So let us all say 'om' From: Ramesh Krishnamoorthy

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, wrote:

 

> One can interpret anything with anything. But reasons and

> interpretations

> are not explanations. There are foolish people who compare the Shiva

> Linga

> with a phallus. It has been rubbished by none other than the great

> Swami

> Vivekananda by quoting the Vedas.

 

Umm linga does mean phallus. And Yoni the base upon which a lingam is

mounted refers to the female genitalia. This is not at all foolish

interpretation but elementary Sanskrit vocabulary. That the philosophy of

Shaiva/Shaktism contains a sexual component is hardly a secret. Of course

that is not _all_ that it represents and we have to wonder about the

mental state of people who harp on this fact. But, the opposite, to try

and pretend such symbolism doesn't exist, is equally stupid. Vivekananda

(who didn't study the Vedas a day in his life btw.) is completely off base

in suggesting the lingam derives from the Vedic yupa or whatever.

 

> Do we all know that the Taj Mahal is actually Tejo Mahalaya, a Shiva

> Temple?

> Please see stephen-knapp.com or search Google.

>

 

It is most amusing in light of this thread that you are suggesting people

see a Western ISKCONites web site!

 

The idea that the Taj Mahal is actually a Shivalaya has been an obsession

of the Hindu lunatic fringe since the days of P.N. Oak and is totally

bogus. It is a Muslim tomb.

 

I would give you the same advice as I do to Hari Malla. Don't distort

Hinduism to suit your fancy. When Hindus lie about Hinduism it gives

everyone else a license to lie about Hinduism.

 

--

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar