{भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Rāma kī Śiva Pūjā

[Kushagra Aniket]

Dear Scholars,

I am sharing my Hindi article that offers a counterview to the frequently repeated claim that, according to the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Śrī Rāma did not worship Śiva at Setubandha.

To the best of my knowledge, this counterpoint has not yet been presented in detail either in Hindi or in English. The article has been submitted to a magazine and will, hopefully, be published soon.

Best regards,
Kushagra

Kushagra Aniket

Economist and Management Consultant

Columbia University'21

Cornell University'15

New York, NY, U.S.A.

ka...@cornell.edu

[Ramanath Pandey]

You have raised a very important question.
If we rely on the Valmiki Ramayana alone, it does not mention Sri Rama establishing a Shivalinga or offering formal worship to Shiva at Sethubandha (Rameswaram).

This well-known account—that Rama worshipped Shiva before building the bridge—comes from later traditions, particularly the Padma Purana, Skanda Purana and local sthalamahatmyas associated with the Rameswaram temple. These sources describe Rama establishing a Shivalinga (Rameshwara) and worshipping Shiva to receive his blessings before setting out to Lanka.

In short, we can say that the Valmiki Ramayana → does not mention Rama worshipping Shiva at Sethubandha.

The later Puranas and regional traditions → introduce this episode, which gave rise to the famous Rameswaram pilgrimage site.

This makes the counter-argument in your article—that this claim is absent in Valmiki Ramayana and is of a later stage—valid and important for discussion among scholars.

Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddhakanda - Setubandha Prasangam

1. Preparation (Canto 21-22 AD / 22-23 in other versions)

Rama consults Sugriva and the monkeys about crossing the ocean. They suggest invoking the sea god (Samudra).

Rama fasts on the seashore (Samudra-Upavasa).

When the sea does not appear, Rama threatens to dry it up with arrows.

2. Appearance of the sea (Canto 22/23)

The sea god appears and requests Rama to calm his anger.

He advises that Vishwakarma's son Nala build the bridge.

3. Construction of the bridge (Cantos 22-23 / sometimes 22-24)

The monkeys bring trees, rocks and mountains.

Nala directs the construction.

In five days, the bridge is completed, and Rama's army enters Lanka.

Now the important point here is that in these cantos there is no mention of Rama worshipping Shiva or installing a Shivalingam.

The only deity invoked is Samudra (sea god).

Later traditions

The Skanda Purana (Kasi Khanda, Rameswara Mahatmya) describes Rama worshipping Shiva at Rameswaram.

This account is also recorded in the Padma Purana.

These traditions established Rameswaram as one of the twelve Jyotirlingas and strengthened its prominence in South India.

So it can be concluded that

Valmiki Ramayana → No mention of Shiva worship in Setubandha.

Mythical and regional traditions → Introduce the episode of Rama worshipping Shiva in the Puranas.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADrasQq0tAxWnsncLHfPAJc1jHDe2%3DGsmMy4zJoy%3DLKPbvcXpw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Aravinda Rao]

Namaskars,

I agree with the view that the Ramayana of Valmiki attempts at harmonizing the two traditions, or that it reflects the vision of the Upanishads, which was strong at that time and people did not distinguish between the two. The erosion of the Upanishadic vision was probably responsible for the later day squabbles between the followers of the two traditions. 

Skanda purana is generally considered as a Shaivaite purana and no wonder there is the episode of Rama worshipping Shiva. Even then, it is no offence to Vaishnavas because, following human dharma as a human being, Rama worshipped Shiva. In four or five places in the Ramayana (such as Rama fighting Khara's army), Valmiki compares Rama with Rudra. Even in the episode of churning of the ocean, there is a respectful mention of Shiva. 

Is Padma purana also considered Shaivaite?

The smriti texts prescribe the setu darshan for expiation of sins. 

You have heard the shloka which goes somewhat like this

षष्ठी तत्पुरुषं शैवाः बहुव्रीहिं तु वैष्णवाः।
रामेश्वरपद प्राप्ते मुनयः कर्मधारयम्।

Three different interpretations such as रामस्य ईश्वरः रामेश्वरः, रामः ईश्वरः यस्य सः रामेश्वरः and रामश्च असौ ईश्वरश्च.

Aravinda Rao  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKL3qBA%2B6izATrmGN8cYd66dKyS0cbF9mf%2BhU1icZH7424eT4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

In his Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya, Madhwacharya  alludes to certain events reported in the Puranic/Epic literature and gives his own view on what they really mean.  The episode of Rama installing the Shiva Linga is one such that Madhva alludes to:

https://www.sanskritworld.in/.../book/book_50e11cb89ce76.txt

"क्वचिच्छिवं क्वचिदृषीन् क्वचिद्देवान् क्वचिन्नरान् ।
नमत्यर्चयति स्तौति वरानर्थयतेऽपि च । २.१२७ ।
लिङ्गं प्रतिष्ठापयति वृणोत्यसुरतो वरान् ।
सर्वेश्वरः स्वतन्त्रोऽपि सर्वशक्तिश्च सर्वदा ।
सर्वज्ञोऽपि विमोहाय जनानां पुरुषोत्तमः " । २.१२८ ।  

In the Kurmapuranam there is a variety of ways in which one can become free from 'brahma hatyaa' sin. One of these is: to go Rameshwaram and have the Darshan of Rudra there. https://sanskritdocuments.org/.../vyAsagItAkUrmapurANa... 

गत्वा रामेश्वरं पुण्यं स्नात्वा चैव महोदधौ ।
ब्रह्मचर्यादिभिर्युक्तो दृष्ट्वा रुद्रं विमुच्यते ॥ ३०.२३॥

Sri Appayya Dikshitar in his Ramayana sara sangraha stotra has given an earlier kalpa connection to Rama saying to Seetha - 'here Mahadeva blessed'.  He takes the Mahadeva to mean Shiva.   

Gokarna Purana Sarah   says Rama worshiped the Shiva installed in Gokarna (not Rameswara), for expiation of the brahmahatyā sin: 

http://www.sanskrit-linguistics.org/dcs/index.php?contents=texte&PhraseID=431833&fbclid=IwAR0iEbFw8cfk2Us7i2aJsne-ppAvKIaidO2GrjT37Cne0hcKArmTdQ9Sn6s

sūta uvāca / (46.2) Par.?
rāvaṇādīn raṇe hatvā rāmo rākṣasapuṅgavān // (46.3) Par.?
kṛtābhiṣeko rājendra ayodhyām adhyatiṣṭhata / (47.1) Par.?
tato 'gastyamukhācchrutvā rāvaṇaṃ brahmavaṃśajam // (47.2) Par.?
brahmahatyābhayād bhīto vasiṣṭhoktyā tato 'gamat / (48.1) Par.?
sītālakṣmaṇasaṃyuktas tathā vāyusutena ca // (48.2) Par.?
gokarṇaṃ kṣetram āsādya tapaḥ kṛtvā suniścalam / (49.1) Par.?
pratyakṣīkṛtya giriśaṃ hatyāpāpād vimuktavān // (49.2) Par.?
kṣetrayātrāṃ tataḥ kṛtvā pūjayitvā mahābalam / (50.1) Par.?
ayodhyāṃ svāṃ purīṃ gatvā yathāpūrvam atiṣṭhata // (50.2) Par.?

rāmatīrthe snānamātrād brahmahatyā vinaśyati / (51.1) Par.? 

regards

subrahmanian.v

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAGwUMpR3wPS30rJJ5EswkFaCJRvc6CY9ONP7_yM1EmKfCZsuwQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ganesh R]

NamaskaaraH,

In the Kannada translation of Ramayana by the great scholar Vid. N. Ranganatha Sharma, which follows the Kuppuswami Sastry edition, we have some clue. In the Yuddhakanda, during the return journey of Sri Rama, we find a reference to the grace of Siva for the victory of our hero : अत्र पूर्वं महादेवः प्रसादमकरोत् प्रभुः (२२६-१६). Barring a few sectarian interpretations, this is generally taken as a reference to  the worship of Ramalingeshvara.

With warm regards 

Ganesh 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te0ZyM5GK2Pv7nFkCG1%3D6s_wTWS4%3DTcaoYj6gULzgU5wpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Yogananda CS]

Namaste,

In the version with Tilaka commentary, that particular shloka has different number - Yuddhakanda 123-20. The Tilaka vyakhya is as follows:

अत्र पूर्वमिति । अत्र सेतुमूले । पूर्वं सेतुबन्धनात्पूर्वं विभुर्महादेवो मम रामस्य प्रसादमकरोन्मत्स्थापितत्वेनात्र स्थितोऽभूत् । सेतोर्निर्विघ्नतासिद्ध्यै समुद्रप्रसादानन्तरं शिवस्थापनं रामेण कृतमिति गम्यते । अत्र स्थले महात्मनः सागरस्य तीर्थं सेतुनिर्माणमूलप्रदेशत्वात्सेतुबन्ध इति ख्यातं भविष्यतीति शेषः । तथा त्रैलोक्येन पुजितं च भविष्यात ॥ 6.123.20॥

regards. . . . .yoga

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2Bstn%2BhL5PnTwdKR2vijKaZPBGn2jEgDOKZh28_y4whU6dSNiw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kushagra Aniket]

Thanks to Sh. V. Subrahmanian Ji who provided the reference from Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya. The updated article now incorporates it as an additional citation. 

Hopefully all the other points of contention are covered in the article. I request Sh. Ramnath Pandey Ji to peruse the article, as it addresses his argument in great detail. Due to the presence of long dashes and arrows as well as strange-looking references, I wonder if his is an AI-generated response.

Kushagra Aniket

New York, NY

ka...@cornell.edu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFChucYQJx%3DehXm2Pc7Q4CZuuQJ%2BOnEN8z7LUqswjVywjrvCQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकेयः]

Link to a refutation of a prior version of the article (published by kushAgra in parts on twitter and whatsapp) is here - https://groups.google.com/g/hindu-vidyA/c/N3bv2BDAvNQ . That has most of the material but for the last two (mostly irrelevant) parts. An objective reading by any simpleton (say a foreigner) who carries no baggage and approaches the work with a fresh mind, not having heard of shaivism or vaiShNavism, will agree with the महादेव = समुद्र interpretation, as demonstrated there. People are welcome to refute and respond to it there. (Interestingly, the same author vehemently, and rather inconsistently, disagreed with purANic claims about rAma's brahmahatyA on x.com .) 

It is notable that the current version of the article starts with a comically desperate "महर्षि वाल्मीकि की रामायण सनातन धर्म की वैष्णव और शैव धाराओं के पुरातन समन्वय का काव्य है।" while coping with "यह सत्य है कि इसके नायक श्रीराम भगवान् विष्णु के अवतार हैं, जिसके कारण यदि कोई इसे “वैष्णव-ग्रंथ” कहना चाहे तो उसका विरोध नहीं है।" towards the end. Also notable are some responses here with similarly apparent de-sectarian desperations.

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Sh. Viśvāsa Vāsuki

On Thursday, 18 September 2025 at 1:43:00 pm UTC+5:30 विश्वासो वासुकेयः wrote:

Link to a refutation of a prior version of the article (published by kushAgra in parts on twitter and whatsapp) is here - https://groups.google.com/g/hindu-vidyA/c/N3bv2BDAvNQ .

The link leads to a thread titled "विसर्गाद्य् उच्चारणम्". Are you sure you have shared the right link?

 

That has most of the material but for the last two (mostly irrelevant) parts. An objective reading by any simpleton (say a foreigner) who carries no baggage and approaches the work with a fresh mind, not having heard of shaivism or vaiShNavism, will agree with the महादेव = समुद्र interpretation, as demonstrated there.

This is an interesting claim. Since you brought up foreigners in the context of people who do not carry any baggage, it would be useful to see how foreign scholars (if any) have interpreted the verse (which does not occur in the critical edition) in question. Camille Bulcke, for one, takes mahādeva in the verse as a reference to Śiva: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.429847/page/n585/mode/1up

Thanks, Nityānanda

[Abhishek Mehta]

I think the whole point of the article can very easily be covered by simply accomodating various various ordering of the following verse 

एतत् कुक्षौ समुद्रस्य स्कन्धावारनिवेशनम्।

अत्र पूर्वं महादेवः प्रसादमकरोत् प्रभुः॥

For instance, just take 

एतत् कुक्षौ स्कन्धावारनिवेशनम् ।

अत्र पूर्वं समुद्रस्य महादेवः प्रसादमकरोत् प्रभुः॥

The meaning of the word कुक्षौ is independently set by the context in which the verse appears so समुद्रस्य in the context of कुक्षौ is just redundant. So we can use समुद्रस्य to contextualize those words in the verse whose meaning is not clear for instance महादेवः

The above ordering or anvaya completely fixes महादेवः as referring to the वरुणः as opposed to शिवः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sun, 21 Sept 2025 at 22:46, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sh. Viśvāsa Vāsuki

On Thursday, 18 September 2025 at 1:43:00 pm UTC+5:30 विश्वासो वासुकेयः wrote:

Link to a refutation of a prior version of the article (published by kushAgra in parts on twitter and whatsapp) is here - https://groups.google.com/g/hindu-vidyA/c/N3bv2BDAvNQ .

The link leads to a thread titled "विसर्गाद्य् उच्चारणम्". Are you sure you have shared the right link?

Dang - thanks for noticing - https://groups.google.com/g/hindu-vidyA/c/2-lyqsZq9Uw is the right thread.

 

 

That has most of the material but for the last two (mostly irrelevant) parts. An objective reading by any simpleton (say a foreigner) who carries no baggage and approaches the work with a fresh mind, not having heard of shaivism or vaiShNavism, will agree with the महादेव = समुद्र interpretation, as demonstrated there.

This is an interesting claim. Since you brought up foreigners in the context of people who do not carry any baggage, it would be useful to see how foreign scholars (if any) have interpreted the verse (which does not occur in the critical edition) in question. Camille Bulcke, for one, takes mahādeva in the verse as a reference to Śiva: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.429847/page/n585/mode/1up

To clarify, a honest simpleton (eg. a foreigner) with just vAlmIki rAmAyaNa and nothing else, would conclude that mAhAdeva refers to samudra only. Only when one feels compelled to reconcile myriad purANas (and kAvyas), one would begin to foist various other tropes such as shiva-pUjA, brahma-hatyA, mAyA sItA and so on.