Vivekanand on origins of Shiva Lingam

[Guest guest]

Re: ARTICLE : Swami Vivekanand on origins of Shiva Lingam

 

---

-----------

 

Re: ARTICLE : Swami Vivekanand on origins of Shiva Lingam

"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar

Sun, 1 Sep 1996 06:03:08 GMT

Apparently-soc-religion-hindu

Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, uk.religion.hindu

Organization: Consolidated Braincells Inc.

References: <5077uu$rer

 

---

-----------

 

"S. Desai" <vsraj wrote in article

<5077uu$rer...

 

>

> >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] o- beable .-_|\

Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \

http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ Perth Amboy-> *.--._/

"Witty quote" - Dead Guy finger me for PGP key v

McQ!