ARTICLE : Swami Vivekanand on origins of Shiva Lingam
S. Desai
>Subject : Swami Vivekanand on origins of Shiva Linga (part 1 of 2)
Couple of netters (IDD 8/28/96) said Reuter's description of Shiva lingam
given by a Moslem reporter Sheik Mushtaq though insensitive may not be
off the mark. This is an excellent example of how distortions about Hindu
symbolims are spread, supported and condoned. It is said that Shiv lingam
a phallic symbol, signifies worship of fertility in Hinduism, is theory
however is unfounded. Here are Swami Vivekanand's thoughts on the origin
of Shiva Lingam. If these posters or Reuters claim to know more about
Hinduism than him, then I have no argument.
Let us look at some obvious problems with this theory. First of all Shiva
or Rudra, in Hindu pantheon represents the destructive aspect of God. So
why would a symbol of destructive aspect be shown by a symbol of (pro)
creation or fertility ? Hinduism is replete with symbols, so to assume
that the rishis ran out of symbols hence chose symbol of creation for
destructive aspect of God, is illogical. Thus it does not make sense.
Secondly, if phallus is representitive of sex, even then the theory
runs into trouble again. Because Hindu scriptures describe Shiva as the
destrotyer of Madan who is also known as Manmath or Kaamdev, the God of
sexual allurement. So why would Lord Shiva's symbol, linga be considered
as representing phallus ? Again, this interpretation does not make sense.
A logical explanation comes from Swami Vivekananda.
At the Paris Congress on the History of Religions, Swami Vivekananda was
an invited speaker. At this congress Vivekananda said that the worship
of Shiva Linga originated from the famous hymn in the Atharva Veda
Samhita sung in the praise of the 'Yupa Stambha', the sacrificial post.
In that hymn a description is found of the 'beginingless and endless'
stambha or 'skambha' and it is shown that the said skambha is put in
place of the eternal Brahman. Afterwards the Yajna (the sacred fire) and
its flames gave place to the conception to the brightness of Shiva's
body. Yajna's smoke was symbolized as Shiva's dark matted hair, the Soma
plant used in the Yajna was symbolized as Shiva's blue throat, the ashes
of the Yajna became the ashes applied to Shiva's body and the ox that
used to carry on its back the wood for the Yajna, was conceptualized as
the carrier or Vaahana of Shiva. Just so, the Yupa Skambha, in time was
symbolized as the Shiva Linga and was deified to the high Devahood of
Shri Shankara. In Atharva Veda Samhita, even the sacrificial cakes
are also extolled along with the attributes of the Brahman.
(concluded in Part 2)
>Subject: Swami Vivekanand on origins of Shiva Linga - Contd.(part 2 of 2)
In the Linga Purana, the SAME hymn from Atharva Veda Samhita is expanded
in the shape of stories meant to establish the glory of 'beginingless and
endless' nature of Skambha and the superiority of Mahadeva (Lord Shiva).
THE EXPLANATION OF SHIVA LINGA AS PHALLIC EMBLEM WAS BROUGHT FORWARD IN
THE TANTRIKA LITERATURE OF BUDDHISM by the most thoughtless and was
forthcoming in the most degraded times, those of downfall of Buddhism in
India. (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanand, Mayavati Memorial Edition,
Adwaita Ashram Publ, Calcutta, 5 th reprint, Vol.4, 1992, pp. 422-425)
Literally, in Sanskrit,Shiva means auspiciousness & Linga means a symbol.
Shiva also means one in whom the whole creation sleeps after dissolution,
and Linga also means exactly the same thing. Thus Shiva (and Linga) is
what is there after the destruction of all the creation, and before the
begining of the next cycle of creation. Hence it is symbol of auspicious-
ness and of 'that' which is beginingless and endless, the God himself.
(Symbolism in Hinduism, ed. R.S.Nathan, Central Chinmay Mission Trust
Publication, Mumbai, 1989 pp.74-75).
Of course in the recent past, another example of distortion of Hindu
scriptures by Buddhist Jataka stories was displayed in the Sahamat
exhibitions. Here, Sahamat "a progressive" organization quoted Buddhist
Jataka version of Ramayana where in it claimed Shri Ram married his
sister Sita. The source of mischief of course was the erroneous
interpretation and translation of word 'Janak'. In Ramayan, Ram wedded
Sita, Daughter of King Janaka, where in 'Janak' was the title of the King
of Mithila took upon coronation. Valmiki Ramayan describes Sita's father's
name to be Shiradhwaj. Ramayan describes 21 ancestors of Shiradhwaj while
Vishnu Puran lists names of 32 more genrarions after him, all of whom took
the title Janak on ascending the throne of Mithila. Now the word Janaka
also means father, and the Jatakas misinterpreted, above episode in
Ramayan to mean Ram wedded Sita, daughter of father (meaning his sister).
Thus the creation of another mischievous interpretation.
Lastly, even Sigmund Freud himself has said, "some times a cigar is just
a cigar" which his followers would do well remembering when trying to
provide genitocentric interpretations of religious symbols, particularly
when higher meanings are described in the scriptures many times.
Jaldhar H. Vyas
"S. Desai" <vs...@ibm.COM> wrote in article
<5077uu$r...@news.ececs.uc.edu>...
>
> >Subject : Swami Vivekanand on origins of Shiva Linga (part 1 of 2)
>
> Couple of netters (IDD 8/28/96) said Reuter's description of Shiva
lingam
> given by a Moslem reporter Sheik Mushtaq though insensitive may not be
> off the mark. This is an excellent example of how distortions about
Hindu
> symbolims are spread, supported and condoned. It is said that Shiv
lingam
> a phallic symbol, signifies worship of fertility in Hinduism, is theory
> however is unfounded.
Before answering let me make clear what my views are on this matter. I
don't think Reuters were wrong or even insensitive. Simplistic yes but
certainly not "biased" as the original poster described. I'm saying the
Shivalinga is a phallic symbol. I'm not saying it's _only_ a phallic
symbol or an actual depiction of Shiva Bhagawans penis. I'm certainly not
arguing it's a fertility symbol.
> Here are Swami Vivekanand's thoughts on the origin
> of Shiva Lingam. If these posters or Reuters claim to know more about
> Hinduism than him, then I have no argument.
>
Then you have no argument. I certainly know more about our Dharma than
Vivekanand. Almost any Dharmik person alive today can make that claim.
> Let us look at some obvious problems with this theory. First of all
Shiva
> or Rudra, in Hindu pantheon represents the destructive aspect of God.
> So why would a symbol of destructive aspect be shown by a symbol of
(pro)
> creation or fertility ? Hinduism is replete with symbols, so to assume
> that the rishis ran out of symbols hence chose symbol of creation for
> destructive aspect of God, is illogical. Thus it does not make sense.
>
> Secondly, if phallus is representitive of sex, even then the theory
> runs into trouble again. Because Hindu scriptures describe Shiva as the
> destrotyer of Madan who is also known as Manmath or Kaamdev, the God of
> sexual allurement. So why would Lord Shiva's symbol, linga be considered
> as representing phallus ? Again, this interpretation does not make
sense.
>
In the Puranas, Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheshvara represent the three gunas
Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, and the the three states of Utpatti, Sthiti, and
Pralaya. This is in accordance with the Sankhya shastra. So you are
partially correct when you say Shiva Bhagawan represents destruction. But
"destructive aspect of God" is incorrect. In Sankhya the three gunas are
part of prakrti and Ishwar or Purusha as they call him is completely
distinct. According to the Shaiva Puranas, Sadashiva is that Ishwar and
Rudra who is tamas is a lower aspect of him. (Similiarly Vaishnava
oriented Puranas say Narayan is Ishwar and the Shakta Puranas say
Jagadamba is.) So for a devout Shaiva it's very simplistic to say Shiva
Bhagawan represents destruction. He is the founder of Vyakarana or
Grammar having revealed the sounds of the Sanskrt letters, He is the
patron of dance and music indeed all arts. As Pashupati is the lord of
cattle and other beasts which are the wealth of the people.
The second argument seems quite straightforward to me. (Remember, I'm not
arguing the Shivalinga is a fertility symbol.) In the tantra the highest
yoga is to be engaged in intercourse without ejaculating. To be engaged
in the most carnal passion yet unaffected by it signifies the ultimate
victory of the yogi. To be sure Tantriks cover a wide spectrum from
groups completely beyond the Vedic pale such as Kaulacharis and Buddhists
to indisputably astika ones such as Shrividya. Yet they all share this
sexual symbolism only differing on how literally to take it. There are
many instances in the shastras of Rshis who are ascetics but manage to
create progeny. So there doesn't neccessarily have to be an unbridgeable
divide between an ascetic God and a sexual symbol.
> A logical explanation comes from Swami Vivekananda.
>
A brief digression here. Some readers of this newsgroup have taken
exception to my lack of regard for Vivekanand and his scholarship. Let me
explain what I mean. To be a scholar is to apply your intellect. To give
reasons and citations for what you say. When critical scholars in the
Western tradition make statements about the Atharvaveda they back them up
with evidence or the work of previous scholars. Scholars in our
traditional sense also use logic. The authorities they cite are the those
of the tradition they've inherited. Vivekanand has not employed the
methods of either an Indologist or a Pandit. His views are nothing more
than unsubstantiated speculation.
> At the Paris Congress on the History of Religions, Swami Vivekananda was
> an invited speaker. At this congress Vivekananda said that the worship
> of Shiva Linga originated from the famous hymn in the Atharva Veda
> Samhita sung in the praise of the 'Yupa Stambha', the sacrificial post.
> In that hymn a description is found of the 'beginingless and endless'
> stambha or 'skambha' and it is shown that the said skambha is put in
> place of the eternal Brahman. Afterwards the Yajna (the sacred fire) and
> its flames gave place to the conception to the brightness of Shiva's
> body. Yajna's smoke was symbolized as Shiva's dark matted hair, the
Soma
> plant used in the Yajna was symbolized as Shiva's blue throat, the ashes
> of the Yajna became the ashes applied to Shiva's body and the ox that
> used to carry on its back the wood for the Yajna, was conceptualized as
> the carrier or Vaahana of Shiva. Just so, the Yupa Skambha, in time was
> symbolized as the Shiva Linga and was deified to the high Devahood of
> Shri Shankara. In Atharva Veda Samhita, even the sacrificial cakes
> are also extolled along with the attributes of the Brahman.
> (concluded in Part 2)
>
Of course the Veda in many places identifies the various parts of the
yagna with various
devatas. However it is worthy of note that Rudra is expressly _denied_ a
bhaga of the yagna. And in the Rudri which is undeniably associated with
Shiva Bhagawan to this day, the famous Namaka is an exhortation to Rudra
to go away. According to the Shrauta sutras this adhyaya (I'm a Shukla
Yajurvedi and the Namaka or Shatrudriya is the 16th Adhyaya of the
Vajasaneyi Samhita) is to be said during the Agnichayana yagna. In this
Yagna a huge Vedi is built and Rudra is given this stuti to leave the site
in peace. So the connection of Shiva Bhagawan to the Shrauta ritual is
tenuous at best.
> In the Linga Purana, the SAME hymn from Atharva Veda Samhita is expanded
> in the shape of stories meant to establish the glory of 'beginingless
and
> endless' nature of Skambha and the superiority of Mahadeva (Lord Shiva).
This is the well known story of the quarrel between Brahmadev and Vishnu
Bhagawan and how they searched fruitlessly for the end of the Linga. I do
not in the least bit doubt the validity of that. It doesn't invalidate
the interpretation i'm talking about either. I will post a Pauranik katha
that does give a "genitocentric" (love that word :-) view. Probably
tomorrow as it's late now.
> THE EXPLANATION OF SHIVA LINGA AS PHALLIC EMBLEM WAS BROUGHT FORWARD IN
> THE TANTRIKA LITERATURE OF BUDDHISM by the most thoughtless and was
> forthcoming in the most degraded times, those of downfall of Buddhism in
> India.
It is precisely this sort of comment which makes Vivekanand so unreliable.
This is pure editorializing with not a shred of evidence to support it.
1. Why would a Buddhist want to bring forward anything a about a
Shivalinga?
2. It is by no means a settled fact that Buddhist tantra is earlier than
"Hindu" tantra.
3. There is historical and literary evidence that both Buddhist and Hindu
tantra were flourishing long before the decline of Buddhism.
4. Why did the, one would assume, equally degraded Hindu Tantra not suffer
the same fate as Buddhism?
In his haste to please his foreign audience, Vivekanand probably forgot
that back home in Bengal Tantra (including the very genitocentric kind)
was the majority religion and still is to this day.
> Literally, in Sanskrit,Shiva means auspiciousness & Linga means a
symbol.
> Shiva also means one in whom the whole creation sleeps after
dissolution,
> and Linga also means exactly the same thing. Thus Shiva (and Linga) is
> what is there after the destruction of all the creation, and before the
> begining of the next cycle of creation. Hence it is symbol of
auspicious-
> ness and of 'that' which is beginingless and endless, the God himself.
> (Symbolism in Hinduism, ed. R.S.Nathan, Central Chinmay Mission Trust
> Publication, Mumbai, 1989 pp.74-75).
Yet another interpretation. Where does the yoni figure in all this? Still
that's ok I never said there was just one explanation, R.S. Nathan has
plenty of time to figure out the details.
> Lastly, even Sigmund Freud himself has said, "some times a cigar is just
> a cigar" which his followers would do well remembering when trying to
> provide genitocentric interpretations of religious symbols, particularly
> when higher meanings are described in the scriptures many times.
Perhaps to a Victorian prude a mention of the quote-unquote "private
parts" is a shocking sign of moral turpitude but let me assure you i'm no
advocate of free love and wid orgies (or even Freud.) We're just talking
about body parts here.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jal...@braincells.com] o- beable .-_|\
Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ Perth Amboy-> *.--._/
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy finger me for PGP key v McQ!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail posts to: gh...@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
Dhruba Chakravarti
Jaldhar H. Vyas (jal...@braincells.com) wrote:
: In Sankhya the three gunas are part of prakrti and Ishwar or Purusha as
: they call him is completely distinct.
Dear Jaldharji:
Thank you for this post. I picked out this statement because it is
another issue where a choice must be made. As I have read, it is true
that the sAMkhya describes the purushha and prakR^iti to be distinct,
however, in the SBG, Sri KR^ishhNa has said that the two are not
independent. He describes the issue as 25 tattvas in the SBG (23 of
prakR^iti + avyakta + purushha) and also says that 'know both prakR^iti
and purushha to be eternal' but with important differences. sAMkhya is
limited to aparA-prakR^iti, therefore the distinction between purushha and
prakR^iti is inviolable. In the SBG, Sri KR^ishhNa has transcended this
sAmkhya limitation by describing parA-prakR^iti (prakR^itiM me parAM 7.5)
, who is jivabhutA, jagaddhAtrI and bhuta-jananI. But please note these
two statements 'etad yonIni bhutAni' and 'ahaM jagataH prabhava' in the
same verse:
etadyonIni bhutAni sarvAnItyupadhAraya
ahaM kR^itsnasya jagataH prabhavaH pralayastathA. SBG 7.6
This indicates that there is no difference between purushha and
parA-prakR^iti.
There are other statements that indicate a similar message; for
example,
ye chaiva sAttvikA bhAvA rajasAstAmasAscha ye
matta eveti tAn.h biddhi na tvahaM teshhu te mayi. 7.12
(All the sAttvika, rAjasika and tAmasika bhAvas, know them to be born
of Me; I am not in them, but they are in Me.)
I choose to go by the evidence in the SBG, and I think that most of us
here would too. I am curious about where do you stand on this issue?
With best regards,
Dhruba.
Vivek Sadananda Pai
In article <5077uu$r...@news.ececs.uc.edu>, S. Desai <vs...@ibm.COM> wrote:
>however is unfounded. Here are Swami Vivekanand's thoughts on the origin
>of Shiva Lingam. If these posters or Reuters claim to know more about
>Hinduism than him, then I have no argument.
With all due respect, that's just one explanation and I don't think
it's the commonly accepted one. I'm aware of the story where Shiva is
cursed by Bhrigu Muni, I believe. Someone else can do the full
retelling, but it basically ends up with the Muni cursing Shiva to be
worshipped in lingam form only because Shiva did not properly receive
his guest and was instead engaged in lovemaking. I've also mentioned
the Indus Valley seals and the ithyphallic entity depicted on those in
another post.
So, there are at least 3 possible origins, and the author doesn't have
to claim to know more than Vivekananda to report on either of the
others, which incidentally both support the original description.
The "infinite column" theory is curious to me, because the lingam
seems like a poor representation of it. Recall that in that story,
neither Vishnu nor Brahma could find the ends of the column. However,
if you go to any temple where a Shivalingam is worshipped, then you'll
see offerings poured on top of the lingam, or you'll see a
water-decanter dripping water on top of the lingam. This column isn't
supposed to have a top.
Speaking from a practical viewpoint, if one wanted to show an infinite
column in a temple, it would be a simple matter to make a column where
the column is higher than the door of the inner sanctum. Then, all
visitors could see column, but not the top or bottom. Given that there
are so many tall columns in Indian temples, it seems odd that the
lingam, if it was supposed to be a representation of an infinite
column, would have the dimensions it does.
-Vivek
Jaldhar H. Vyas
vi...@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) wrote in article
<ghenDxB...@netcom.com>...
>
> With all due respect, that's just one explanation and I don't think
> it's the commonly accepted one. I'm aware of the story where Shiva is
> cursed by Bhrigu Muni, I believe. Someone else can do the full
> retelling, but it basically ends up with the Muni cursing Shiva to be
> worshipped in lingam form only because Shiva did not properly receive
> his guest and was instead engaged in lovemaking.
This is from the Padma Purana. Another story is Shiva Bhagawan entered
the Darukavan where many Rshis were doing tapa in the form of a naked
drunken yogi, covered in ash and garlanded with snakes and with an erect
penis. The Rshis not realizing his true nature attempted to curse him
that his linga (which in this context can't mean anything except penis)
would fall off. Bhagawan allowed this and the world was plunged into
complete darkness. The frightened sages realized their mistake and begged
Him to restore the light, He did and they instituted the worship of the
linga. (From the Shiva Purana)
> I've also mentioned
> the Indus Valley seals and the ithyphallic entity depicted on those in
> another post.
>
The connection between the Indus Valley and present day Indian religions
is tenuous at best and not really relevant to Dharmik people.
> The "infinite column" theory is curious to me, because the lingam
> seems like a poor representation of it. Recall that in that story,
> neither Vishnu nor Brahma could find the ends of the column. However,
> if you go to any temple where a Shivalingam is worshipped, then you'll
> see offerings poured on top of the lingam, or you'll see a
> water-decanter dripping water on top of the lingam. This column isn't
> supposed to have a top.
>
> Speaking from a practical viewpoint, if one wanted to show an infinite
> column in a temple, it would be a simple matter to make a column where
> the column is higher than the door of the inner sanctum. Then, all
> visitors could see column, but not the top or bottom. Given that there
> are so many tall columns in Indian temples, it seems odd that the
> lingam, if it was supposed to be a representation of an infinite
> column, would have the dimensions it does.
>
Well it wasn't supposed to be just an infinite column but a linga of fire.
(The katha is in the Shiva Purana amongst other places.) This is
supposedly the prototype of the 12 Jyotirlingas, though I don't know how 1
became 12 and what relation the story has to their current form.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jal...@braincells.com] o- beable .-_|\
Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ Perth Amboy-> *.--._/
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy finger me for PGP key v McQ!
H. Krishna Susarla
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDxB...@netcom.com>...
> In article <5077uu$r...@news.ececs.uc.edu>, S. Desai <vs...@ibm.COM>
wrote:
> >however is unfounded. Here are Swami Vivekanand's thoughts on the origin
> >of Shiva Lingam. If these posters or Reuters claim to know more about
> >Hinduism than him, then I have no argument.
> [...]
>
> With all due respect, that's just one explanation and I don't think
> it's the commonly accepted one. I'm aware of the story where Shiva is
> cursed by Bhrigu Muni, I believe. Someone else can do the full
> retelling, but it basically ends up with the Muni cursing Shiva to be
> worshipped in lingam form only because Shiva did not properly receive
> his guest and was instead engaged in lovemaking. I've also mentioned
> the Indus Valley seals and the ithyphallic entity depicted on those in
> another post.
Well, I don't think he was so crass as to be engaged in the actual act of
lovemaking. I think he was cursed simply for looking at his wife with
feelings of desire -- and thus failing to receive the muni properly.
Although this story is told in the Bhaagavatam, the parts where Bhrigu Muni
cursed Lords Brahma and Shiva appears to have been left out. It may be that
those are covered in other Puraanas, but I'm not sure which ones. I would
like to know, though.
Jaldhar H. Vyas
Dhruba Chakravarti (dcha...@netserv.unmc.edu) wrote:
: Jaldhar H. Vyas (jal...@braincells.com) wrote:
:
: : In Sankhya the three gunas are part of prakrti and Ishwar or Purusha as
: : they call him is completely distinct.
: Dear Jaldharji:
:
: Thank you for this post. I picked out this statement because it is
: another issue where a choice must be made. As I have read, it is true
: that the sAMkhya describes the purushha and prakR^iti to be distinct,
: however, in the SBG, Sri KR^ishhNa has said that the two are not
: independent.
The Bhagaved Gita and Puranas don't teach Samkhya and Yoga, they teach
Vedanta. Vedanta took some of the terminology of those darshans and used
it for its own purposes. I should have mentioned this. But even with
this qualification a Shaiva would not agree that Shiva Bhagawan is the
"destructive aspect of God" as the previous poster said.
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Well it wasn't supposed to be just an infinite column but a linga of fire.
> (The katha is in the Shiva Purana amongst other places.) This is
> supposedly the prototype of the 12 Jyotirlingas, though I don't know how 1
> became 12 and what relation the story has to their current form.
The story is told in detail in the aruNaachala mahaatmyam in detail in the
skanda puraaNa. However, aruNaachala is not a jyotirli.nga, though the name of
aruNaachala is given as the place where the column of fire (GYaanaagni)
manifested, both in the shiva and skanada puraaNas. So 1 did not technically
become 12, it remains 1 :-). aruNaachala represents the agni aspect among the
five famous temples in Tamil Nadu, each one representing one element. I am not
aware of it being a member in any other classification (like the jyotirli.ngas
etc).
Ramakrishnan.
--
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
undermine your entire philosophy) -- strong Vulcan curse
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
Vivek Sadananda Pai
In article <ghenDxH...@netcom.com>,
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jal...@braincells.com> wrote:
[...]
>> I've also mentioned
>> the Indus Valley seals and the ithyphallic entity depicted on those in
>> another post.
>
>is tenuous at best and not really relevant to Dharmik people.
Actually, I only mentioned this because some other post some time back
suggested that only the Shaivites were original and that Vaishnavism
was brought in by invaders. The supporting argument was, I assume, the
Indus Valley seals and the claim that these were a proto-Shiva.
If anyone believes that, then the whole lingam controversy is solved,
because every single one of those seals shows the person having a very
large, prominent erection.
-Vivek
Jaldhar H. Vyas
> Actually, I only mentioned this because some other post some time back
> suggested that only the Shaivites were original and that Vaishnavism
> was brought in by invaders. The supporting argument was, I assume, the
> Indus Valley seals and the claim that these were a proto-Shiva.
>
Unfortunately in the intellectual sludge that is modern India that theory
is still popular. The usual "proof" though relies on the assumption that
the Ramayana depicts an Aryan invasion of Southern India.
Needless to say all of this is pseudo-science.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jal...@braincells.com] o- beable .-_|\
Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ Perth Amboy-> *.--._/
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy finger me for PGP key v McQ!