Jump to content

Talk:Chhinnamasta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChhinnamasta 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 16, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 30, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 22, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 2, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the self-decapitated Hindu goddess Chinnamasta (pictured) standing on a copulating couple signifies that life, death and sex are interdependent?
Current status: Good article

Commenting

[edit]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chhinnamasta → Chinnamasta — Relisting for additional input. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to The Telegraph newspaper with reference to the goddess [3], got by Google News. No search results for Chhinnamasta --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chhinnamasta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    Under Symbolism and associations, a sentence starts "A commentator prescribes her worship by soldiers" - the wording is vague. Which commentator has prescribed this worship? The reference, Kinsley (1997, p. 155), is a page not available through Google Books, so I cannot clarify this myself.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    1B needs to be resolved to pass this review.

Problem resolved so:-

1. B. MoS compliance:
Pass or Fail:

Good article review passed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE comments

[edit]

Copied Corinne's comments from my talk:--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Redtigerxyz -- Although I have posted the GOCE template indicating that I have completed the copy-edit for Chhinnamasta, there are a few issues that need to be cleared up before the article can be considered to be in good shape.

The easy ones first:

1) I saw "goddess" and "goddesses" both capitalized and in lower-case. If there is no particular reason why it is capitalized in some places, I think these should be consistent, and I recommend lower-case. However, sometimes it was not clear to me whether these words were always referring to Chhinnamasta or to some other goddess. If there are some instances where the words refer to some other goddess, we've got to make sure it is clear to whom the words refer. Just let me know whether you approve of all lower-case or not, and I'll make the corrections.

"goddesses" should never be capitalized. "Goddess" denotes the Hindu monotheistic concept of the feminine as the Supreme Being. See Mahadevi, Devi. I used the Goddess as per the article Shaktism (the Goddess-centric sect of Hinduism). --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using the "find" function, I searched for all instances of "goddess" (which shows both capitalized and lower-case, as well as singular and plural). Would you mind looking at the section Chhinnamasta#Destruction, Transformation and Recreation? I couldn't tell if some of the ones that were capitalized refer to the "Hindu monotheistic concept of the feminine" and should remain capitalized. You'll have to decide. Also, in the section Chhinnamasta#Temples, there is one instance of "Goddess", capitalized, in this sentence:
  • The central icon is a pindi, an abstract form of the Goddess.
It is not clear to me whether "Goddess" refers to Chhinnamasta or to the "Hindu monotheistic concept of the feminine as the Supreme Being". If it refers to the latter, I don't think just capitalizing the word is enough to make it clear to the average reader that this refers to Devi. If it refers to Chhinnamasta, I think it could be changed to lower case and might be clear enough that it refers to her.  – Corinne (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne is it better? --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2) I saw "mahavidha" and "mahavidyas" both capitalized and in lower-case. I think these should be consistent throughout the article. I don't know which is correct, but I suspect lower-case would be all right. Just let me know.

I checked the references again. "Mahavidya" with capital M is used throughout.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I capitalized all instances of "mahavidya(s)" (there is one in a reference that is in lower case; I did not change that one).  – Corinne (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)  Done[reply]

3) In the third paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins, you have a sentence that begins:

  • The scholar B. Bhattacharya studied various texts...

The tense of the verb (past tense) suggests that this was quite a while ago. If he studied the text in the last ten or fifteen years, and is still alive, we might decide to change "studied" to present perfect "has studied", which suggests fairly recent research, or research that continues up to fairly close to the present. If the research was quite a while ago, or the scholar is no longer living, then "studied" is correct, but it might help the reader to know in approximately what decades he studied the text, such as "In the 1920s..." or "In the 1970s and 1980s,..."

Benoytosh Bhattacharyya (1897-1964); he studied in the 1920s, the theory appears in his 1932 book. For opinions of other scholars, should I put the years? What do you suggest .. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)  Done[reply]

4) Whatever you decide about the verb study will affect the tense of the next two verbs, "found" and "are". If you stay with "studied", then "found" is correct, and to be really correct, "are" should be changed to "were" (even if still true). If you select "has studied", then "found" should be changed to "has found", and "are" can remain "The are".

Please correct this, depending upon point 3 correction. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)  Done[reply]

5) The last sentence in the fourth paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins is:

  • Apart from Chinnamunda, Karel R. van Kooij also associates the iconography of Chhinnamasta to the Tantric goddesses Varahi and Chamunda.

I know it must be clear to you, but it may not be clear to your readers what "Apart from Chinnamunda" means. Take into account what is in the preceding sentence. That phrase, "Apart from Chinnamunda" appears to be a kind of transitional phrase making a bridge from one sentence to the next, but this bridge is not clear. Do you mean "In addition to Chinnamunda" (even that may not be clear)? Or "Regardless of what Benard says," or "Regardless of the connection between Chhinnamasta and Chinnamunda,"? Or something else? If you are not sure, then perhaps we can take out that phrase completely. The sentence about van Kooij would still make sense.

van Kooij associates the iconography of Hindu Chhinnamasta with the Buddhist Chinnamunda (Bhattacharyya's view). Further, he suggests that Chhinnamasta's iconography is also influenced by that of Hindu goddesses Varahi and Chamunda. A slight deviation from Bhattacharyya's view. van Kooij is unrelated to the preceding sentence.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)  Done[reply]

6) The first sentence of the fifth paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins is:

  • David Kinsley agrees with the Buddhist origin theory, but acknowledges other influences, too.

I'm wondering whether "acknowledges" is the best verb here. It kind of suggests that he is merely agreeing with another scholar rather than putting forth his own ideas. What do you think of using "recognizes", "sees", "has discovered", or "proposes"?

  • but recognizes other influences, too.
  • but sees other influences, too.
  • but has discovered other influences, too.
  • but proposes other influences, too.

I think I like "sees" or "proposes" the best.

 Done.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7) The last sentence of that paragraph is:

  • The beheading and rejoining motif also appears in the tale of goddess Renuka.

I read about "recreation" in the section Chhinnamasta#Destruction, Transformation and Recreation (I'm not sure "transformation" and "recreation" should be capitalized), but I don't recall reading about a "rejoining" motif, or anything about "rejoining". I assume this means the rejoining of the head and the body. If this is something special to the tale of the goddess Renuka, then this sentence needs to be slightly re-worded, something like:

  • The beheading motif, accompanied by a unique rejoining motif, also appears in the tale of the goddess Renuka.
Actually, I missed stating it explicitly in Pranotasani Tantra legend part (her most popular legend) that the goddess rejoined her head. Though not all legends state that she rejoined her head. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8) In the lede, you say, "Chhinnamasta...is one of the Mahavidyas, ten Tantric goddesses and a ferocious aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother." The first sentence of the section Chhinnamasta#Legends and textual references is:

  • Chhinnamasta is often named as the fifth or sixth Mahavidya in the group, with hymns identifying her as a fierce aspect of the goddess.

The reader might scratch his or her head at "in the group"? (Which group?) I think the sentence would read fine if you omitted "in the group". Also, if Chhinnamasta is an "aspect" of a goddess, then "goddess" cannot really be referring to Chhinnamasta, and the reader will wonder "What goddess is this?" Is it Devi? Can we say "identifying her as a fierce aspect of Devi"?

Changed to Devi, the Supreme Goddess. Please check if this is better.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

9) I am puzzled by the clause that comes shortly after this:

  • though Chhinnamasta barely has an independent existence outside the group.

You've got a long, detailed article on Chhinnamasta, mentioning traditions, temples, etc., in several parts of India and Nepal. Not all of that is discussed in connection with the Mahavidyas. I would either omit this or explain what you mean.

Kinsley: "[Some of the Mahavidyas] continue to be very well known in their own right, such as the fierce black goddess Kali. She is also usually the primary, or adi, Mahavidya. Kamala, who is the same as the very popular goddess Sri-Laksmi, is also a member of the group. Tara and Tripura-sundari, lesser known but still far from obscure, are other examples of Hindu goddesses who are popular on their own and as part of the group. On the other hand, Bagalamukhi, Chinnamasta, Dhumavati, and Matangi are rarely mentioned apart from the Mahavidyas."
Chhinnamasta's individual cult is not widespread. Her individual temples and public worship of her are rare. Her worship traditions are mentioned texts celebrating all the Mahavidyas; not her alone.
Please suggest how this should be reworded. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)  Done What do you think?[reply]
Corinne, "whose individual worship is rare" is inaccurate. She does enjoy individual worship by the esoteric, secret rituals of Tantra and is a popular Tantric deity; but worship by lay worshippers and public worship is rare. The Tantric traditions are intrinsically connected to her identity as a Mahavidya. In contrast, other Mahavidyas like Kali, Tara have traditions related to them being part of the Mahavidyas as well as traditions related to their individual identities. What else can be done? Suggestions. Redtigerxyz Talk 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz I re-worded this based on what you wrote here. You wrote (just above) "but worship by lay worshippers and public worship is rare". I've got to ask you, is "worship by lay worshippers" significantly different from "public worship"? Is it necessary to mention both? Would one of these be sufficient, particularly for the lede?  – Corinne (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne: Though they are different things, "worship by lay worshippers" is more important; public worship is partly covered by temples (which public places of worship). --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz In spite of your recent edit removing "and public worship", I don't think this sentence (in the lede) is clear:
  • Though Chhinnamasta enjoys patronage as part of the Mahavidyas, her individual temples (mostly found in Eastern India and Nepal) and worship by lay worshippers are rare.
I think the phrase "worship by lay worshippers" unnecessarily uses two forms of the same word. Although I think some readers may wonder what "lay worship" is, I think the sentence would be more concise if we change "worship by lay worshippers" to "lay worship". Also, to Westerners, using "her" before "individual temples" might be odd. More comprehensible might be "temples devoted to her". I suggest the following wording:
  • Though Chhinnamasta enjoys patronage as part one of the Mahavidyas, temples devoted to her (found mostly in Nepal and eastern India) and lay worship are rare.  – Corinne (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne Modified.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Legends and textual references is:

  • In a story from the Shakta Maha-Bhagavata Purana and the Brihaddharma Purana, which narrates the creation of all Mahavidyas including Chhinnamasta, Sati, the daughter of Daksha and the first wife of the god Shiva, feels insulted that she and Shiva are not invited to Daksha's yagna ("fire sacrifice") and insists on going there, despite Shiva's protests.

This sentence is not clear. It's kind of clear up to "including Chhinnamasta". After that, you lose me. It appears that "the first wife of the god Shiva" does not have a name and gave birth to a daughter by a man (god?) other than her husband Shiva – quite confusing.

Let me split the sentence. 1. a story from the Shakta Maha-Bhagavata Purana and the Brihaddharma Purana, which narrates the creation of all Mahavidyas including Chhinnamasta 2. The story is also follows 3. Sati is the daughter of Daksha and the first wife of the god Shiva. 4. She feels insulted that she and Shiva are not invited to the yagna ("fire sacrifice") organized by her father Daksha. 5. Sati insists on going there, despite Shiva's protests.
I hope this is clear. Now, you can help me put this in non-wordy English. :) Redtigerxyz Talk 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to work on this here:
  • A story from the Shakta Maha-Bhagavata Purana and the Brihaddharma Purana narrates the creation of all Mahavidyas, including Chhinnamasta. The story is as follows: Sati, the daughter of Daksha, is the first wife of the god Shiva. When she and Shiva are not invited to the yagna ("fire sacrifice") organized by her father, she is insulted and insists on attending, despite Shiva's protests.  – Corinne (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)  Done and added to article.  – Corinne (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)  Done[reply]

11) Shortly after that is the following sentence:

  • Similar legends replace Sati with Parvati, the second wife of Shiva and reincarnation of Sati or Kali, the chief Mahavidya, as the wife of Shiva and origin of the other Mahavidyas.

This sentence is totally unclear.

  • Who is the "chief Mahavidya" – only Kali, or Sati or Kali, and why "or"? Is it two names for the same goddess or two different goddesses, and (a) the chief Mahavidya can be either one, or (b) it's Sati in some places and Kali in others, or (c) it's not clear which one it is. (You wanted an editor who doesn't know anything about Hinduism.)
  • You mention right after Parvati, "the second wife of Shiva", so why do you have to follow "replace Sati with Parvati" with "as the wife of Shiva" later in the sentence?

Also, I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.

Splitting the sentence: 1. Legends similar to that of Sati exist; Mahavidyas arise in these legends from the wrath of other goddesses. 2. These goddesses are Parvati and Kali. 3. Parvati is the second wife of Shiva and reincarnation of Sati -> i. Shiva and Parvati stay at the house of Parvati's father. ii. Shiva wants to leave the house; but Parvati creates ten fierce Mahavidyas who block Shiva's path from ten directions, thereby stopping him. 4. Kali is the foremost/first Mahavidya. i. Kali is also considered Shiva's wife. ii. Shiva is tired of living with her and leaves her iii. Kali creates the ten Mahavidyas who obstruct his path in the ten directions. iv. Then Kali enlightens him and he stops.
Request your help to word this in clearer English.
"Also, I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.": The second para narrates legends about the origin of the Mahavidyas (Chhinnamasta being one of them) as a group. Paras 3, 4, 5 narrates about the origin of Chhinnamasta as an individual goddess. I have split the section.
I've got to work on this here. From your breakdown just above, it appears to me that you are describing two different legends, so I will base my revision (below) on that assumption. If I am wrong, you will have to correct me and I'll keep working at it.
  • Similar legends exist. In these legends, the Mahavidyas arise from the wrath of other goddesses, specifically, Parvati (the second wife of Shiva and a reincarnation of Sati) and Kali. In one legend, Shiva and Parvati are living in the house of Parvati's father. Shiva wants to leave, but Parvati creates ten fierce Mahavidyas who appear from ten directions and prevent him from leaving. In another legend, Shiva is living with Kali, who is his wife and the principal Mahavidya, but becomes tired of her and wants to leave. Kali creates ten Mahavidyas who also obstruct his path from ten directions. Kali enlightens him and he ceases trying to leave.  Done I will add this now. Let me know if there is anything you want to change.  – Corinne (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne, these are two different legends with similar storylines. In all legends, a goddess' fury creates ten Mahavidyas, who surround Shiva from ten directions, to stop and obstruct him.--Redtigerxyz Talk 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz Thank you for the additional explanation here. I think I understood this from your earlier breakdown. The paragraph just above is my revision, based on the breakdown of sentences, and I already added it to the article. Don't you approve?  – Corinne (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne, Seems good. "If I am wrong, you will have to correct me and I'll keep working at it.": Just agreeing that you are not wrong.  Done --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You wanted an editor who doesn't know anything about Hinduism": Now you know why. :) The article is very fortunate to have you clean it up. Corinne, Thanks again for your patience and your detailed comments here. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12) The next sentence is also unclear:

  • While Parvati uses the Mahavidyas to stop Shiva from leaving her father's house, Kali enlightens him and stops him, who was tired of living with her, from leaving her.
  • In "who was tired of living with her", who is "her"? If "her" is Parvati, why were she and Shiva living in her father's house?
  • Is Kali's action of enlightening and stopping Shiva what is meant by Parvati using the Mahavidyas? If so, I would not use the "While...." construction. I would write:
  • Parvati uses the Mahavidyas to stop Shiva, who was tired of living with her, from leaving her father's house; Kali enlightens Shiva and stops him from leaving.

Also, I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.

Replied in point 12.Redtigerxyz Talk 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)  Done[reply]

13) The next sentence, the last sentence in the paragraph is:

  • The Devi Bhagavata Purana also mentions the Mahavidyas as war-companions and forms of the goddess Shakambhari.

I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.

The second para narrates legends about the origin of the Mahavidyas (Chhinnamasta being one of them) as a group. Shakambhari is yet another goddess from whom Mahavidyas are said to have originated.Redtigerxyz Talk 17:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14) I'm wondering if it would help readers if you separated written textual references and oral legends somehow. You could either make two sections on the same level as the "Legends and textual references" section heading is now, or you could make two sub-headings within that larger section. Late in that section you refer to the first oral legend and then the second oral legend. It might be easier for a reader to look back and find the first and the second oral legends if they were in their own section or sub-section. Just a suggestion.

Went back to the references. Splitting on basis of type of origin myths seemed more logical.Redtigerxyz Talk 17:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15) In the section Chhinnamasta#Control over or embodiment of sexual desire, particularly in the first two paragraphs, you present two very different interpretations of Chhinnamasta. I am a little puzzled by how you seem to present them as equally valid interpretations, even though the two interpretations are almost opposite. I'm wondering if you could explain whether these contrasting interpretations are considered both true and valid at the same time, or whether among scholars one interpretation is more favored than the other, or if one interpretation is more prevalent in certain places and the other interpretation more prevalent in others, or at different times in history.

The two interpretations are exactly opposite. These contrasting interpretations are considered both true and valid at the same time; different religious commentators have had different views about the goddess. However, scholars state both interpretations; giving equal weightage to both. A scholar relates this to her being a goddess of contradictions. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence in the section Chhinnamasta#Goddess of paradoxes is:
  • Chhinnamasta is a goddess of contradictions: dichotomies of giver and taker, subject and object, and food and eater dissolve in her iconography.
Redtigerxyz I wonder if "dissolve" is really the right word; also, overall, this sentence sounds very academic in tone. Perhaps if you just change "dissolve" to "abound" (i.e., are often found), it would make sense. What do you think? Can you check the source for me to see what is really meant here?  – Corinne (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne: Quoting: "Chinnamasta is both the food and the eater of food, ... The dichotomy of receiver and giver or object and subject

collapses into one." --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz Thank you for your reply. Seeing your paraphrase from the article next to the sentences from the source, I'm a bit concerned about the similarity – perhaps a little too close to the original text. But anyway, I don't recall reading in the article anything to the effect that the pairs of opposite qualities in Chhinnamasta dissolve and become one in her. Is that in the article? If so, could you point it out to me? Opposite qualities do not necessarily have to join and become one, but of course if that is what the sources say, we shouldn't say differently. You apparently don't like "abound in her iconography" (which means "are seen everywhere in her iconography"), so I honestly don't know what to write here. If the sources don't use the word "dissolve", I wouldn't use it. Can you give this more thought, and perhaps suggest a different word or wording?  – Corinne (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne, "abound" is ok; suggestions about the close paraphasing please. Using quotes here will be better here probably. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz I suppose a quote would work here, but I'm wondering about the break between the first and second parts, which you indicated with an ellipsis (...). I'm wondering whether what was left out was relevant or totally irrelevant. I'm also puzzled because the sentence starts out with one example of a dichotomy ("the food and the eater of food") – by the way, are you sure "food" is the best word? Is this a translation? Not "sustenance and one who is sustained by it", thereby including more than just earthly food? – and then mentions "the dichotomy", followed by two more examples of dichotomies. Why not mention "dichotomy" or "dichotomies" first, followed by all the examples? Can you copy the entire quote for me so I can see what was in the original text?  – Corinne (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry, Redtigerxyz, I just saw your paraphrase again, above:[reply]
  • Chhinnamasta is a goddess of contradictions: dichotomies of giver and taker, subject and object, and food and eater dissolve in her iconography.
and I see that you had already written your paraphrase just as I was suggesting, with all the examples following "dichotomies". The only thing that needed changing was "dissolve", which we have done (to "abound"). I guess it is different enough from the original text, so I'm going to strike my last comment (which was really about the partial quote from the source, not your own paraphrase).  – Corinne (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne, "Chinnamasta is both the food and the eater of food, thereby symbolizing the whole world by this act of being devoured and the devourer. The dichotomy of receiver and giver or object and subject collapses into one." The explanation is that her life and blood serves as food for her attendants (thus giver); but she too drinks the blood so she is the eater too. She subdues the copulating couple thus she is a life-taker. Food is considered as an object; thus the eater is the subject.Redtigerxyz Talk 18:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Redtigerxyz, for supplying the complete quote. The quote explains it all so well that I'm thinking that maybe you ought to use the entire quote instead of paraphrasing it. Your explanation that you gave right after the quote is also helpful; you could include that, too (but correct the spelling of "serves").  – Corinne (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne Added the quote. Giver v/s taker is covered in para 2 of the section.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Good!  Done  – Corinne (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This goddess is a very multi-faceted and complex goddess, and you have covered it all quite well.  – Corinne (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, Thanks for your through copyedit and your detailed review above copied from my talk. Corinne, I thought this is better place to discuss this rather than my talk; feel free to revert if you disagree.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All comments replied to.Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, "The Shakta-pramoda warns that improper worship would have severe consequences: Chhinnamasta would behead such a person and drink his blood. It further categorizes worship for Chhinnamasta to be followed by householders and renouncers." The sentence was changed to "It further stipulates that worship of Chhinnamasta is to be followed by householders and renouncers." I have changed it to " It further differentiates between worship rituals to be followed by householders and renouncers." What I want to say is:

  • There are 2 sets of worship procedures given in the text. Type A is prescribed for householders exclusively. Type B is for renouncers exclusively.

How to convey this meaning? Please help. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)  Done  – Corinne (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by this phrase in a recent edit by Ms Sarah Welch:

  • have the ability to meditate on her with form.

What does "meditate on her with form" mean (specifically "with form")? This will not be comprehensible to an average Wikipedia reader. I think it needs to be filled out a bit to make it completely clear.  – Corinne (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: "meditating on her with form" (saguna) means visualizing her murti and iconography of severed head, blood, etc.; "meditating on her without form" (nirguna) means meditating on the values she represents (heroism, acceptance of paradoxes/contradictions of living such as peace as end with war as means, etc). Please feel free to copyedit and improve, you are better with wordsmith-ing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed "with form" to "using her icon".Redtigerxyz Talk 16:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnamasta Bhagawati

[edit]

User:Indu, reverted your edits as Chinnamasta Bhagawati is not the same goddess as this Chinnamasta. Chinnamasta (Chhinnamasta) is used as a generic name for goddess icons whose heads are broken; but are still worshipped. A similar temple appears in MP, India too (can't remember place). No legend oor iconography links Chinnamasta Bhagawati to the mahavidya. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Closing comments on FAC

[edit]

User:Ian Rose, a fresh start for this article in FAC would be better. Since the FAC is archived, I am replying to your comments here:

  • "I note several paragraphs finishing with as many as half a dozen citations, which would make verification heavy going -- can you make the referencing a bit more granular?"
Iconography section is written in summary style. Detailed descriptions of the goddess' iconography are given in each of these references; there is overlap in many of these references, which refer to various primary references (Hindu scriptures); so the 6 book references are given at the end of the paragraphs, instead at the end of each sentence. I have looked at the books and removed a ref.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are also some paragraphs finishing with uncited sentences -- all paragraphs should end with at least one citation."
"Chhinnamasta appears in two distinct ... " is an opening statement to help a non-expert understand the difference between the 2 sections ahead.

I request you to waive the 2 week cooling period. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept all that -- at any rate I'm happy to leave it to reviewers at a renomination to judge. On the second point, I was also thinking of the uncited sentence "The attendants are absent in some depictions", which doesn't seem to be an introduction to what follows. Pls check that, and then feel free to renominate when you're ready. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian Rose.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chhinnamasta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typo? heroic Tantrikas

[edit]

Perhaps heroic Tantrikas was meant to be esoteric Tantrikas? DynV (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional refs

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chhinnamasta&oldid=1206650732"