Today is Shiva Ratri, the night of lord Mahadeva. I have always been attracted to the worship of Lord Shiva as he is the 'come as you are' Lord. His lingam shrines dot the Indian countryside and busy city streets whereever one wanders; anyone (in most temples) can approach the Lingam and offer worship and even touch the Lingam. The three-pronged leaves of the bael tree are important in his worship. Shiva Ratri is traditionally an elaborate affair with fasting and hourly abhishkeks of the Lingam with various substances.

Some mandirs where I have spent time have been Gopishvara Mahadeva in Vrindavan; Ban-khandi Mahadeva, Vrindavan; Rangeshvara in Mathura (He is around the corner from the harmonium makers I went to frequently while with the 24 hr kirtan. He is well over 5000 uears old and was reportedlt worshipped by Kamsa. One can enter the small, often unattended temple and sit directly before the 3-4 foot lingam); Bhutesvara and Patala Devi (Devi is seen by descending a staircase 20-30 feet underground); Chakleshvara, Goverdhana; Nandishvara, Nandagaon; Ananteshvara, Udupi, and others.

There are interesting interpretations of the role of Mahadeva amongst Vedic historians and Shaivites. Some say Shiva was the original pre-Aryan lord of ancient India and his worship was evident in the oldest discovered towns of Harappa (Hara coming from a name of Shiva) and Mohenjo-Daro. Mahadeva (or Pashupati) was later absorbed into the Aryan pantheon.

Others say that as the cult of personal devotion- bhakti grew in prominence, replacing sankhya and yoga systems, there was need to establish a personal God from the Vedic Gods, Vishnu and Shiva became the objects of devotion.

There was at this time a Shaivam commentary of Vedanta by Srikantha in which devotional worship of the eternal personal form of Shiva was established. This school later died out, and the Shaivam schools took to the worship of the non-manifest Brahman whom Shiva was seen as the master of.

These schools went through various revivals and revisions over the years, such as the Virashaivites, Shiva Siddhanta, Kashmiri Shaivism, etc. These schools were particularly in competion with Vaisnava schools of thought (particularly in south India) which is why they developed opposing doctrines to that of Vaisnava thought at the time, though initially they were more similar.

This is a oversimplification of thousands of years of philosophical and theological discourse. More to follow...


Aum Namo Shivaya

From the Mahanirvana Tantra, one of the most important texts of kashmiri Shavism:

Sadashiva said to Parvati:

O Exalted and Holy One! Benefactress of the universe, well has it been asked by You. By none has such an auspicious question been asked aforetime (2). Worthy of all thanks are You, Who knows all good, Benefactress of all born in this age, O Gentle One! You are Omniscient. You know the past, present, and future, and Dharma. What You have said about the past, present, and future, and, indeed, all things, is in accordance with Dharma, and is the truth, and is without a doubt accepted by Me. O Sureshvari! I say unto You most truly and without all doubt that men, whether they be of the twice born or other castes, afflicted as they are by this sinful Age, and unable to distinguish the pure from the impure, will not obtain purity or the success of their desired ends by the Vedic ritual, or that prescribed by the Sanghitas and Smritis (3-6). Verily, verily, and yet again verily, I say unto You that in this Age there is no way to liberation but that proclaimed by the Agama (7). I, O Blissful One, have already foretold in the Vedas, Smritis, and Puranas,' that in this Age the wise shall worship after the doctrine of the Agama (8). Verily, verily, and beyond all doubt, I say to you that there is no liberation for him who in this Age, heedless of such doctrine, follows another (9). There is no Lord but I in this world, and I alone am He Who is spoken of in the Vedas, Puranas, and Smritis and Sanghitas (10). The Vedas and the Puranas proclaim Me to be the cause of the purity of the three worlds.

There are some that debate the antiquity of the Mahanirvana Tantra, but it is no doubt a well loved scripture by many schools. One can assume that scriptures penned by Vaisnavas such as Padma Purana feature Lord Shiva stating Vishnus supremacy and vice versa.

The interesting thing here is Sadashiva. Sadashiva is accepted by many Vaisnavas at least, as being the same person as Maha-Vishnu, existing eternally. (*see ACBS conversations with BR Sridhara Maharaja). What I find fascinating is this Hari-Hara or combined Vishnu-Shiva form.

In Udupi the seat of the Madhava sampradaya, the eight Mutts were built around the very ancient temple of Ananteshvara. Ananteshvara is in lingam form and accepted as Shiva, yet his very name identifies Him as the Lord of Ananta. (This temple was actually the one in which Madhvacarya chose to 'disappear' under a mound of flower petals when he returned to Badarikashrama where he still is, according to the sampradaya).

Thus the combined Shiva-Vishnu form seems to exist from the days of yore, and its not surprising, yet there is very little explaination to be found.

There is also the incident of Ramachandra worshiping Mahadeva at Ramesvaram before proceding to Lanka. South India, particularly Kanchi was hope to violent and occasionally deadly disputes over the supremacy of Vishnu or Shiva.

An interesting link describing the significance of the Maha-Shiva Ratri:

www.hubcom.com/magee/tantra/mahashiv.htm

I'd like to give many thanks to Angrezi for starting this topic. The issue of Shiva-worship has been intriguing me for quite some time and it peaked last night on his 'great night.' I have to wonder about free-thinking Gaudiyas who are either on the fringes or who have left altogether; how would they view Shiva again when not conditioned by Gaudiya thought? (I am especially interested in the views of the Indians in this forum although I would welcome others' viewpoints too.)

A couple of nights ago I found a couple of great sites where I could download various stotras of various divinities in mp3. I wanted to 'celebrate' Sivaratri in some way since after all Shiva is supposed to be the greatest devotee. I eventually ended up downloading a lot including Shivastakam, Rudrastakam, Bilvastakam, Lingastakam, Shiva Manasa-puja, Maha-Mrityunjaya Mantram, Shiva Sahasranama stotra, some other minor ones and the best one of all (in my opinion): Sri Rudram! I have always been attracted to Veda-chanting so I especially appreciated Rudram (with nama and chamakam) since that is from the Vedas. I am listening to it right now actually.

So I wondered about the Gaudiya view of Shiva versus seeing Shiva as an independent divinity of sorts. Like you, Angrezi, I was a Shiva devotee for quite some time before I came to Vaishnavism and my family on my father's side is more on the Shiva side of things. I liked Shiva a lot and I enjoyed reading about Him and so on. When I came to Vaisnavism I was so caught up with the euphoria and idealism that I took it very seriously, especially the no-demigod-worship clause. While I am sure that I did not blatantly disrespect Shiva, I do recall making a very conscious effort to avoid any actions that could be taken of 'worship' of Him, such as listening to His bhajans, visiting His temples, etc. Last night I did not fast although I stayed up all night out of respect.

I now realise that this 'disrespect' was a very wrong thing to do because even in Gaudiya theology Shiva has a very special place, being The Greatest Devotee as well as having a more complicated metaphysical reality vis-a-vis the 'Sadashiva' aspect as well as the idea of Advaita Prabhu being a combined incarnation of Sadashiva and Maha-Vishnu. I suppose the danger comes when worshipping Shiva as an independent divnitiy, and this is clearly against Gaudiya principles.

I spent the whole of last night listening to all my mp3 stotras which I am still doing right now. A couple of days ago I found a book that I had bought back in 1993 - 'Sayings of Lord Shiva' by Harendra Kottyam - it is a compilation of all of Shiva's words from the Shaivite Puranas. I have also downloaded 'Vishnu' stotras (lots of them) too and I must say that on the whole I prefer the Vaisnava side of things even though I have a very deep respect for Shiva. It's the purity of the sound, maaaan.

I don't see the incompatibility of this approach.

Me too. Also, another interesting thing is that every stanza of the Lingastakam ends with: tat pranamaami sadashiva lingam. I would imagine that the meaning of 'Sadashiva' is clear to Shaivites, it also means something different to Gaudiyas in particular and I cannot envision a serious problem with a Gaudiya chanting the Lingastakam with that 'specialised' understanding.

Do you think the Hari-Hara concept has something to do with the Mohini-murti episode? Or is there another Puranic episiode that explains this story?

By the way, I noticed you new avatar with a Shiva picture. NICE!

Isn't the ZatarudrIya interpreted as proclaiming Ziva and ViSNu to be identical? Sorry, it has been a while and the text is vague in my memory.

Now that I look back at Indian religions in general, I am struck by how each group manages to use the same basic set of scriptures to focus attention and validation for their notion of the Supreme among Indian Gods, whether that be Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, Indra...how come I never hear about the Brahma woshippers...Ganesha, etc.

Who's right? Who knows? Does it really matter? Does God really say, "Oops, you picked the wrong one. You are a loser in the big lottery of planetary gods. Off to hell with you!"

If He does think like that--I don't want to worship Him.

Yes, very often the same quotes or texts are used by different sects to prove their superiority. After years of reading only Vaisnava scriptures, listening only to Vaisnava teachers I was struck to see that the other branches of Hinduism, worshippers of Laksmi, Siva, Ganesha, etc. also have their holy texts declaring their chosen Divinity to be "supreme". Not to speak of Christianity, that also offers "the only way." Alas, how many "only ways" are presented in this small world... Also, few devotees know that their "mahamantra" is in no way the only mahamantra. As I was informed, worshippers of Devi have their mahamantra, too, and I guess there are several other "mahamantras".

Because Brahma was cursed by Shiva never to be worshipped. So the story goes.. At this moment I forget the exact reason why but there is a Puranic story behind it. There is one temple in India that is dedicated to Brahma, it is located at Puskara-kshetra, wherever that is. There are many thousands of Ganesha-worshippers. Ganesha is a very popular deity in India - perhaps too popular - as he is supposed to answer prayers very quickly. My uncle is a Ganesh devotee.


The Vaisnava idea is that Vishnu/Krishna is the only real God and all others are His servants. To twin your point along with OpenMind's, it is certainly true that the scriptures (Puranas) that are dedicated to a particular deity proclaim that deity as the supreme. This is precisely why there is a gradation in the "quality" of the Puranas that corresponds to the three modes; sattvic, rajasic and tamasic. The sattvik Puranas proclaim the glory of Visnu/Krsna, the rajasic proclaim Devi in her various forms and the tamasic proclaim Shiva or so. So I think the logic behind it is to pay attention to the sattvic Puranas.

The ZatarudrIya is supposed to be equivalent to the ZrI Rudram. I cannot read pure Sanskrit so maybe it is in there somewhere.

Now that I'm looking at it, I heard the mp3 last night (again) and I spotted this line:

oM namo bhagavate rudrAya vishhNave mR^ityurme pAhi | (11th Anuvaka, Namam)

Any joy? Other places appear to club Vishnu (along with 24 others) along with Indra in the matter of partaking of the shares of a sacrifice. And so on.

Speaking of which, that book by Harendra Kottyam contains a quote from one of the Shaivite Puranas to this effect:

"Hari has Sattva outside but Tamas within. Shiva has Tamas outside but Sattva within."

I'm not sure about the connection with Mohini murti. In some historical accounts the predominance of Shiva among some schools, and Vishnu among others rose about the same time. Some speculate that there was competition between followers of these two Gods to establish one or the other as supreme. In fact we see the philosophical systems that arose around each deity differs in almost every way, which some say is due to this competition.

Along these lines there are theories that lingams and Shiva temples were appropriated by Vaisnava groups hence the 'merged' deity. I don't know if I believe that, but I guess it's a possibility.

In Brhat-bhagavatamrta Sanatana Goswami speaks of Mahesh Dhama as being above Devi Dham and below the Vishnulokas. I believe Bhagavatam proper describes Mahadev's abode in a similar way.

The interesting thing is that even Vaisnava Acaryas such as Sri Vallabha say that Shiva can give liberation, one should worship only Krsna/Narayana, and are very strict on this point. The moksha that grew around the Shaivites was that of merging into the nirguna 'Shiva', but it was not always that way apparently. There seems to be many different understandings of the identity, pastimes, and powers of Shiva, which is also why I find him so interesting.

He is described variously as guna avatar; Maha-Vishnu; personification of nirguna brahman; a Vaisnava; Lord of the Yoga system; a demigod enjoying on his own planet with a consort.

Another related side issue that others may comment, on is the replacement of Indra as the supreme devata of the earlier sections of the Rg Veda with Vishnu. I have read interpretations of how this came about but I am not familiar with the Rg Veda or how traditional Vaisnava schools understand this. Some scholars use this to show that the schools of Vaisnava and Shaiva thought evolved at roughly the same time, particulary in the Vedantic period. Some Shaivites however contend that Shiva was a pre-Vedic, non-Aryan deity, and the later Agamas were the blending of evoloving Vedic traditions with those of pre-Vedic ones.

I would like to read what Ramanujaacarya and Madhva have said about this if anyone could point me in the right direction

From Brhad-bhagavatamrta:

Gopakumar: I was much delighted to hear from Nandiswar that Sri Shivaji and Sri Krsna are identical...I could now realise that Sri Shivaji was non-distinct from Sri Madanagopal.

Nandi: Bhagavan Sri Shivaji ever remains in this visible form (viz-never becomes nirakar or sakara like Lord Vishnu of the mukti world), and ever stays in his world in the same form; his single minded devotees also eternally stay at that Shiva-loka in engaging themselves delightfully in service to him... (Shiva about whom is spoken here is not the Rudra but Sada-Shiva who is qualitative incarnated aspect of of Sri_krsna (guna-avatara) therefore as per svarupa-shakti characteristics ontologically identical with the suprem object).

"With sincerity and earnestness one can realize God through all religions. The Vaishnava will realize God, and so will the Saktas, the Vedantists, and the Brahmos. The Mussalmans and Christians will realize Him too. All will certainly realize God if they are earnest and sincere.
"Some people indulge in quarrels, saying, 'One cannot attain anything unless one worships our Krishna', or, 'Nothing can be gained without the worship of Kali, our Divine Mother', or, 'One cannot be saved without accepting the Christian religion.' This is pure dogmatism. The dogmatist says, 'My religion alone is true, and the religions of others are false.' This is a bad attitude. God can be reached by different paths.
"Further, some say that God has form and is not formless. Thus they start quarrelling. A Vaishnava quarrels with a Vedantist.
"One can rightly speak of God only after one has seen Him. He who has seen God knows really and truly that God has form and that He is formless as well. He has many other aspects that cannot be described."

(From Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, conversations of Sri Ramakrishna recorded by Sri M.)
March 11, 1883.

Of course you hear things like the above-quoted passage from Advaitans all the time. Those sort of quotes are what I thought Hinduism was about. I hadn't been really exposed to earnest debates on these matters within Hinduism before, considering it the only religion that doesn't get into this sort of thing for the longest time. But I equated Hinduism with Advaita and Advaitanesque thought, as many people tend to do! I suspect this is why some people find impersonalists more personalist than personalists!

Though I compulsively engage, I find these sort of debates over path superiority insidiously disheartening. But also troublesome is when the facade of non-sectarianism is taken at face value. When phrases like: No no, I do not believe your path is lower!, are indeed taken at face value by even the utterer, yet they are really rarely meant in our heart of heart's. It appears these idioms are apologetics or reasonable-sounding formulas en vogue with contemporary modern zeitgeists, that many, including myself, utter easy like water, but do we sincerely believe them in the full sense.

I think part of this insistence to see one's deity as factually the most Supreme, in an externally verifiable way, comes from avoiding dealing with the tangent of what seeing it as otherwise would imply. If a deity is Most Supreme, not in some factual objective logical sense, but within the emotional logic of our heart, then maybe meaning is a matter of what we choose it to be, as we bond ourselves to that meaning via all sorts of inspiring practise. Still this tangent is uncomfortable because it can imply that our goings-on are a sort of terryfing solipsism with no real solace but our imagination and its potency to bring things into being.

I'm currently flicking through the 'History of Shaivism' (I forget who by) and the author seems to have a novel way of treating various verses from the Sruti. Based on my initial readings, he appears to back up the idea that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are tutelary deities and there is an Overseeing deity who is probably Brahman. He bases his ideas on interesting interpretations of various shruti verses. It is impressive in that it might influence an ordinary joe to convert to Shaivism, but I suspect that Vaishnavas would take issue with those same verses, and so on.


I agree. From a personal point of view, I strongly believe that knowledge of God comes to us via the agency of saints and so on. So just as the Alvars are of paramount importance for Sri Vaisnavas, it appears that the Nayanmars have a similar position to the Alvars for Shaivites. According to this other book I'm flicking through ('Love of God in the Saiva Siddhanta'), some Nayanmar texts seem to advocate an "impersonal" idea of mukti, one feature of which involves the comple subsuming of one's identity in Shiva-consciousness in that one who achieves this may rightly declare "Shivo 'ham", I am Shiva.

These are just based on some preliminary readings though.

In his Shodasha Granth Sri Vallabhacarya says in different places that Vishnu, Shiva and Krsna are all the supreme Brahman. He apparently doesn't attempt to make an absolute distinction, only that Vishnu is approached for liberation generally, and Shiva for bhukti, and Krsna for loving devotion.

He is obviously concerned with the seva of Krsna, so that is his emphasis. But I found it to be an interesting statement none the less that seems to be in sync with the Upanishads and reconciles everything nicely. Oh the beauty of monism ! ...

The more I reflect on this the more I come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter the who the supreme personality of Brahman is, since that parabrahman can take any form he likes, and the devotee concieves him as he likes, as that piece by Ramakrsna describes. The Upanisads describe that He is not possible to know in full. But I guess it's fun to try...

Angrezi what is bhukti?



Haha yes it's fun to bicker about it sort of like bickering over what colour of the Rainbow is the Best most Supreme Colour, as a chance to perform your love for your favourite colour of the Rainbow!

To add, part of the reason why Brahman is referred to as Formless, is because Brahman can be any Form it wants! This doesn't mean Brahman is Formless proper, as some understand it, but you can even call it the Formfull. Brahman has personality (colour) but it is also white! And it is both of these things, without one being higher than the other. Though we can't conceive how something can be equally white and with colour, because it makes no logical sense! Though a lot of people like to say haha Brahman is just white how boring and impersonal! This is not Advaita Vedanta this is oversimplification of it.

This is why I get upset when people misinterpret Advaita by seeing the word Formless in texts, quoting it, and then making all of these assumptions like we are familiar with!

Sankara makes it pretty clear in Viveka-cudamani what is meant by 'formless'.

Interestingly, the Nayanmars describe that mukti takes the appearance of "formless" light.

Haha we are at completely opposite understandings Azra, and I am aware of that, but like I already pointed to many times in the 'bheda abheda' GD thread, during our long heated chats, you can quote Sankara quotes about the utter Formlessness of God "till the cows come home," like some other poster said once, but that doesn't insubstantiate what I am saying for various reasons i will not repeat here. Do you really think it all boils down to the cliche God has no Form, does it really suit you to see Advaita in that way, does it facilitate your rejection of it? Do you really think such an experiential-based tradition really stops the buck at unidimensional apparent understandings of selected sentences from their texts? Is it possible that there is more to a religious word besides its litteral face-value definition.

When it is stated God is Formless, this is a signpost to symbolize how god is both Formless and with Form. Think about it just from a sheer material perspective alone. It is impossible to speak of something as formless, without, in doing so, given it a form. This is basic. Sankara knows this. Maybe simplified popular versions of Advaita will not get into this, or maybe Advaita will not get into this with everyone unless the need arises.

That said, I am more than well-aware that there are volumes of quotes to pick out that speak of God as Formless proper. And why not? I mean why not speak about the Formless aspect of God too? If he is so Formfull, then surely he must contain the Form of Formlessness as well, no?

I am approaching this from a sheer logical perspective because I am aware that your bone to pick with Advaita is with what you call its "logical inconsistencies."Hence, I assume you enjoy to approach these things logically, using the barometer of Aristotelian Logic, like either/or style Math, to judge their value. This, despite your poetic blog entry about the evil prickly thorns of logic! So I am talking about it in this logical way, even though it is a really bad way to go about things and not the way one should really go about Advaita, but it is still a way and valid in some manner.

I guess we just disagree and I will respectfully leave it at that to not dredge up repetitions of the endless scroll of the past!

The drinking of spiritous liquors and dalliance with beautiful courtesians . In general terms it means material enjoyment.

Sanatana Goswami gives an intresting description in that section of BB I posted (PartII ch. 3-bhajan nama)

Gopa Kumar sees Mahadev in the distance but can't make out his form completely, then he feels himself being drawn into the surrounding peaceful spiritual effulgence and Mahadeva becoming less distinct, and then "by the mercy of the Lord" he again sees the form of Mahadev kind of integrating before him, almost like Mahadev is going in and out of focus as Gopa Kumar is partially merging and then becoming distinct back and forth. It's a pretty cool description. I felt like I merged for a moment while I was reading it.

Wow that is shocking because Siva has always been taught to me as the God of ascetics renunciates, Yoga meditation and reclusion, and those who choose him to be the people attracted to those types of things.

I have heard it described my many Acaryas in much the same way: because Shiva is engaged in austerities and meditation, He values moksha, and does not give it away easily, but enjoyment means nothing to Him so he grants that. So Lord Vishnu on the other hand values his activities with Laksmi and enjoyment in Vaikuntha. For Him moksha is insignificant and enjoyment is very precious (plus I guess He doesn't want enjoyment to get in the way of His bhakta's liberation ).

I would venture to say alot of it has to do with tradition. Mahadeva since very early on, was seen as the God of Yoga. And Vishnu as the Lord of eternal lila in Vaikuntha. I would guess that many who did not really want moksha in Vaikuntha turned to the worship of Shiva, but, it is no doubt that actually Devi His wife is the most often approached for material concerns, at least in the modern day. I would say Mahadev serves that function to a much lesser extent.

There are of course examples of Krsna deities who are famous for granting material boons for their devotees, Banke Bihari in Vrindavan, Sri Venkatesh Swami etc., so I think a lot of this distinction rests in regional and family tradition as well as the reputations of particular deities.

Eva, that was nothing. If you really want to know about Shiva, I humbly recommend that you read 'Siva: The Erotic Ascetic' by Wendy Doniger O' Flaherty. At the least, I'll presume that it'll open your eyes wide in amazement.

Angrezi, wow! I must admit that although I have part 1 of BB by Gopiparanadhana, I haven't actually read it - it's too long! Just for reference, here is the bit about the white light mukti:

The ocean from a distance appears blue just like krsna but if you take it in you hand it's white! But if you take it in your hand it dissapears on you so you look at it from a distance again and it's blue!

=====================================================

I am under this impression that some Krsna-lovers would consider Siva some sort of debauched deity for pot smokers or something so I like to put in comments about how he is considered the ultimate renunciate yogi.

Here are some thoughts on Siva since this is a thread about Siva, that I wrote to Azra before.

I have heard people here and there describe Krsna as more Supreme because of his All-Attractiveness, in comparison to the terrifying scary ugly aspects of Siva and Kali. Partial to this side of things, I have always found it odd this un-reliefed perception of such elements as out and out just plain all bad!

I mean why should we prefer beautiful things just because they are beautiful what about ugly things, aren't ugly things interesting in their own way and even more enchanting sometimes; at least by dint of the fact that they are deviant hence in a sense otherwordly because of that.

Why all this language of aspiring toward attractiveness and opulant elaborate descriptions of aesthetically pleasing scenarios and personages, albeit we are aware that this is meant to be taken as 'spiritual' attractiveness, but still...

Your beloved Jesus is first and foremost: A Leper-Messiah, to use a David Bowie term!

Personally, I don't think I've ever considered Siva as 'ugly' or so. When I read the scriptural accounts of how they insulted Siva at Daksa's sacrifice with these same insults about ugliness, uncleanliness and so on, I felt dismayed. I used to worship him a lot before and I liked his 'peaceful' form.



When he gets angry though, that sure makes things interesting!

The glory of Rudra's anger..

It probably has something to do with the gunas too.

Wendy Doniger is no stranger to Hindu eroticism ! She earned the scorn of many Hindus in the US with her tendency in research to eroticise many deities and their lilas, using an interpretaion based on psychoanalysis. Someone even threw eggs at her in the middle of a public lecture!

My BB is a tattered old GM edition by Yati Maharaj. I know Gopi and love him to death but fear his translation might be a little too much in the footsteps of ACBS, along the lines of entertwining Iskcon siddhanta with the translation. I admit though I looked at his book 1 only briefly on a book table, so that is speculation. (Also, it was way out of my price range at the time ).

Wow, is that so? At least with this particular book she provides all of the scriptural references, so I guess no one can argue with her unless they have an issue with their own scriptures I guess. Some of the topics she brings up include incest, adultery, beheadings, castration, quarrels, etc., so I guess I can also understand the objections.

I know what you mean about Gopi's BB. Instead of translating Sanatana Gosvami's own comentary, he has "summarised" them in his own language, so I guess that is not pleasing to many readers who might have fancied reading the commentary as well as the text.

hahaha nice use of emoticons based on the phrase, especially the drinking tea emoticon for sitting and reading haha that actually made me laugh. You know for a long time i had this thing against using emoticons, and would say 'if you use emoticons i am sorry that is not my cup of tea!!,' but this post illustrates that emoticons are funny and even glamorous:

I like the viking one, , but I am not sure exactly when it would be appropriate to use it.

Maybe if you wish to stress you hail from Scandinavia...?

I guess that is legitimate as I do hail from Scandinavia. So, here we go.

Eva, ever thought about starting up your own band?


This is what J. Gonda (1970) had to say about it (I will give a background):

"It may be true that in our oldest document, the Rgveda, ViSNu occupies but a subordinate position, his personality - to use this term in this connection - is at the same time not only mor eimportant there than would appear from the number of the occurrences of his name in this text, but is also in its striking features sufficiently clean-cut and, moreover, in remarkable harmony with the god's image as given by the later sources. Rudra also has from the very beginning a character and even a position of his own and some important features in the later Ziva can likewise be said to emerge from the Vedic texts with all clearness desirable.

"It is therefore interesting to compare the most important traits of character of both gods as far as they appear from the Vedic saMhitAs. It has long ago been observed that the only anthropomorphic traits of ViSNu are his often-mentioned three strides and his being a youth (RV I.55.6). The essential features of his character, to which he owes epithets such as 'swift' and 'wide-striding', make him known to us as the immense (RV 7.99.1-2) god of far-extending motion who - for man in distress, to make his existenc epossible - penetrates and traverses the spaces, whereas his highest step or abode is beyond mortal ken, in his dear and highest resort, the bright realm of heaven. While all beings dwell in these three strides or footsteps (RV 1.154.2), the highest is a place of a well of honey, where rejoice the gods and those men who turn to the gods. Of Rudra, the terrible, dreadful one, on the other hand, quite a number of physical features are recorded: arms, hand, limbs, lips, eyes, mouth, tongue, etc.; he wears braided hair (1, 114, 1;5), his colour is brown (e.g. 2.33.5), his belly black and his back red. Frequent mention is made of his weapons, and these are weapons of offence. On ViSNu's disk and club the oldest texts are, however, silent. Rudra is clothed in a skin and haunts and dwells in mountains, an abode also attributed to ViSNu. But while the passage VS 16.2-4 in which this feature is emphasized tries to induce Ziva to show his auspicious aspect and to prevent him from injuring men, and while forests, mountains and wilderness are the sphere of his destructive activities, ViSNu's association with the mountains, where he is said to have been born and of which he is the ruler, impresses us as beneficial to human interests: the defeat of VRta is, for instance, repeatedly said to have taken place in the mountains, which, however, seem to be an element of the scenery of the 'Urzeit'.

"ViSNu is benevolent, never inimical (RV 1.186.10), and a friend and ally of Indra whom he assists in slaying the great fiend and antagonist VRtra, the representative of chaos and in spreading out the spaces between heaven and earth (RV 6.69.5). Both gods are sometimes so intimately associated as to form a sort of dual deity, IndrAviSNU, and to participate in each other's qualities and activities. Rudra, on the other hand, has no special friend among the gods. Only once he appears associated with Soma (RV 6.74), not directly because of his formidable nature but because he is supposed to be able to avert illness, destruction and other manifestations of evil. And he enjoys this reputation owing to his dreadful power of sending and causing fever, evil and disaster, to his fierceness, malevolence and destructiveness. However, much the poets try to deprecate his wrath - impending also when there is no offence - they do not hesitate to mention his bad points: he is a cheat, deceiver and lord of robbers, and most statements of his power occur in appeals for mercy."

Thanks for posting this Azra, this is very interesting. It seems to confirm what many Shaivas say, that Shiva was a pre-existent deity. It is as if he doesn't really fit into the the 'clean cut' image of the Rg Vedic gods, at least by reading what Gonda says. It is as if the vedic authors were attempting to give a place to him, by by dress, activity, and percieved demeanor he was indeed a bit of an 'outcast'.

It is also interesting that the relationship between Vishnu and indra appears here to be quite cordial, yet we get a different impression from the Bhagavat.

More:




- From J. Gonda's 'Visnuism and Sivaism', 1970.

Gonda speaks about this also by relating an incident recorded in the ViSNu PurANa, of how Indra lost his dominion over the universe due to the receipt of Durvasa's curse. Thus the demons found it easy to overcome the gods in battle and this is why, on BrahmA's advice, the gods go to seek help from ViSNu and this is how the story of the churning of the ocean takes place. Gonda uses this as an example of the ViSNuization of literature, and says that a slightly different version of this story occurs in the Shaivite milieu which highlight's Shiva's post-churning role.

There are people who say that about all of the 'Vedic' gods not just Siva. Here is an excerpt about that:

The Vedic gods were the forces of nature, Indra was the Thundergod, also worshipped by Hittites (also Indo-european), Agni is Fire, the Ashvins were the star constellation we know as 7 sisters... etc. Vishnu was adi-purusha the first man, a giant all-father (as with his Nordic versions etc...) Even the term 'Atman' originally meant 'breath'. As in 'wind, as in the old Greek word 'atmos (-sphere!)'. Yama is probably the origin of Rama, in Persia they remember Yam as the first great king who made a path to heaven (the abode of the ancestors and gods on high mountains, from where they sent storms etc...), which other mortals were then able to follow. The Vedas also describe him thus, with his two companion dogs like any ancient warrior hero (in Persia dogs were sacred!). In fact there is a legend that Yam led his people south, perhaps to flee the Ice Age - 'the First Pathmaker'. Having found the path to Heaven and become immortal, he then became divine judge, then for Hindus (but not Persians) God of death. In Northern Pakistan, he is still worshipped by ancient tribes as 'Yimra' (Yamraj) the highest God. Actually an anthropomorphised ancestor king - transfromed In India into the later literary legend of Rama (when Yama was appointed God of underworld perhaps the heavenly position became vacant! :-)

Things get incredibly complicated when one takes into account all possible names, variations on those names, and different locales. There is actually nothing but speculation in these areas for everyone, scholars or 'sadhus' alike. There are 'archetypical' gods in almost every ancient culture i.e. wind god, rain god, sun god etc. But to try to name the location of the 'original archetype' is tricky and debateable business. Or as they say, what came first the chicken or the egg?

One can point out similarities in languages and legend, and in some instances hew out rough timeline, but it seems tough to say much with certainty. What to speak of the tendency amongst some acedemics to try to come up with new theories and angles to augment their careers. It is fun to consider such things.

As far as achelogical evidence goes, Harappa and Mohenja-daro yeilded what some say are seals with with image of Shiva, as well as some 'lingams' and 'goddess' statues. I'm not aware what kind of timeline those civilizations were thought to be on, or how that compares to other discoveries in the middle East but it is interesting.

I am curious where this excerpt comes from. So there are "ancient" tribes in Pakistan today that worship this god "Yimra"? I guess it's possible.

It comes from an anonymous friend, I can tell you in PM if it's ok.

I agree with what you're saying it is fun to consider these things but it gets complicated and I personally don't find the road of intercomparing totally useful.

It really never ends and I guess that is what makes it fun. Is there anything that does not stem from mixtures of other things, aren't even the most 'traditional' purist of systems kishoris of previous belief systems. If you really look at it you will see this, and I think there is a naive pride to claim otherwise.

I do not think this is true of academia, I find new angles do not augment careers, they usually leave one desillusioned with no one able to supervise your dissertation, this is why you end up with people writing thesises on the the same cluster of similar sort of topics in demand at the time. Like in literature it is now all about the dry demon of intertextuality, and socio-historical perspectives on text. It appears it is more about fitting your ideas into the demand of what others are able to supervise you about, based on what it is profitable to write on because of the zeitgest of the time. A degree of measured innovativeness is prized, but within that framework. That framework doesn't really encourage new angles as much as a market-driven academic system, with pre-determined clusters of topics and angles that you know to write about if you want to end up with a highly-regarded supervisor and professorship when it is over. I don't really see someone with alternative angles that trump the prevailing mood of the moment having much of a chance except by some stroke of fluke. Even more I don't think adversariality for the sake of saying something new gets any academic anywhere, let alone augment their career. These people with alternate thesises on things like Caitanya, are likely doing something brave and difficult, often despite peer-discouragement, when it is so much easier and cushier to take the other route.

While rAma means joy, yama means restrainer or regulator. I'm not so sure that the two persons have the same identity.

You've never heard of S&M? Joy and restraint are both present in S&M.

I don't know your field, or the prevailing mood in Canadian acedemia. Most in the feild of religion that I have known or read work of are drawn (whether by genuine intrest or otherwise), to not retrace the steps of previous scholarship. What would be the point?

Even at lower levels of study this is true, to have access to grants etc. one must be doing something unique and relevant. That is just the system here, and it makes sense. There are specialists who will focus on certain parts of certain field and will try to add something to the English language body of research. I wasn't implying that all were self motivated.

For example, the professor I work under has done most of her work in goddess traditions and 'possession' in the Punjab. There has been to date practically no western research on such matters, and if there had been, she would have likely not recieved the fellowships and grants that she did to do her field research. That is pretty much how things work.

Most universities here also expect a certain amount of relevant publications from their professors. I don't think that it is possible for professors to simply rehash stuff that has already been done and expect to be taken seriously for very long.

Like I said, I don't know your major field or how things may differ north of the border, but what you say doesn't apply here. America, for all the things I think are overrated and just plain suck about it, has a very good university system that attracts scholars from all over the world, due to facilities and funding, particularly in the science field.

An interesting person I read about last night for the first time is Arumuga Navalar, a mid 19th century reformer of the 'Shiva Siddhanta', one of the six schools of Shaivism. He was centered in Tamil Nadu and Cidambaram in western Sri Lanka. Navalar was a lower caste brahmacari who sought to reform and redefine existing Shaivism in the south, which was coming under increasing atack from Protestant preachers.

He advocated a return to Agamic regaualtions regarding mantra, temple construction, and other rites, as well as to reform aspects of popular Shaivism, that he thought had become degraded. He called for and end to all types of animal sacrifice, and for devotees to undergo the formal initiation into Shaiva mantras as outlined in the Agamas. They, along with the Arya Samaj in the north at about the same time, would initiate people of all castes with the sacred thread. He also established many schools for the purpose of providing such education. Although Navalars aim was not to 'preach' per se, but rather to restablish the validity of the Shiva Siddhanta school among those Tamil peoples traditionally connected the worship of Shiva.

haha how american!

A lot of the least demanding teachers at my school come from renowned universities in America. Despite media reputations we get from this American-focussed word, I think if you compare the American university system to the European, you will see next to Oxford and Sorbonne, even Yale doesn't look as mighty as it is touted up to be. Even far from it. Though what to say about insignificant Canada!

My field is religious studies and english literature. The school I went to is supposed to be good for religious studies, and people from all over the world travel here to go there too! I am not talking only about Canada, it is my impression that Canada is generally more cutting-edge academically and otherwise but I have no idea for sure I have only subjective impressions. I guess what you are saying is also true and you are bringing out the positive, seeing universities as centers for Innovative Original Thinking, though I think there is another side that quite a few are familiar with, and it doesn't have to do with the fact that I live in Canada...

**Edit:**
What I was talking about is not so much -what- you choose to write on, even though that plays a big part too, of course you will have more ears capable of working with you if you pick something in demand like African American Writers, as it fits neatly with the current popular zeitgeist of revisioning "minority" narratives like of blacks or women. But a lot has to do with -how- you write it. Try writing with a 'New Criticism' approach, which sees text as "art for art's sake," not as a product of historical forces, and see how much encouragment you will get. Try getting a degree in Sociology or Psychology today using a more strongly qualitative as opposed to quantitative approach... These approaches once so popular come in and out as a matter of fashion, and if you want to be relevant you generally choose the one in demand at the time.

My teacher would joke that when she was a student at Yale, because postmodern approaches were so popular, if you wanted to get anywhere you would have to have somewhere as an idea in your dissertation that the text is about paradox, it defers finality and resolution, and one must look at it through non-dichotomous thinking! I think this is still so popular today that is why those who spend much time in school are conditionned to say things like that often.

Mine too, only the other way 'round.

I'm sorry I replied about that acedemic stuff. I really would like to talk about Mahadeva instead...