Talk:शिश्नदेव

Unchaste

@शब्दशोधक Thanks for adding the Hindi entry. I really had no clue that this even existed in Hindi. As for the adjective meaning "unchaste", where do you find it? I know some interpretations of the Rig Veda translate it as "lewd people" or "unchaste people" but I think it is because they are usually commentators from the classical Sanskrit era when the worship of the Shiva-lingam had become widespread all over so they were uncomfortable in giving the true meaning of the word, so they interpret it as "lewd" or "unchaste". Neither MW nor Mayrhofer classify it as an adjective. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 11:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: I've mailed you the screenshot of where I see it as an adjective. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 14:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Update

@SodhakSH Hi! I've gone through the new version... really sorry but the earlier version contained all the info without making anything unnecessarily complicated. The meaning is obvious from śiśna+deva; there really is no scope for "sporting" as a meaning here. And even then we have compromised and respected the dictionaries by showing the sense of adjective even though it is not. We don't really have to include the interpretation of every commentator here, you know. Apart from Monier even Mayrhofer agrees that the term śiśna-deva means just what the entry said. (BTW it is true that Shiva is different from Vedic Rudr but even the god worshipped by the indigenous pre-Vedic people cannot be labelled as Shiva because Shiva is considered to be an amalgamation of pre-Vedic deity of masculinity and the Vedic Rudra). -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 03:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the status of the Hindi entry, I leave it up to you and User:Kutchkutch. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 03:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Okay. I was adding this quotation in Hindi when I got the message that you had already edited the page. See:

1. • (Can we date this quote?), Gurukula patrika, page 259:

     ...जो लिंग से क्रीड़ा करें वे शिश्नदेव कहे जाते हैं।
     महर्षि दयानंद जी-(शिश्नदेवाः) अब्रह्मचर्याः कामिनो ये शिश्नेन दीव्यन्ति क्रीडन्ति ते।

     ...jo liṅg se krīṛā karẽ ve śiśnadev kahe jāte ha͠i.
     maharṣi dayānand jī-(śiśnadevāḥ) abrahmacaryāḥ kāmino ye śiśnen dīvyanti krīḍanti te.

     Those who sport with their śiśna, are śiśnadevas. They are those who play or sport with their penis.

     🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

And div (dīvyati) does mean to sport so I do find some logic in this. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: Nice, I suppose you can add it to the Hindi entry... as for the Sanskrit part, as I said, we are not really liable to change our definition/interpretation because some commentator's interpretation is different and goes against what we know about the meaning of the constituent words. But you can add the definition "sporting with the penis" under the adjective and give the Skt part as a quotation but I don't think any edit to the etymology is needed. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 04:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Right. What about "tailed-demon" sense in MCD? But really the meaning of this is debated. I'm not sure about the Hindi entry, though. It is never, ever used. Only sometimes in books and all it is used to discuss the Sanskrit meaning. Within an hour or so, I'll add more quotations. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: You can add a new sense under the adjective header, "sporting with the penis" or add it under the sense "lewd" itself. You can delete the Hindi entry if you want. The "demon" sense does not have much acceptance so it's better to leave it alone. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 06:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: I prefer deleting the Hindi entry, but then can a Hindi quotation be put under the Sanskrit adjectival sense? Regarding diff, it is very disputable and is disputed by so many. I'd say "non-Vedic" is enough there. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 06:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: Put only the Sanskrit part then. As for the indigenous part, there is linguistic and genetic evidence and all or most modern scholars accept it. Anyway, since we know early Vedic civilisation and the earlier books of the Rig Veda were centred around Indus, Punjab and Haryana, and that the later books of the Rig Veda (notably book 10) were composed a bit later when the Vedic people had moved further eastward into India, wouldn't these people in the east be "indigenous" in relation to the Vedic people who had moved from Punjab? ;) -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 06:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)