Talk:Shaktism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shaktism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article Shaktism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.


Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • "Further Reading" list is weak
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Good Article Review

Are there any main mantras of Shaktism or bija mantas which should be mentioned?

There are n no of mantras used in Shaktism: every form like Durga, Chamunda, Kali etc. have a diff mantra. Also the mantras are not encyclopedic in nature - useful to experts only and may be confusing to non-experts.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is a good dictionary type of introduction of Shaktism, and well written, but it doesn't really introduce sections of the entire article such as worship - and its sub sections and some other sections. WP lead should introduce the sections and entice the reader from only the first paragraph to want to delve into the other sections. This intro introduces Shaktism but not the article sections themselves.

Is there a common form or image depicted of the divine mother or Mother Goddess that could be described? Iconography or common attritubes.

This is an article on the cult of the Goddess (Devi), not the Goddess herself. Thus, Iconography or common attritubes are not discussed here.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the goddess Uma also be mentioned?

Uma is another name of goddess Parvati, who is mentioned.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can the etymology from Sanskrit to English of the word Shaktism be mentioned as well?

Should also some mention be made of the Shruti, texts or upanishads which would be considered to be Shakta Upanishads, such as those introduced in Hindu denominations.

The Shakta Upanishads are mentioned in section Shaktism#Historical & Philosophical Development. The detailed description available in daughter article History of Shaktism. The article was split due to its Size being more than as prescribed in WP:SIZE. Also, Shruti does not consist of only the Shakta Upanishads. All Hindu texts are divided into the Smriti (remembered) and Shruti (revealed). --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cannot some of the more famous Shakti Peethas be mentioned, as this section of the article falls short of providing information, and the other wikilinks such as Shakti Peethas are more informative. Basically the comment exists in this article section is that yup there are some and does not really say too much more in both paragraphs.

This was discussed earlier. (Talk:Shaktism#Shakti_Temples_List_Deleted.3F) A long list is already available in Shakti Peethas article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel the article covers the microscosmic and macrocosmic affluences of Shaktism, the schools & systems, introduces the practices, rituals, festivals, origin and history, and current trends, as well as philosophy as they concern Shaktism very well.

Image:Shacan ritual.PNG and Image:Bangladesh Prayer.jpg both require attribution - some rights reserved.

Y Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ardhanari.jpg is copyrighted, and credit must be related.

Y Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    See comments about two run-on sentences, and intro
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The sources checked are verified
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See above
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    comments made on three images
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Good luck improving the article

SriMesh | talk 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re lead paragraph and GAN

From Wikipedia:Lead section

Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style).

See also Better lead SriMesh | talk 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanking SriMesh for the thoughtful review and RedTiger for his good work some of the issues raised; I had only one disagreement, which has been noted. I do have a busy schedule this upcoming week, but will try to address the lead and some of the other noted concerns within the next three or four days. Thanks again. (Devi bhakta (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devi bhakta (talk • contribs)

[edit] Current lead

Shaktism is a denomination of Hinduism that focuses worship upon Shakti or Devi – the Hindu name for the Divine Mother – as the absolute, ultimate godhead. It is, along with Saivism and Vaisnavism, one of the three primary schools of Hinduism.

Shaktism regards Devi as the Supreme Brahman itself, the "one without a second," with all other forms of divinity, female or male, considered to be merely her diverse manifestations. In the details of its philosophy and practice, Shaktism resembles Saivism. However, Shaktas (practitioners of Shaktism) tend to focus worship on Shakti exclusively, as the feminine dynamic aspect of the Supreme Divine. Shiva, the masculine aspect of divinity, is considered solely transcendent, and his worship is usually relegated to an auxiliary role.[1]

In his seminal History of the Shakta Religion, N. N. Bhattacharyya stated, "Those who worship the Supreme Deity exclusively as a Female Principle are called Shakta. The Shaktas conceive their Great Goddess as the personification of primordial energy and the source of all divine and cosmic evolution. She is identified with the Supreme Being, conceived as the source and the spring as well as the controller of all the forces and potentialities of nature. Nowhere in the religious history of the world do we come across such a completely female-oriented system."[2] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Draft

Shaktism is a denomination of Hinduism that focuses worship upon Shakti or Devi – the Hindu name for the Divine Mother – as the absolute, ultimate godhead. It is, along with Saivism and Vaisnavism, one of the three primary schools of Hinduism.

Shaktism regards Devi as the Supreme Brahman itself, the "one without a second", with all other forms of divinity, female or male, considered to be merely her diverse manifestations. In the details of its philosophy and practice, Shaktism resembles Saivism. However, Shaktas (practitioners of Shaktism) tend to focus worship on Shakti exclusively, as the feminine dynamic aspect of the Supreme Divine in her benevolent as well as fierce Tantric forms.Shiva, the masculine aspect of divinity, is considered solely transcendent. [3]

The roots of Shaktism penetrate deep into India's prehistory. From the Devi's earliest known appearance in Indian paleolithic settlements 20,000 years ago, through the refinement of her cult in the Indus Valley Civilization, her partial eclipse during the Vedic period, and her subsequent resurfacing and expansion in the Sanskritic tradition, it has been suggested that, in many ways, "the history of the Hindu tradition can be seen as a reemergence of the feminine."[4]

Shaktism is practiced throughout the Indian subcontinent and beyond; however, its two most visible and numerically significant schools are the Srikula, or family of Sri, strongest in South India; and the Kalikula, or family of Kali, which prevails in Northern and Eastern India.[5]

(The lead is not original but compilation of lead sentences from various section and the sister article History of Shaktism) --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Redtigerxyz, I will work with this. Give me a couple of days. Thanks again ... (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Etymology Help Needed!

I am trying to prepare an etymology for the word "Shaktism."

The Sanskrit font I'm working with -- Sanskrit 99 -- turns into Roman-font gibberish when I try to paste it over.

I think Redtigerxyz may know how to work Devanagari in (based on other articles he's worked on). I can send doc in Sanskrit 99 if you like, or post here in whatever form, for you to rework as needed. Please advise. Thanks! (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Devanagari in Shaktism

Hi Redtiger ... I see you've already inserted some Devanagari into the Shaktism lead. Proper name for Shaktism is not Shakta (that is either an adjective; or else a noun describing a practitioner, not the practice itself); but ShaaktaM, Sanskrit, "doctrine of power," derived from Shakti, Sanskrit, "power" ... (Devi bhakta (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: aye
2. Factually accurate?: aye
3. Broad in coverage?: aye
4. Neutral point of view?: aye
5. Article stability? aye
6. Images?: aye

aye If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— SriMesh | talk 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, SriMesh for a positive and extremely constructive review. My only concern regards the History of Shaktism article, which is really a part of the Shaktism article (and, in my opinion, one of the strongest parts) though it was broken off as a "daughter article" for length purposes. As RedTiger noted, the two parts are intimately interconnected -- parts of the Shaktism lead draw directly on History of Shaktism content. Yet I notice History of Shaktism is still rated B. I feel it should be raised up with the rest of the main article -- I do not want these two complimentary pieces to drift off in two separate directions, if that makes any sense. If there are lingering concerns about the, please note them so that they can be addressed. Thanks again for your time, advice and kind assistance. (Devi bhakta (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC))
Nominated History of Shaktism for GA.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sha'can Edits Undone

Yesterday, Caitbrooke, an editor without an active user or talk page, edited the caption of the photo in the final section of this article. I undid edit as explained below:

CAITBROOKE'S EDITED CAPTION: A U.S. adherent of Sha'can, a religion blending elements of Shakta Tantra with Western Wicca practices.

ORIGINAL CAPTION: A U.S. adherent of Sha'can, a New Age religion blending elements of Shaktism with Western Wicca practices.

1. NEW AGE

While adherents of Sha'can may not approve the designation "New Age," to a lay readership this is the most accurate and concise way of describing this religion.

As noted in Wikipedia's New Age entry, "New Age is a term which includes diverse individuals, including some who graft additional beliefs onto a traditional religious affiliation. Individuals who hold any of its beliefs may not identify with the name, and the name may be applied as a label by outsiders to anyone they consider inclined towards its world view. The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions from both East and West [...]. New Age ideas could be described as drawing inspiration from all the major world religions with influences from [...] Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Ceremonial magic, Sufism, Taoism, New Thought, Wiccan and Neo-Paganism being especially strong." (Emphasis added)

If the above does not accurately describe Sha'can, I can't imagine what would.

2. SHAKTA TANTRA

This entire article goes to great lengths to finesse what Shaktism really is and what Shaktism's Tantric elements actually involve in authentic practice. To arbitrarily re-caption the photo by switching the terms "Shaktism" and "Shakta Tantra" for no discernible reason ("Shakta Tantra," as mentioned throughout the article, is a specific designation, not an interchangeable term for "Shaktism") in many ways defeats the purpose of the section (as well as illustrating the cultural appropriation issues raised) and the article itself.

I do appreciate the editor's effort, but these are my justifications for undoing. Thank you. (Devi bhakta (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] More Sha'can Edits

Now an anonymous user has edited the "Sha'can" caption again, this time replacing the term "New Age" with "Neo-Pagan". Fine, I will leave it. However, I did remove the name of the "founder" they inserted -- it seems to me that if Sha'can people feel so strongly about controlling how people describe their faith, and if they want to promote the personalities who loom large in its creation, then they should create their own Wiki page and have away.

This page, however, is about Shaktism, and the only individuals mentioned by name are established historical and modern personalities who are within the authentic traditions of Hindu Shaktism. The only reason Sha'can is mentioned is as an example of nascent Western interest in adopting (and adapting) Shakta deities and ideas. If it is such a hot issue, I will go about seeking some Wikipedia-acceptable "Western Kali" art and leave it at that (the "Sha'can Art" at Wikimedia, uploaded by one "Nyo" as original work, turned out to be copyrighted material with artist signature and copyright info snipped out, so that is not usable here). Then we can limit Sha'can to a textual reference only or simply remove it altogether and avoid the headache. (Devi bhakta (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC))