[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Indian Legends (Was: Re: Shiva and Vishnu)
On 28 Jun 1995, Vasudha Dillon <vasudha@pipeline.com> wrote:
> I add that Shiva reserved the role of redeemer for himself. He did not
> want to be directly involved in creation, for creation inevitably implies
> suffering. (See Shiva Puranas). So *Shankar* is one who bestows
This is just a bit of pretentious chatter. What is your evidence? Just a
random statement like "See Shiva Puranas" is not adequate; bring up some
specific quotes, give an interpretation, and defend the validity of your
source and your interpretation (if they are objected to).
> peace,
> redemption, liberation. This is the role he wanted for himself.
> *Destroyer* means he destroys the illusions of bound souls. He destroys
> our suffering caused by ignorance. Of course many people took him to
Since you apparently hold the Shaiva Puraanas in high regard, even to the
exclusion of other scriptural evidence, here are some quotes from the
Skaanda:
"Utpattisthitisamhaaraa niyatirgnyaanamaavrtihi
bandhamokshshouw cha purushaadyasmaatsa HarirekaraaT"
"Agnyaanaam gnyaanado Vishnoho gnyaaninaam mokshadashcha saha
aanandashcha muktaanaam sa evaiko Janaardanaha"
"Bandhako bhava-paashena bhavapaashashcha mochakaha
keivalyadaha Param-Brahma Vishnureva na samshayaha"
All three are very easy to understand, and need no translations; it is
clear that Shiva is most certainly not the giver of liberation.
> represent or indicate a name of the supreme God, as I do myself. It is
> believed he was the ancient nature god of the original inhabitants of the
> Indian sub-continent, hence his lowly status. Ancient seals form
> Mohenjo-daro show a *proto*Shiva. The figure has a top-knot, is seated in
> a lotus position and is surrounded by creatures, as befits him who is named
> Pashupati.
Your statement: "Many people took him to represent or indicate a name for
the supreme God, as I do myself," defies understanding. Names represent or
indicate individuals; individuals do not represent or indicate names -- to
say the latter is to be totally illogical. Also, since it is impossible
for individuals to "represent or indicate a name," it is not clear how you
do this, as you claim in "as I do, myself."
For your kind information, it is never claimed that Shiva has a
"lowly" status; to say so is counter to both Shaiva and Vaishnava
traditions, and would be considered blasphemous by many. Shiva is in
fact considered higher than all the devas incl. Indra, Suurya, Varuna,
et al., and is next only to the Rju-taatvika-yogis and Aadi Shesha. By
no stretch of the imagination can one consider that lowly, unless Indra,
et al., are described as being lowly also (which they are not).
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
