[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ARTICLE : Swami Vivekanand on origins of Shiva Lingam

"S. Desai" <vsraj@ibm.COM> wrote in article
<5077uu$rer@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 [jaldhar@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!
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.