both of them." (Nagar, p 12.)
What is most notable about this version is probably the fact that it is a Vaishnava scripture in which all the other deities are shown as subject to the will of Krishna in particular. I am not sure it is worth expanding the material much in the present article, but perhaps it is of value somewhere on another article. What do other editors think? Buddhipriya04:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"created in mysterious manner then discovered by Shiva and Parvati". will be most apt. The Krishna aspect can be also added to the article.--Redtigerxyz13:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I adjusted the wording and provided page references in Nagar for the existing "mysterious" sentence but I am undecided if the additional material from Winternitz is needed. I would like to look in a couple of additional sources to see if this variant is widely quoted or if it is a rarity, which would help determine if WP:UNDUE applies. Buddhipriya20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
blasphemous statements in Courtright' book
I recently read the information ahead on WT:HNB , discussion Food for Thought:
"""Here is an interesting article that addresses the very issues at the heart of so much disagreement on Hinduism related wikipedia pages:
Cheers, The article is about western academics, who are reliable sources, using psychoanalysis and bias to 'prove' things that any Hindu knows to be absurd, such as:
"Its (Ganesa's) trunk is the displaced phallus, a caricature of Siva's linga. It poses no threat because it is too large, flaccid, and in the wrong place to be useful for sexual purposes."—Courtright, Paul B. (1985). Gaṇeśa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN ISBN0-19-505742-2. (a 'RS' author freely referenced at Ganesha)
"He [Ganesa] remains celibate so as not to compete erotically with his father (Shiva), a notorious womaniser, either incestuously for his mother or for any other woman for that matter."—Courtright
"Both in his behavior and iconographic form Ganesa resembles in some aspects, the figure of the eunuch… Ganesha is like a eunuch guarding the women of the harem."—Courtright
"""
Excerpt from the Preface by Wendy O'Flaherty: "Ganesa has everything that is fascinating to anyone who is interested in religion or India or both: charm, mystery, popularity, 'sexual problems', moral ambivalence, political importance, the works"[9]
The nude picture of Ganesha on the cover page had outraged Hindus over the world.
Do we really have to have this controversial book, which states blasphemous and misleading statements as reference when alternate sources are possible????
As long as books like this are considered WP:RS, Redtigerxyz, there's nothing that you can do to keep them off of Wikipedia articles. One of the official policies of Wikipedia is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (from WP:VERIFY, emphasis is not mine).
P.S. You'll likely be informed that it's your responsibility to find alternate sources, since it's you (along with a billion other Hindus) who are offended by that book, and who all know that it's anything but 'reliable'. Good luck and welcome to Wikipedia.ॐ Priyanathtalk16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The only "blasphemous" content from Courtright that has been mentioned so far are the quotes that you have placed here on this talk page. I am aware of the hate campaign that has been directed at Courtright. If you actually read the book you will find that 98% of it is solid academic material, and the sexual speculations are quite incidental to the main themes. Courtright is a current major study of Ganesha and cannot be excluded as a WP:RS because some people are offended by a few lines in it. Attempts to remove it from Wikipedia are contrary to the basic principles of WP:RS and would reflect Hindutva censorship of valid academic materials. Buddhipriya18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Some random remarks:
"The nude picture of Ganesha on the cover page had outraged Hindus over the world." Really ? Here is the cover, judge for yourself if the outrage is real.
I have little faith in the psychoanalytic speculation represented in the above quotes, but my objection is on the grounds of questioning their validity, rather than their "blasphemous" nature. If someone proposes that we include this Freudian analysis on the Ganesha page, I will object on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. (Aside: I wonder how someone who has read the epics, puranas etc and seen how irreverently we treat our devas and mythological figures, find these remarks - however unfounded - to be blasphemous ?)
Courtright has been referenced 5-10 times in the Ganesha article. Is there any question regarding the factual accuracy or scholarship of any/all of those quotes/citations ? If so, I support discussing them here on the talk page. But if the objection is simply that we should boycott such "blasphemous" sources - I'll most strenuously object, and not only on the grounds of wiki-policy.
I should clarify that I haven't read the book myself (yet) and am basing my remarks on the quotes/links above and Buddhipriya's description of their context in the work (since I think he is the only one here who has actually read it). So I apologize in advance if I have missed some more fundamental issue with the book, other than the ones mentioned above.
The vicious attacks on Courtright by Hindutva activists, and controversy over this book in particular, are discussed in Martha Nussbaum (2007), The Clash Within (see book index for multiple page references, ISBN0-674-02482-6). According to Nussbaum, Courtright received so many threats that he reported them to the FBI, which initiated an investigation that apparently is still underway, and his house and family have been placed under guard. Courtright responded to these attempts at intimidation by preparing a lecture entitled "Studying Religion in an Age of Terror". According to Nussbaum, "Wherever a lecture by Courtright is announced, protests are made, and extra security measures need to be taken." (p. 254) This intimidation of Courtright is given by Nussbaum as an example of the general Hindutva efforts to silence academics. Attacks on Courtright are a form of intellectual terrorism. In discussing the book specifically, Nussbaum notes that it won the American Council of Learned Societies prize for the best first book in the history of religions; that prize (1985) is also mentioned on the back cover for the book.
It should be noted that the editor who has objected to this book has recently begun adding citations to Subramuniyaswami to the article on Sritattvanidhi. The same editor made efforts to get dubious material from that source into the article on Ganesha (recall the "Lord of Dharma" dispute?) but was rebuffed, and information was brought foward at that time pointing out the WP:FRINGE nature of Subramuniyaswami's claims in this and other areas. His views about Lemurian Scrolls pointing to visits by extraterrestrials do not inspire confidence.
The issue of a "nude" picture on the cover is patent nonsense and suggests that anyone who would make such a claim has not closely examined the picture. While the genital area is obscured in shadow, detailing on the hip clearly shows that he is wearing a belted cover of some sort, and the detailing of the drapery can be seen hanging downwards between the legs. The statue is a rather charming depiction of Ganesha Dancing, and the choice of free-flowing clothing for that image is entirely consistent with iconography for statues of that type.
My personal opinion on the issue of the sexual content in Courtright is that he, like Wendy Doniger, has a Western cultural perspective that reflexively finds sexual content everywhere. None of those contested findings are in the article now, and I see no reason to put them there. The issue that Hindutva activists attack Western academics is notable, but it is not central to this article. Buddhipriya20:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Read Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in AmericaISBN978-8129111821 to learn how the Courtright issue was falsely made out to be predominantly a protest by extreme Hindutva groups (who I have little sympathy for). The protest was actually begun by a group of Hindu academics who found fault with Courtright's extremely poor academic standards. Later, some extremists, a small minority, made it out to be a Hindutva protest. Some anonymous people on the internet also made vague threats against Courtright. Nussbaum jumped on that bandwagon, rather than responding to the real issues brought forth by the Hindu academics. It's far easier to call people names than respond to the real issues. I would highly recommend Invading the Sacred to anyone who wants the full picture - one that western academia is loathe to present, because it brings into question their very sloppy approach to Hinduism studies. Invading the Sacred has two+ chapters devoted to the Courtright debate, extremely well-referenced, by the very people involved in it. It includes evidence on how the Courtright side tried to paint their academic opponents as Hindutvas and terrorists, as a way of avoiding the reasoned and civil arguments of the Hindu academics.
I do agree with Buddhipriya - the book cover argument is trivial, and is another red herring for the true issues with Courtright's book. Courtright's (and Doniger, and Kripal) tendency to see phallic symbols everywhere reminds me of a saying: 'when a pickpocket is in a crowd, he sees only pockets.' That's the expertise being presented here. The fact that some of Courtright's quotes may be true, doesn't qualify him as a truly 'reliable' source (in real world terms, I mean). Personally, I have no problem with having Courtright references in this article. It highlights, so well, the issue of "verifiability, not truth." I say this, not to try and change Wikipedia, but to help other Hindu editors get some understanding of Wikipedia, and how they should be learning the relevant policies. ॐ Priyanathtalk03:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
People just wait. If you read the link right, the current version does not have the nude picture. One of early versions had the image with the organ clearly visible, and after the outrage the version was mostly withdrawn.[10] I agree that old paintings have shown Ganesha the child nude but the organ is always hidden.I pasted the link to Customer reviews on the book on amazon.com so that editors can read different reactions. Some even termed it as "pornography".
When i cited Subramuniyaswami, i have cited the IAST names and meanings which were correct according to Sanskrit. In many names, the meanings contradict Sanskrit, which i did not cite. Anyone may remove all references from the book. I accept that devotee literature may over-glorify the diety, but atleast they dont give the wrong information to westerner who never heard about Ganesha that in Hinduism "Ganesha is like an eunch" and "Shiva is a notorious womaniser". My point is if we can cite somebody else to avoid controversy, whats the problem?--Redtigerxyz12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the picture, I have a copy of the 1989 Oxford University Press paperback edition of the original 1985 edition sitting before me on my desk, and it is as I described it above. The interior description of it says it is a Dancing Ganesha of the 10th or 11th century. It is very similar in syle and dress to a similar bronze statue of Ganesha that I have owned for many years. The image shown on the web site you provide a link to is apparently the Indian hardcover edition published by Motilal Banarsidass in India, showing a standard iconographic depiction of Bala Ganesha crawling on the ground and holding a sweet. If you don't like the picture, you can complain to the Indian publisher (Motilal Banarsidass), which is responsible for that packaging. I own a charming small statue of that form that was given to me as gift many years ago, and it has the same sort of belted thong, entirely appropriate for the form. Virtually identical dress is used for the Bala Ganesha in the picture we have in the article now, and his father is also shown wearing only a thong. The picture is a charming, innocent depiction of a loving family scene of caring for a small child. File:Ganesha Kangra miniature 18th century.jpgShiva and Pārvatī giving a bath to Gaṇeśa. Kangra miniature, 18th century. Allahbad Museum, New Delhi.[1]
I simply do not understand the hysterical reaction to these images. For the record, there certainly are depictions dating back hundreds of years in which Ganesha, like Shiva, is depicted entirely nude, but those forms are not the forms used in either of these book covers. You seem to find something shameful about a nude depiction, but I personally do not. Ganesha shares many iconographic elements with his father Shiva. In the Shiva Sahasranama, one of Shiva's names is digvāsāḥ, translated by Sharma as "Naked, with directions as his garments" (Sharma 1996, p. 286). This name links to Shiva's associations with ascetics, some of which as a matter of abstention from things of the world went without clothing. In the Śatarudrīya Shiva has the name Diśāṃ ca pati which Sivaramamurti (1976:44) glosses as "Śiva is lord of all the quarters.... Śiva is here the lord of diks and dikpālas.... Śiva being immanent envelops the quarters that are void. Clad thus in void, he is digambara, naked." Several photographs of standard Shaiva iconographic forms depicting Shiva as entirely naked are given in Sivaramamurti's (1976) study of the Śatarudrīya, including the Figure 21 which explicitly shows Shiva depicted as a naked mendicant. If this form were considered offensive it is unlikely that it would be included in two of the most important devotional hymns of Shaiva tradition. In the Ganesha Sahasranama, Ganesha has the equivalent name Digambaraḥ (GP 1.46.63) which also means naked (lit: clothed with the directions). So what is the problem with that form? According to Zimmer (1969:158) "Originally, Jaina saints went about 'clothed in space' (digambara), i.e., stark naked, as a sign that they did not belong to any recognized group, sect, trade, or community." Photographs of statuary in which Ganesha is shown entirely nude and unambiguously showing the genital area are given in Krishan (1999), Figure 10 (Chola, 5th century); Figure 50 (late 3rd century); Figure 53 (6th-7th century). Those photographs appear in a work by an Indian author, published by Motilal Banarsidass. Why has that author not been the victim of a hate campaign? The feminine form of the name, Digambarā, is an epithet of Kālī as well (Stutley 2003, The Illustrated Dictionary of Hindu Iconography, p. 40).
Regarding the Subramuniyaswami book, which I also have a copy of, he does not provide the Sanskrit for the slokas at all, except for providing the names of the 32 forms in Devanagari. It is therefore useless for establishing the original text of the slokas, which is the material which you were in such haste to remove. Since there is not a single footnote or other explanation of what source he is using for his section on the 32 forms, the book is as unreliable for that matter as it is for everything else in it. Buddhipriya06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no issues with the image but the outrage was because of the image i provided the link for.[11] Shiva is in many illustrations decipted nude, his symbol the lingam is intrepreted as a phallic symbol by people. The matter is trivial and can be best ignored.
My objections to the statements. When the book is cited as a ref in wikipedia there is a chance that a westerner who never knew who GANESHA is , read it and would think all the sexual problems , eunch thing nonsense is true along with rest of the 98% which is infact true. Where in Hindu scriptures or Puranas, is it mentioned about Ganesha's alleged sexual problems or Shiva being a womaniser??????? I repeat, My point is if we can cite somebody else to avoid controversy, whats the problem? About Subramuniyaswami book, the meaning of name is given in the text. I would not cite the book again --Redtigerxyz11:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said, if people are outraged by the book cover that Motilal Banarsidass chose to put on their Indian edition [12], they should complain to Motilal Banarsidass. I see nothing offensive about that picture, and I am glad that you now agree that "The matter is trivial and can be best ignored." Regarding the actual content in Courtright, it is an excellent book and a very valuable addition to the academic literature on Ganesha. I recommend it highly to anyone who is a serious student of the subject. The book consists of 254 pages of well-written academic prose, followed by 20 pages of excellent endmatter. Some parts of the book, chiefly the sections on his family mythology, are based on a Western psychoanalytic approach which I personally find dubious, but which is clearly noteworthy as an opinion by a WP:RS. The sexual quotations that you have made from the book have nothing to do with the material we are sourcing to Courtright in this article. Of the quotations from Courtright that are used in the article now, are there any that you feel are factually wrong? If so, please point them out so the facts can be closely examined, and additional citations brought to bear if needed.
Regarding the issue of nudity as a formal iconographic element for both Shiva and Ganesha, the references which I provided above have nothing to do with the linga issue. They are references to additional iconographic standard forms. The ithyphallic Shaiva images, including lingodbhava and urdhvaretas images, are completely different traditional iconographic forms from those mentioned in the citations I provided. The point of the citation I gave above was to establish that nudity per se is actually an iconographic signal for a complex of ideas related to the renouncer tradition. A hysterical reaction to nudity in Hindu art from the periods in question suggests lack of familiarity with the subject matter. Buddhipriya21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that what Redtigerxyz finds disturbing about quoting Courtright in an article about Ganesha, is that Courtright's bizarre sexualizing of Ganesha (even though not quoted in this article) reflects on Courtright's reliability as an expert on Ganesha. That's not a Wikipedia issue, but a real world issue. Courtright certainly qualifies as a WP:RS, if not as a real world (the Hindu world, not the academic one) source. All this is only 'food for thought', as I mentioned at WT:HNB. It explains the Wikipedia dissonance between practicing Hindus, and those who have merely studied it from outside as academics. Buddhipriya - I think that you would appreciate the academic, reasoned, civil, and balanced approach taken by Invading the Sacred. Even if you don't agree with the book, you'll see it's obvious they aren't terrorists or Hindutvas. You might even gain some compassion understanding for the ongoing frustration expressed by Hindus here, which would be a good thing, in my opinion. ॐ Priyanathtalk00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information about Invading the Sacred. I began to take steps to get a copy the day I read your post. Our librarian informs me that it is not available locally, but I expect to obtain a copy via interlibrary loan. On a personal note, I agree completely that at least in some Western academic circles there is a disturbing lack of cultural sensitivity, language skills, or both, and that those factors result in sometimes weak scholarship. I do not need to read a book to make me aware of that problem. If we are looking for uneven work on Ganesha, an even worse case than Courtright is perhaps that of John Grimes, whose 1995 book (published as part of the SUNY series on Religious Studies) that we cite in the Ganesha article reads in places like a first draft done by a grad student. Long sections of it have no inline citations, and some of the material is patent nonsense, probably culled by him from devotee literature (e.g. the absurd "ga" + "na" derivation on p. 74, which was one of the first things I cut from this article when I began working on it). Regarding the obsessive sexualization of Indian materials, some time ago I tried to upgrade some of the more dubious referencing on Tantra and some related articles where sexual themes are given WP:UNDUE weight. I eventually gave up trying to deal with charges of "cultural bias" on my part. My attempts to tone down the WP:OR and sexualization were dismissed as some sort of personal sexual issue: [13]. I cite this example merely to show that I personally am well aware of these issues and have probably done as much as any othe Hindu editor to try to deal with them in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies. Buddhipriya00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya if I understand right, we agree on this issue for once. Probably no one can raise an objection if the references are replaced from another book. Wikipedia just wants referances, it need not be from Courtright alone. There are hundreds of books written on Ganesha , we can't cite all of them. This may just be one of them. --Redtigerxyz13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I regret that you may have misunderstood what I said. I do not support the removal of references to Courtright, because I find that sort of censorship to be intellectually offensive. Courtright is a WP:RS for this subject, and we are not currently using any material from him that is controversial. My personal opinions regarding the Western tendency to engage in psychoanalytic interpretations of Hinduism are not relevant. While I understand and to some extent sympathize with the offense that this book has given to some Hindus, I reject the thesis that all Hindus find it offensive. Removal of a WP:RS seems inappropriate to me. Buddhipriya03:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The positive reason why Courtright should be included is that it is one of the most important works produced by an academic press on the subject of Ganesha in the past twenty years. There have not been many such books representing current academic specialization in Ganesha studies, and we currently cite all of the most important overview works (if someone knows of another please mention it):
Brown, Robert L. (1991). Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God. Albany: State University of New York. ISBN0-7914-0657-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Courtright, Paul B. (1985). Gaṇeśa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/ISBN0-19-505742-2|'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000015-QINU`"'[[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/0-19-505742-2 |0-19-505742-2]]]]. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); templatestyles stripmarker in |isbn= at position 1 (help)
Grimes, John A. (1995). Ganapati: Song of the Self. SUNY Series in Religious Studies. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN0-7914-2440-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Martin-Dubost, Paul (1997). Gaņeśa: The Enchanter of the Three Worlds. Mumbai: Project for Indian Cultural Studies. ISBN81-900184-3-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Thapan, Anita Raina (1997). Understanding Gaņapati: Insights into the Dynamics of a Cult. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers. ISBN81-7304-195-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
In order to present a balanced view, we need to include Western opinion, even if -- or perhaps because -- it takes a different approach from the Hindu sources, which we also include. Buddhipriya03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Nobody here is suggesting the "Removal of a WP:RS in reaction to a hate campaign that has included death threats against the author". I find it highly offensive that there is even the hint that the reason editors here are suggesting better sources is in reaction to the anonymous internet threats ('hate campaign', 'death threats') against Courtright. The reason Redtigerxyz and myself suggested the possibility is that Courtright's bizarre sexualizing of Ganesha makes it obvious to knowledgeable Hindus that Courtright doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to Ganesha. I fully realize that in Wikipedia terms, Courtright is a 'reliable source' (WP:RS), and therefore his 'expertise' will remain here. I also realize that the quotes from Courtright used in this article are not the ones that show his ignorance about Ganesha. My only concern about using those quotes is that knowledgeable Hindus seeing Courtright used as an 'expert' for a Wikipedia article about Ganesha will wonder about the relevance of Wikipedia. I can live with that (and in fact, I do). ॐ Priyanathtalk04:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
^This work is reproduced and described in Martin-Dubost (1997), p. 51, which describes it as follows: "This square shaped miniature shows us in a Himalayan landscape the god Śiva sweetly pouring water from his kamaṇḍalu on the head of baby Gaṇeśa. Seated comfortably on the meadow, Pārvatī balances with her left hand the baby Gaņeśa with four arms with a red body and naked, adorned only with jewels, tiny anklets and a golden chain around his stomach, a necklace of pearls, bracelets and armlets."
Painting Named "Riddhi Siddhi" By Raja Ravi Verma (1848-1906). Ganesha flanked by Riddhi and Siddhi.
UddaMDa gaNapati from the Sritattvanidhi. Note 'the physical contact' between the trunk and the goddess' intimate part
Note similarities with Vakratunda.jpg
Another of the same standard iconographic type
Another of the same standard iconographic type
Image only, removing the text above
Image only, removing the text above
Mahaganapati from the Sritattvanidhi
Dancing Ganapati from the Sritattvanidhi
Example of a Cambodian representation
Top shows Ganesha with two feminine attendants. This is an example of what the typical form looks like for the two-attendant motif, which is common (note that there is no physical contact with the attendants)
Seated Ganesh miniature. Rajasthan. Folkstyle. 19th century
Vakratunda.jpg
Ekadanta.jpg
