Talk:Mother goddess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Moved from article 2 Neolithic? 3 Recent edits 4 Text suppressed by DreamGuy 5 Request for information 6 Missing Link: Mother Goddess in Dravidian Indus Culture 7 Intro 8 Merges 9 Rape wands 10 Blessed Virgin Mary? 11 Eroding article

[edit] Moved from article

' This form of Hinduism, known as Shaktism, is strongly associated with Vedanta and Samkhya Hindu philosophy and is considered to be monist, contrary to less-developed polytheist cultures of old. Feminine energy (Shakti) is considered to be the motive force behind all action and existence in the phenomenal cosmos in Hinduism, and thus, as the immanent Mother, Devi is focused on with love and intensity. '

This is at least partially innaccurate, and is extremely POV. I don't know of anything substantiating any of it despite being rather knowledgable about hinduism, but am willing to hear some explanation and verification if that is possible. Sam [Spade] 00:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would ask what you find 1) inaccurate and 2) POV about this. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:09, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

aside from the "less-developed" and "polytheist" ... that seems off  : ) Actually, having looked over it, I would amend it to this:

This form of Hinduism, known as Shaktism, is strongly associated with Vedanta, Samkhya and Tantra Hindu philosophies and is ultimately monist, though there is a rich tradition of 'devotional love' (Bhakti yoga) associated with it. The keystone text is the Devi Mahatmya which combines earlier Vedic theologies, emergent Upanishadic philosophies and developing tantric cultures in a laudatory exegesis of Shakti religion. Feminine energy (Shakti) is considered to be the motive force behind all action and existence in the phenomenal cosmos in Hinduism. Essentially, all masculine potentiality is actualized by feminine dynamism, embodied in multitudinous goddesses who are ultimately reconciled in one. Demons of ego, ignorance and desire bind the soul in maya (illusion) (also alternately ethereal or embodied) and it is Mother Maya, shakti, herself, who can free the bonded individual. The immanent Mother, Devi, is for this reason focused on with intensity, love, and self-dissolving concentration in an effort to focus the shakta (as a Shakti worshipper is sometimes known) on the true reality underlying time, space and causation, thus freeing one from karmic cyclism.

--LordSuryaofShropshire 18:20, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

I merged your version w my version in the article, and placed a very similar version on shaktism. Hope you like what I did, let me know. Sam [Spade] 19:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neolithic?

"Her cult was already established in Neolithic times, as surviving archaeological remains attest." —this is contested, isn't it?—Ashley Y 23:58, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

Not really. What is contested is the idea of matriarchy, and of a monotheist mother goddess. I'll go so far as to say those ideas are bunk ;) The concept of a mother goddess, revered on matters of fertility and childbithing (as well as many others) is uncontested however to my knowledge. In short, this could prob be written better, focused on what is unanimously agreed to. Sam [Spade] 04:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The older levels of myths do retain plenty of signs of a former matrilineality structure, however, which should be distinguished from political matriarchal rule, naturally. --Wetman 03:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In your opinion there are plenty of signs, in the opinion of many modern scholars that's simply not true. DreamGuy 04:59, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Could one of these writers please provide an actual citation regarding the "monotheist" mother goddess? Are not monotheisms all male, excluding goddesses? Where is the monotheist goddess religion to which this writer refers, and what authors support such an theory? Or is this a construct of the author "Sam Spade"? Patricia Monaghan

[edit] Recent edits

Good recent edits, DreamGuy. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 00:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Too bad the following has been eliminated in favor of waffle: The Olympian goddesses of classical Greece eclipsed the Mother Goddess without ever really supplanting her. Her roles were divided among Hera, Demeter and Athena... The Triple Goddess devolved into Olympian Persephone - Demeter - Hecate, the Maiden (Kore), Mother and Crone.

The current text avoids any connections: The Olympian goddesses of classical Greece had many characters with Mother Goddess attributes, including Hera, Demeter and Athena. This is not progress. --Wetman 04:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The resulting text could be better, but it's a huge progress from what it replaced. The sentences claiming that there was some earlier "Mother Goddess" figure that had more "roles" than Hera, Demeter and Athena and that there was some original "Triple Goddess" that was so important that it "devolved" into the others are simply taking as assumed that the beliefs of modern Neopagans are 100% true, which has not been established as fact either in this article or in the field in general. The Triple Goddess concept, as the tone of the sentence had it, is a creation of the last century and a half that had no real existence in the original myths. DreamGuy 04:59, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Neopagans! Obviously not Kerenyi. How can I get up to speed with the new orthodoxy? --Wetman 05:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can get up to speed on modern scholarship by reading books in the field. If you want orthodoxy I suggest you stick with what you already believe.

By the way, your changes to supposedly create a gentler neutrality consisted almost entirely of removing all the changes I made, the same ones Spade cited above as being good edits, to restore the original highly biased text. That's not good editing, Wetman. You knew that two editors agreed with the changes, which took me a while to make, and then you just ignored both of us and moved almost everything back to the exact same state it was before. I suggest that you not do that in the future. DreamGuy 18:34, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Such threats are tasteless. I repeat: what is the Greek mythology text we are to be following here at Wikipedia? Can you offer a "book in the field" acceptable to you? My edit was not a revert (a tactic that has been rendered odious) but a fastidious reworking using as much of your contribution as possible. I have also added External links at several related sites that tend to support your fashionable "anti-"Goddess" stance. It's time for you to read them: they make many points acceptable to you.

But can you give us your idea of an acceptable modern overview of Greek mythology? --Wetman 21:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What threat? There was no threat, and implying that there was one is what is tasteless. I suggested that you follow the Wikipedia policies, that's all, I'm sorry if such an idea is so distasteful to you. Your changes were a revert except for all but minor changes. If taking out 95% of what I did is what you call "as much as your contribution as possible" then you obviously have a pretty skewed idea of what's reasonable. As far as a books go, other than those by Graves and the discredited matriarchy theorists that followed, I know of no Greek mythology books that give the information that you keep wanting to put in there. Perhaps you should be the one to come up with some reputable scholar who claims what you keep insisting should be in there. I read those links you added here and there, but they don't make up for the fact that many of the things you want to be in this article simply are not accepted by modern scholars, let alone so accepted that the other side shouldn;t even be mentioned at all on those points. DreamGuy 01:24, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Text suppressed by DreamGuy

The cult of a fertile female goddess was already established in Neolithic times, as surviving archaeological remains attest. From the discovery in 1908 of the "Venus of Willendorf" in Austria, a range of small extravagantly fat female icons, collectively referred to as Venus figurines have been found across a wide landscape. I ask the reader, what is the point of DreamGuy's suppressing this text? What about this text could offend any educated reader, genuinely interested in the topic? --Wetman 21:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you both have a point. The important thing is to make it clear that there is no good evidence of either a monotheistic mother goddess (the same people who made those fat lady statues made art depicting a man w antlers, assumably a hunting god) nor of any general state of historical matriarchy. Thats all feminist/neopagan bunk, w little or no sound evidence to back it up. However, the above is just fine, so long as its in context, and not being used to justify the aforementioned bunk.

I would be just fine w the article expressing that some people believe there once was a monotheistic mother goddess, and that prehistoric people lived in a state of matriarchy, but we need to make it clear this theory is not well supported by evidence (any evidence would be welcome of course).

as far as the "all female pagan deities were simply aspects of one primary mother goddess", I think thats alot of hooey as well, but that is a wider believed theory, especially since the ancients tended to view dieties from other cultures as differently named versions of their own.

I am especially impressed to see a mention of Mary, and the mormon "heavenly mother", thats the sort of thing we can use more of, taking a broad, general view of things is one of ourduties here. Keep up the good work, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The cult of a fertile female goddess was already established in Neolithic times, as surviving archaeological remains attest." This is not proven. Heck, I don't even think that can be proven, what with no written documentation from that time and all. Those figurines in no way prove that fertile female goddesses were established, as you would know if you actually read the articles in wikipedia about them and pages you recently added links to. Some people assume those are goddess figurines, but we don't know that for a fact. You can't just claim that any depiction of a female figure is intended to represent a goddess. In fact, the article later states that, so having one section saying "yes, these were definitely goddesses" followed by "we don't know that they were goddesses" makes no sense.

The following text that Wetman cites is still in the article, but reworded. I noticed that Sam added the text back in, which means we have two paragraphs that are highly redundant. So I'm going to go back in and fix that.

Now, if Wetman would like to PROVE that those figures were goddesses somehow (time machine, perhaps) he can give his proof and then it should stand as he wants it. Otherwise I'm putting back my NPOV statement about how some people believe they are goddesses. DreamGuy 01:39, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The figurines are generally accepted to have been goddess icons, just as the horned man paintings and figurines are widely accepted to be god icons. Can you cite somebody who thinks otherwise, because everything I've ever heard (and I've heard alot on this subject) makes it clear that these, along w burial, are taken as proof of early religion. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The figurines are not generally accepted to be goddesses except by Neopagans, supporters of the matriarchy theories, and people who are extremely sloppy in their conclusions (the whole "what else could they be" argument is the most popular one, which shows poor judgment). I would agree that several decades back they were probably generally accepted,mainly out of there not being a lot of people speaking up against the sloppy conclusions, but these days it's recognized as just a theory as more people have had a chance to examine the evidence. Even if they were generally accepted by scholars at large, which they aren't, on such an unprovable and speculative topic proper NPOV would be to point out the main proponents and not just accept it as true and write that it's been established when it hasn't, which is what earlier versions of this article were doing. As far as who says they aren't, the articles in question already have a number of sources of scholars arguing against the idea, although I can certainly list off more if you would really like. And, for the record here, I am not saying that they definitely weren't goddesses, as don't know that any more than the people who think they know they are goddesses, I am simply pointing out that it is a theory that is not held by all experts (and I would argue that the main proponents are arguing from a pretty severe feminist bias), so only listing one side (or listing both but presenting one as fact) is a clear violation of NPOV policies.

And don't even get me started on the Horned Man... DreamGuy 15:00, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for information

I have created a page women as theological figures (title may change): would anyone more knowledgeable about Mother Goddess and related subjects care to add to it?

Jackiespeel 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Link: Mother Goddess in Dravidian Indus Culture

I'm just throwing this out there for inclusion/exploration. I think and important link between the neolithic discussion and the vedic and post-vedic definitions of the mother goddesss in 'hindu' culture, is the presense and roll of the mother goddess in the Indus Valley Civilization (~2500 BCE). There are seals and figuerines from Mohenjodaro and Harrappa that show a Mother Goddess deity, so it's worth inquiry in the context of this discussion if someone is interested in doing that. On that note, I shall bow out...!

Arff 03:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The introduction needs more defining and less ranting/controversy. It is difficult on a reader to start an article without a firm definition, and the current one seems like the intro to an essay on why the archetypal theory is wrong. Not saying that fact is right or wrong, just saying the intro needs some improvement and such improvement could greatly improve the article. --DanielCD 03:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merges

It seems to me that there since there are so many mother goddess figures throughout the world, it would be best to either put them all on one page or at the very least, create a unifying page that links to them all and discusses some issues relevant to them all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.45.52 (talk • contribs) .

I quite agree. I'm going to poke at it, but the mythologies can get quite complex. I encourage anyone interested to consider assisiting to merge this material or come up with ideas on how we might better present it. --DanielCD 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was linked here via working on translation of Samothrace temple complex. Agree -BUT there are between the various & sundry Goddess pages some incongruities & disconnects - the job will be a big one with many potentials for controversy - perhaps a draft page/sandbox somewhere? Bridesmill 22:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see a WikiProject to manage all these articles, but I think putting them all in a single article is a mistake. There's plenty of information at least for a lot of the subjects, to justify having their own article. Unfortunately, I really just don't have the time (read "patience") to organize a project, but I'd certainly support it's creation. B.Mearns^*, KSC 13:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this material can be painstaking to research. I think a good organization would help, but I am also unsure as to how to do it as yet. --DanielCD 17:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On the merge: I think it's a bad idea. This article is of good length and quality and should stay separate. However, having a short summary of this article in Mother Goddess or some similar page, with a link to the main article, would be a good idea. Tenebrous 06:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, didn't look at the page title. I got here from the merge tag at Cybele; perhaps I'll go post this note on that talk page as well... Tenebrous 07:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have requested a merge from Heavenly Mother which has attempted to grow into it's own article, but I don't see much there other than specifics on the LDS view which is covered consisely here. Bytebear 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rape wands

I can find no google hits for "raping wand" or "rape wand"; this smells very much like very edgy pseudoscience, and not historical evidence other than one or two "suggestions" by non-mainstream folks that this "might have been"; can sonmeone provide real credible archeological/historical/anthropological evidence of this, as it totally seems to be away from what thsi article is about in the first place? Either that, or can we just delete it - provided by anon editor as rework and very significant change of previous sentence, request for citation resulted in a broken 404 link (checked same day 'cite' was provided).Bridesmill 19:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blessed Virgin Mary?

Why is she on here? She is NOT a goddess. So could someone tell me why she is listed as such?

It's a common speculation nowadays that veneration of the Theotokos is an expression of some remnant or impulse toward goddess worship in Christianity, and that she is therefore "really" this goddess. One can in fact find sources that say this, so we can't avoid a mention here. Trouble is, few Christian scholars take it seriously enough to bother refuting it so finding sources on the other side of the question isn't easy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The only real speculation that exists is among non-Catholics. Now, I believe it should be talked about but none if any Catholics takes those sort of debates seriously because Catholics know that she is not a goddess. That sort of speculation was started by those outside the Church to attempt to discredit the Church by accusing it of paganism.

So including the Blessed Virgin on the list of goddesses sort of alarmed me because it seems that the article is saying that she is a goddess when she definitely is not. So maybe she should be removed from that list so it doesn't confuse people?

I think the discussion of it in the article itself is fine, though. It's her inclusion on the "figures" list that worries me the most.

[edit] Eroding article

This article continues to erode, with "illuminati" and conspiracy theories intruded into the opening and a contemporary copyright watercolor image that epitomizes the vaporings that make this subject disreputable. Can someone restore some of the deleted sense and pull this together in encyclopedic fashion? I have to remove it from my watchlist. --Wetman 04:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)