1. The three major deities of the fully developed Hindu tradition are Viṣṇu, Śiva, and the Goddess. Drawing on whatever material from the course you wish to make use of, write an essay in which you choose any two of these figures and then speculate on how a worldview centered on one deity would differ from a worldview centered on the other deity. For example, how might the worldview of someone deeply absorbed in Śiva’s character and mythology differ from the worldview of someone deeply absorbed in Viṣṇu’s character and mythology? How would each person look at life, death, the nature of the cosmos, the nature of good and evil, and other such concerns (these are only general examples of the topics you might consider)? Again, you must choose two of these three figures (Viṣṇu, Śiva, Goddess) and contrast these two worldviews with each other. Make sure you draw on the evidence, and be specific. Please note that this question is speculative by nature: Creative speculation is fine, as long as your speculation is backed up by solid evidence.
2. Kṛṣṇa, the playful young cowherd, and Kālī, the ferocious and bloodthirsty goddess, represent two very different images of divinity. Write an essay in which you do the following two things: (a) Contrast the characters of Kṛṣṇa and Kālī and explain how they are opposed to each other. (b) Offer an interpretation of Kṛṣṇa and Kālī that brings the two together—in other words, are there any aspects of the Hindu image of divinity that both figures might embody? Make sure you draw on the evidence, and be specific.
3. Kṛṣṇa, the playful young cowherd, is technically considered to be an incarnation or avatara of the god Viṣṇu. Śiva, who is the other major male deity of the Hindu pantheon, does not incarnate himself in different forms in the same way as Viṣṇu does. But let’s just suppose that he did. If Śiva were a god who incarnated himself in the world in human or animal form, would it make more sense for Kṛṣṇa to be an incarnation of Śiva? Or would it make more sense for Kṛṣṇa to be an incarnation of Viṣṇu? Write an essay that argues one or the other point of view. Your essay should focus, first and foremost, upon making this argument (i.e., that Kṛṣṇa fits more closely with Viṣṇu’s character or that Kṛṣṇa fits more closely with Śiva’s character)—but in the course of making this argument, you will also have to consider Viṣṇu’s basic character, Śiva’s basic character, and Kṛṣṇa’s basic character. Make sure, in other words, that your argument is enriched by ample evidence taken from your sources, and be specific.

I was recently forwarded these excellent well formulated questions that should make even a ‘devout’ practicing Hindu think about the pantheon in ways that most don’t (at least not consciously).

Please feel free to share your take on these contrasts…unless apprehensive of getting into (well-deserved?) trouble, like the Greek hero Paris or a modern-day Nārada, for setting one divinity above another!

Sunthar

---

1. Śiva versus Viṣṇu : Within the Hindu ‘trinity’, Viṣṇu is the preserver of the socio-religious order and, as such, is characterized by royal traits and identified with the beneficent aspect of the king as protector and nurturer of the realm and of the earth as a whole. His devotees and the various sects they form tend to be engaged positively in society and gravitate more towards the upper-castes. Concerns with ritual purity are stronger and are more householder oriented. Śiva, by contrast, tends to be portrayed as a solitary ascetic, steeped in meditation (as Dakṣiṇeśvara), residing in forest or mountain. His asceticism may assume antisocial and even savage forms, especially as the ‘terrifying’ Bhairava accompanied by a black dog, wearing snakes for his sacred thread, bracelets, laughing loudly, dancing and behaving in eccentric ways. Their opposition parallels that of Apollo and Dionysus in ancient Greek religion. Though both gods are objects of devotion (bhakti) at temples and homes, they have links respectively to the conservative (nourishing) and destructive aspects of the Vedic sacrifice (represented by the third member of the trinity, the creator god Brahmā, who typically never receives the same kind of worship).

2. Kṛṣṇa versus Kālī : As an incarnation (avatāra) of Viṣṇu, the seemingly human warrior Kṛṣṇa not only inherits all the characteristics described above but even reveals himself as a beneficent protector of the good life, as when he declares in the Bhagavad Gītā (BG) that he assumes human form in every age whenever ‘righteousness’ (dharma) is in decay. Kālī, by contrast, is portrayed as a hideously bloodthirsty goddess, who pushes the destructive aspect of (Śiva-) Bhairava even further. She is especially worshipped by (radical) practitioners of tantra, who worship in ways that followers of Viṣṇu might consider unlawful, degenerate, or even demonic (like Śiva, she is typically accompanied by fiendish creatures). However, Kṛṣṇa means “black” (kāla) which is the color of Kālī (and also the meaning of her name but in the feminine). Kṛṣṇa too has a hidden ‘dark side’ and the ‘universal form’ (viśva-rūpa) of Viṣṇu that he reveals in BG is likewise all-devouring and terrifies his protégé Arjuna. Their identity in the epic is perhaps best expressed through the figure of the heroine Draupadī, who is actually worshipped as the bloodthirsty Kālī in Nepal and whose other name is Kṛṣṇā (feminine of Kṛṣṇa). When Bhīma finally disembowels Duḥśāsana, for example, he braids Draupadī’s hair with the blood from the intestines. The wholesale slaughter of the Mahābhārata war is also intended to slake her desire for vengeance. Finally and despite Kṛṣṇa’s heroic attributes and philandering ways, the ‘long-haired’ (keśava) lover has an effeminate side to his nature (which is ultimately androgynous, as is the case also of Śiva and Brahmā).

3. Kṛṣṇa as Śiva : For the reasons stated above, it makes more sense for Kṛṣṇa, in his more outward and familiar aspect, to be an avatāra of Viṣṇu. However, he has hidden destructive attributes that are manifested only in certain contexts. For example, when the survivors are gathering the mangled bodies from the universal carnage on the battlefield, they hear a horrible loud laughter (aṭṭahāsa, which is an attribute of Rudra-Śiva), which they realize is that of the trickster Kṛṣṇa. When the ‘white’ Arjuna-and-Kṛṣṇa are conceived of as a single entity standing on the same chariot, they are called “the two Kṛṣṇas.” And when the invincible Arjuna leads his (Pāṇḍava) forces in battle, the epic describes the scene as if the fiery Rudra (-Śiva) is preceding him wreaking destruction among the enemy. However, better candidates than Kṛṣṇa for being incarnations of Śiva would be Viṣṇu’s Man-Lion (Narasimha) and Boar (Varāha) avatāras. Despite being a Vaiṣṇava deity, Narasimha disembowels the demon-king Hiraṇyakaśipu.

4. Goddess as Vaiṣṇava : In the overwhelmingly patriarchal Hindu society, the beneficent (saumya) role of woman as nurturing mother and mainstay of the (extended) family, is always as spouse bound in wedlock to her husband. This mild and conformist aspect is best represented by the goddess of wealth Lakṣmī, who is portrayed sitting at Viṣṇu’s feet, massaging them, as he reclines on the primordial ocean of milk. This submissive role is inherited by the consorts of the avatāras and is exemplified most of all by the revered and long emulated Sītā, who follows Rama into exile and obeys him almost unquestioningly, even when his commands and behavior seems unjust (jumping into the fire to prove her chastity). The (absolute) dominion of the king over his territory is also represented by his domination of the earth-goddess (bhū-devī). This Vaiṣṇava conception of and attitude towards woman as loyal, nurturing spouse is the mold into which the other married goddesses, (Śiva’s wife Pārvatī and Brahma’s consort Sarasvatī, also fit: hence the celebration of the auspicious wedding or (Sītā-) kalyāṇam in the temple with great fanfare. Marriage is the socio-religious institution through which woman’s otherwise dangerous sexuality is domesticated.

5. Goddess versus Śiva : However, the Goddess may be also conceived as solitary, independent, and savage, which would correspond more to the status of woman in tribal societies or even among the lowest castes. This aboriginal goddess has been adopted and exalted by Hindu society (for example, the famous Vindhyā-Vāsinī) through fierce forms such as the bloodthirsty Kālī and warrior Durgā. Even when the latter are married to (various forms of) Śiva (such as Bhairava) they may overshadow their husband, who is often reduced to the role of protector or chaperon. Whereas the Lakṣmī is never depicted in opposition to Viṣṇu, Pārvatī is often depicted quarrelling with Śiva, abandoning him in anger, competing with him (at dice, dance, etc.), and even challenging his (metaphysical claims to) power. The Goddess in her pristine form is not only the object of devotion but is also worshipped by radical practitioners of tantra with meat, alcohol, even illegitimate sexual practices that almost inconceivable within a Vaiṣṇava context. Whereas Śaivas also celebrate her unorthodox marriage to the ascetic forest- and mountain-dwelling Śiva, her Śākta followers (sometimes wear feminine attire to) worship her as (their inner) Supreme Principle.

6. Coherence of Hindu pantheon : Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva aspects of the Goddess are two poles of a continuum that reveal the complexity of Hindu attitude to the feminine. The chaste, vegetarian, benign Vaiṣṇo-Devi in Jammu (Kashmir) is worshipped as such by the vast majority of her devotees. However, her founding myth (which underlies and justifies the pilgrimage circuit there) reveals her to be the bloodthirsty Goddess, who suddenly decapitates her (implicit consort) Bhairava for attempting to worship her in the Śākta manner. Again, all this becomes intelligible in the light of the (technicalities of) Vedic sacrifice. The Hindu trinity (Trimūrti) form a triangle, where each apex (god) still encompasses the whole (i.e., is supreme), which is why their functions overlap despite each having its own center of gravity. This can be fully understood only be recognizing how their whole concept is derived from the Vedic sacrifice (an institutionalized practice independent of the gods and prior to bhakti). But things would get too technical here.

 

---

The following is from :

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-June/024719.html

Namaste.

Here is a verse of Sri Appayya Dikshitar truly instructive, informative and inspiring:

// Viṣṇur vā śaṅkaro vā śruti-śikhara-girām astu tātparya-bhūmiḥ
na-asmākam tatra vādaḥ prasarati kim api spaṣṭam-advaita-bhājām |
kintu Īśa-dveṣa-gāḍhānala-kalita-hṛidām durmatīnām duruktIḥ
bhaṅktum yatno mama-ayam nahi bhavatu tato Viṣṇu-vidveṣa-śaṅkām ||

The meaning of the above beautiful verse is:

'I have not the slightest objection, to anyone coming to any

conclusion, that the spirit of the Vedas and the Vedantas, declare

either Viṣṇu or Śiva as the First God. I am a follower of the

Advaita doctrine. I have no difference between Śiva and Viṣṇu.

But if in order to establish Viṣṇu as the main God, if somebody

starts abusing Śiva or hates him, I cannot bear it. There are as

many proofs or pramanas in the Vedas, Vedantas, Puranas and Agamas

to establish that Śiva is a mighty God, as there are to prove that

Viṣṇu is a powerful one. However, I am propagating my religion and

indulging in debate and disputation, only to persuade everyone not

to hate Śiva. Let no one have the slightest doubt that I either

hate or wish to denigrate Lord Viṣṇu simply because I praise the grace and greatness of Lord Śiva.'

The sublime devotion of Dikshita to Lord Viṣṇu is fully seen from his great work 'Varadarāja stava' where he has sung in ecstatic poetry about Lord Varadarāja of Kanchipuram. Vaishnavas declare that Viṣṇu is the supreme being and that Śiva has a lower status, being a mere jiva. Sri Dikshita however proves in his 'Ratna-traya-parIkShA' that Śiva, Viṣṇu, Ambika, all the three are the same, viz., the supreme reality, and proves it with the pramanas taken from the puranas, vedas and agamas. //

The above is quoted from the book: 'Sri Appayya Dikshita' (pp.66, 67)

by Dr.N.Ramesan, IAS.

Sri Dikshita has gone to the extent of establishing that the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata have Lord Śiva for their main theme. He takes out several instances from these very works and shows how Lord Śiva was held as the Supreme by Lord Rāma and Lord Kṛṣṇa.

Pranams

subbu

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Response to Sunthar's post (25 May 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7319]

---

Dear Nagaraj,

Thanks for sharing Appayya Dikshitar’s laudable attempt to reconcile (the followers of) Śiva and Viṣṇu.

However, his very first sentence admits that their respective sectarians place their own over the other. If he himself sees “no difference” between them, it’s only because he is “a follower of the Advaita doctrine,” who has transcended all difference as illusory (as we know, for the māyā-vādin Śaṅkara even the possibly unique ‘God’ is suspect, as opposed to the non-dual Brahman). For the Vedas, moreover, the gods are wholly secondary to the sacrificial machinery, with Brahmā never being adored in temples even by the brahmins (with Pushkar being the ‘exception’ that proves the rule).

If Śiva and Viṣṇu are but alternative names for the God of devotion (bhakti), why not simply combine them (as Hari-Hara) into One? Or, otherwise, multiply them ad infinitum (no need even for avatāras)?

So your attempt at a differential analysis and rationale for the major figures of the pantheon would be most welcome. However, I’d request that you respond in separate posts to each of the three questions in order.

Regards,

Sunthar

[Response to Nagaraj’s post (25 May 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7320]

Yes, this seems to be a course-exercise. It even mentions "Drawing on whatever material from the course you wish to make use of"

Apart from being a religious studies / Hinduism course, the course seems to teach methods of good academic presentation such as good argument, citing and substantiating with the help of sources etc.

The choice of the three deities by the instructor here, Viṣṇu, Śiva, and the Goddess, has precedences. One of those is the use of the phrase 'Ratna-traya' exactly in reference to the same triad of three deities by Appayya Dikshita.

Similarities between Viṣṇu/Kṛṣṇa and Kālī / the Devī / the Amma avar/ the Goddess is a well recognized, widely discussed, intensely popular idea within popular and scholarly Hinduism alike. The instructor here seems to be aware of this similarity being a well established idea. The instructor appears to be leading the students through their own efforts to that idea.

Similarly he appears to be training the students in grasping the rationale behind Kṛṣṇa being considered to be an avatār of Viṣṇu and not that of Śiva. A good exercise to help non-Hindus understand the insider's/tradition-bearer's perspective of Hinduism.

If you consider that it will be helpful to the followers of this thread, I am prepared to provide a solution or answer to this course-exercise.

Regards,

Nagaraj

If you read the questions carefully, they are less about which deity is superior but how (hence why) each differs from the others….intriguing exercise even for non-Hindus to understand their idolatrous relatives!

Sunthar

---

([...] This is for the Viṣṇu-Devī comparison thread.)

1. Viṣṇu has Asura-samhāra (demon-killer) feature.Devī has the same feature.

2. Viṣṇu is dark in complexion. Devī has the same complexion.

3. The word avatāra is used in reference to Viṣṇu. The same word is used in reference to Devī.

4. Viṣṇu is called Mohana (fascinatingly / deludingly beautiful) / Jaganmohana (World-deluder or deluder of all). Devī is called Jagan-mohini (World-deluder or deluder of all) / Trijaganmohini (deluder of the three worlds: the human, the divine and the demonical).

5. Viṣṇu has Varāha (wild-boar)- form. Devī too has Vārāhi (wild-boar) form.

6. Viṣṇu and Devī are called Sahodara-Sahodari (brother and sister, literally persons sharing the same source of birth)

7. Gada, Dhanus, Khadga, etc. are common weapons ofViṣṇu and Devī.

8. Viṣṇu and Devī both have Chatur-bhuja four-handed forms.

Regards,

Nagaraj

[Response to Sunthar’s post (25 May 2014) at

“RE: How make sense of the Hindu pantheon without incurring their divine wrath?”]

Simply listing these similarities between Viṣṇu and Devī, already known to many Hindus, in a single email does provide a convenient basis for delving into their respective meanings and raison d’être as distinct deities. However, it might have been more illuminating for our readers to have simply stated the underlying rationale (still unclear…), which was the main point of the student exercise, before demonstrating it through such similarities/contrasts. There is also the (logical) fallacy of too wide/narrow in many of the binaries below: destruction (samhāra) of demons (asura) is also true of Śiva (and even of the ‘demoniac’ Bhairava…); (not just Kāla-) Bhairava is also mostly Black; Śiva in his mendicant form (bhikṣāṭana-mūrti) likewise bewitched the wives of the sages; four-handed forms are common to many deities, including the famous Śiva-Naṭarāja; etc.

Again, I feel it would be more productive to respond to the three questions in the order they were listed, i.e., starting with the Viṣnu / Śiva contrast.

Regards,

Sunthar

>

---

I have already responded regarding the “provocative” manner of introducing “Hari-Hara” at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7323

Your “structural” juxtaposition of the two hybrid figures would confirm the (bewitching) “feminine” (mohinī) aspect of Viṣṇu. However, (the genetric) Devī is likewise the female Power (śakti) of the masculine Śiva.

So what was the point of not only splitting (Hari-Hara) into two separate deities, with their distinct Vaisṇava and Śaiva pantheons, but also quarrelling, sometimes acrimoniously, over precedence?

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread Sunthar’s response (29 May 2014) at

“How make sense of the Hindu pantheon? Viṣṇu and Devī [Nagaraj Paturi]”]

---

If Śiva and Viṣṇu are but alternative names for the God of devotion (bhakti), why not simply combine them (as Hari-Hara) into One? Or, otherwise, multiply them ad infinitum (no need even for avatāras. So your attempt to provide a differential analysis and rationale for the major figures of the pantheon would be welcome. However, I’d request that you respond in separate posts to each of three questions in order.

Sunthar V., May 26, 2014

Dear Sunthar,

1. Is it a co-incidence that you brought the name of 'Harihara' or you already knew this deity called 'Harihara'? If you knew, you would not have asked, " why not simply combine them as Hari-Hara) into One?" If you did not, how could you use the exactly correct word, 'Harihara'? In any case, let me share for the benefit of those who do not know, that there in fact is a deity called 'Harihara. The image of the deity is in the form of a standing male anthropomorphic figure divided into two vertical halves, one in the form of Śiva, the other in the form of Viṣṇu.

Those interested might want to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara

2. Compare this concept of Harihara to that of Ardhanarishvara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardhanarishvara). In these two figures one vertical half of Śiva is in common. Onlythe vertical half of Parvati in Ardhnarishvara is being replaced by that of Viṣṇu in Harihara or vice-versa.

This similarity is another link/clue forthe similarity between Viṣṇu and Parvati/Kālī/Devī

Rest in a new thread.

Regards,

Nagaraj

[Response to Sunthar’s post (25 May 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7322]

---

1. The issue has its narrative/ deity-form level and the tattva (concept) (behind the narrative/deity form) level.

2. The student-exercise seems to be narrative / deity level information with the students.

3. My listing was to provide justification at that level only.

4. Rationale at tattva level and a discussion on the historical, archeological, anthropological aspects involved was avoided keeping the limitations of the student exercise in mind.

5. Since this forum has no such limitations I shall proceed to the reserved aspects in my next message.

Regards,

Nagaraj

[Response to Sunthar's post (29 May 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7326]

---

Cārudatta : Comrade, I have made my offering to the divinities of the house. Do you too go and offer sacrifice to the Divine Mothers at a place where four roads meet.

Maitreya : No!

Cārudatta : Why not?

Maitreya : Because the gods are not gracious to you even when thus honored. So what is the use of worshiping?

Śūdraka, “The Little Clay Cart” (Act 1, line 15ff), Arthur Ryder translation

Brahmā and Viṣṇu were disputing with each other for the status of supreme God and appealed to the testimony of the four Vedas, which unanimously proclaimed Rudra-Śiva as the Ultimate Truth of the Universe. But the disputants were unable to accept that Rudra, endowed with so many revolting symbols of impurity and degradation, could be identical with the Absolute Reality of Brahmān. Brahmā laughed scornfully: "How could the Brahmān, free of all attachment, lustily sport with his wife in the company of his troop of deformed churn-goblins (pramatha)?" However, Rudra's supremacy was finally reconfirmed by the esoteric sound-syllable, Omkāra, quintessence of the Veda and most condensed symbol of Brahmān, who pointed out that Śiva's wife is not adventitious to her husband but on the contrary embodies his own blissful essence. Just then an immense pillar of flame manifested itself in their midst, within which was recognized the towering figure of the three-eyed Rudra bearing his trident, serpents and crescent moon. But the fifth head of Brahmā taunted him: "I know who you are, Rudra, whom I created from my forehead. Take refuge with me and I will protect you, my son!"

Overflowing with anger, Śiva created a blazing Bhairava in human form, addressing this Kālabhairava as "Lord of Time-Death" (kâla) for he shone like the god of Death: "You are called Bhairava because you are of terrifying features and are capable of supporting the universe. You are called Kāla-Bhairava, for even Time-Death is terrified of you." He ordered him to chastise Brahmā, promising him in return eternal suzerainty over his city of Kāśī (Vārāṇasī), the cremation-ground of the Hindu universe, where final emancipation is assured. In a trice, Bhairava ripped off Brahmā's guilty head with the nail of his left thumb. Seeing this, the terrified Viṣṇu eulogized Śiva and devotedly recited his sacred hymns, followed in this by the repentant Brahmā. Thereby they gained his protection by realizing and acknowledging the supreme reality of Śiva. The severed head immediately stuck to Bhairava's hand, where it remained in the form of the skull, destined to serve as his insatiable begging-bowl. Enjoining him to honor Viṣṇu and Brahmā, Śiva then directed Bhairava to roam the world in this beggarly condition to atone for the sin of Brahmānicide. "Show to the world the rite of expiation for removing the sin of Brahmānicide. Beg for alms by resorting to the penitential rite of the skull (kapālavrata)." Creating a maiden renowned as ‘Brahmānicide’ (Brahmā-hatyā), Śiva instructed her to relentlessly follow Bhairava everywhere until he reached the holy city of Kāśī to which she would have no access.

Elizabeth Chalier-Visuvalingam, “Brahmā and Bhairava: The Problem of the Mahābrāhmaṇa” (1989) [Origin Myth]

Rabbi Hiya the son of Rabbi Ada said that Terach [Abraham’s father] was an idol worshipper. One day Terach had to leave the store [in which he sold idols]. He left Abraham to manage the store in his absence. A man came and wanted to buy an idol. Abraham asked him ‘How old are you?’ And he responded ‘Fifty or sixty years old’ Abraham then said, ‘Pitiful is the man who is sixty and worships idols that are only a day old.’ So the man left in embarrassment. Once, came a woman with an offering of fine flour. She said to him [Abraham] ‘here, take it and bring it before [the idols].’ Abraham stood up, took a stick, broke all the idols, and put the stick back in the hands of the biggest idol among them. When his father returned he asked ‘Who did this to them?’ Abraham answered, ‘I will not deny you the truth. A woman came with an offering of fine flour and asked me to bring it before them. So I brought it before them, and each said, ‘I shall eat first.’ Then the biggest one stood among them, he took a stick in his hand and broke them all.’ So Terach said to him, ‘Why do you mock me? Do these [idols] know anything [to speak and move]?’ And Abraham replied, ‘Won’t your ears hear what your mouth speaks?’

Midrash Rabbah, Noah, Portion 38, section 13 (translated by DShai Lavi); cited as Appendix in

Bruno Latour, “What is Iconoclash? Or is there a world beyond the image wars?

Friends,

We have enormous difficulties understanding our own pantheon, maybe because we are no longer able to regard its all-too-familiar deities with the (iconoclastic) eye of a skeptical foreigner (or great brahmin).

So, I’d recommend that those keen to pursue the ongoing dialogue, first read our earlier deconstruction of “Trinity in Christianity and Hinduism: Sacrifice, Love (Bhakti) and Acculturation”

http://www.svabhinava.org/hinduchrist/Dialogue/TrinityAcculturation/

Before returning to the (original formulation of the) student assignment that we are trying to complete:

http://www.svabhinava.org/HinduCivilization/Dialogues/HinduPantheon-frame.php

Thanks.

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread T. Ganeshan’s post (30 May 2014) at

“Re: How make sense of the Hindu pantheon? Hari-Hara”]

Dear Ashokji,

With regard to your skepticism about authentic Hindu-Christian dialogue, you might find the following (ongoing...) conversation of interest:

"Trinity in Christianity and Hinduism: Sacrifice, Love (Bhakti) and Acculturation"

http://www.svabhinava.org/hinduchrist/Dialogue/TrinityAcculturation/

The participants are Hindu, Greek Orthodox,Protestant, Catholic, (a self-styled) 'nihilist' and a rather 'shadowy' character...;-)

I'll get back to your very thoughtful and constructive comments below when I'm able to find the time to do them due justice.

with best wishes,

Sunthar

[rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (3rd June 2004) at

Dialogue (samv āda) in Hindu, Muslim and American traditions - Funding behind Colloquium on Indic Traditions ]

---

Dear friends,

In fact Viṣṇu is the female/feminine power of Siva.

Siva is always the male/ masculine Supreme.

There are ample evidences and references in the Purana-s for this ancient view. Appaya-dikshita in his small work Ratna-traya-parīkṣā brings out this concept and explains it on the basis of Purāṇa passages from Kūrma, Vāyu purāṇa-s, to cite a few.

The same view is well echoed in the 7th century Tamil Śaiva devotional corpus, the Tevāram, by the great Śaiva devotee Appar (= TIRUNAVUKKARACAR) in his decade sung at the holy Saiva place TIRUVAIYARU, on the northern bank of river Kaveri. I give the line below in Tamil:

அரியலாற் றேவி யில்லை
ஐயனை யாற னார்க்கே. TEVARAM, 4: 406

ariyalaaR REvi yillai

aiyan aiyARanaaRkkE

The translation being,

"There is no other Devī (Goddess) for Siva (who resides at [TIRUVAI]YARU]) than Hari (=Viṣṇu)."

Ganesan

[Response to Sunthar’s post (29 May 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7327]

---

Hello Ganesan,

Yes, when Śiva and Viṣṇu (Mohinī) are conjoined or contrasted from a gender perspective, the latter typically assumes the feminine dimension. However, this simply displaces the question.

Why then does Viṣṇu remain primarily a masculine divinity, with all his incarnations (avatāra) being not only male but also royally virile and even aggressively macho? Why does he have his own feminine consort Lakṣmī, who incarnates alongside as Sītā, Rādhā, etc.? What’s the point of representing the feminine within the pantheon as both Viṣṇu and Devī? To complicate matters, each of the trinity has his own consort.

When one has to decipher a complex pattern of mutually overlapping attributes, the sane approach is to simplify, i.e., by reducing the variables. Since Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva have each not only their own consort but may reveal an intrinsic female aspect, becoming effectively androgynous (which is why we had the extended discussion of Brahmāṇī…), it would be best to start by simply bracketing aside the feminine dimension.

Let’s focus on satisfactorily distinguishing Viṣṇu and Śiva, then proceed to Kṛṣṇa, before returning finally to the Goddess (otherwise, we’ll be all over the place and people will simply lose interest…).

Regards,

Sunthar

[Response to Ganesan’s post (30 May 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7332]

---

Before I proceed to provide the rationale for Viṣṇu-Devī identity etc., in my next message, let me clarify as follows:

1. Devī is the Shakti (power) possessed by Śiva and not the feminine version of Śiva. Whereas Devī is thefeminine version of Viṣṇu.

2. Since the very basis of the 'Hindu-trinity' (Trimūrti) concept is functional, Brahmā being for Srishti (creation), Viṣṇu for sthiti (sustenance) and Śiva for laya (devolution/destruction) , Śiva being favourite of the destructive Asuras, Śiva being as gullible as getting played into the hands of destructiveAsuras, etc. are all part of Śiva's function just as Viṣṇu's Asura samhara is part of his function of sustenance which is secured through the destruction of the destructive.

3. Śiva's anger-born 'son' (form) Virabhadra has killer-weapon-holding four hands. He resorts to Killing of one of the Prajapatis (creators) and troubles the Devas/Suras during Dakshayajna vidhvamsa (destruction of the sacrificial ritual by Daksha one of the Prajapatis).

4. Bhairava's dark color has got to do with the killing function. Śiva needsforms such as Virabhadra and Bhairava for hisoccasional killer roles which are treated as distinct from Śiva.For instance,Kalabhairava the place-protector of Varanasiis different from Vishvanatha, the lord of Varanasi.

In any case, Devī is the Shakti (power) possessed by Śivaand not the feminine version of Śiva. WhereasDevī is the feminine version of Viṣṇu is crucial for the present discussion.

Regards,

Nagaraj

[Rest of this thread at Nagaraj's post (30 May 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7335]

---

1. At the Tattva level, thisis viewed in terms ofPrakṛti-Purusha system (That neither of the concepts Prakṛti or Purusha have gender).Viṣṇu is taken as the concept ofPurusha (not purusha as male)and Lakṣmī as Prakṛti. In the case of Śiva-Devī , Devī is taken as the concept of Purusha (not purusha as male) and Śiva as Prakṛti.

2. Does it then mean Lakṣmī and Śiva are the same? Yes, at least the word Śiva and names such as Sri of Lakṣmī have the same meaning 'auspicious'.

3. In Yantras such as Sriyantra, in each pair of triangles, one is Śiva triangle, the other the Shakti triangle. Even this is interpreted in terms of mutually complementary intricately interwoven entities such as Prakṛti and Purusha, Shabda and Artha. The Shakti triangle can be viewed as Viṣṇu triangle. The Śiva triangle as Lakṣmī triangle. Shabda and Artha are viewed as Brahmā and Saraswati.

To be continued.

Nagaraj

[Rest of this thread at Nagaraj's post (01 June 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7337]

---

4. When it is said that Devī/Viṣṇu is (the power) possessed by Śiva, in terms of the Prakṛti-Purusha interpretation , it can be said that Purusha is possessed by Prakṛti.

5. In the Lakṣmī- Viṣṇu pair , Viṣṇu is described as 'having' Lakṣmī . Interms of Prakṛti-Purusha interpretation, it can beread as Purusha (not Purusha as male) is 'having' ('possessing'/'containing') Prakṛti.

6. It is the mutually complementary intricately interwoven nature of Prakṛti and Purusha that makes the simultaneous validity of 'Prakṛti possesses Purusha' and 'Purusha possesses Prakṛti' possible.Thearrangement of the pairs of triangles in Sri yantra isseen as representing this mutually complementary intricately interwoven nature of Prakṛti and Purusha. Asa representation ofof Brahmā and Saraswathi,Sriyantra is interpreted as representing mutually complementary intricately interwoven nature of S'abda and Artha (Sound/word/speech/signifier) andArtha (meaning/signified).

To be continued.

Nagaraj

[Rest of this thread at Nagaraj's post (01 June 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7338]

---

7. Brahmā is the creator, Sarasvati is the creativity. Creativity in the form of artistic skills (poetic, musical, graphic, sculptural etc.) are part of the general creativity. 'Savitri' is the synonym of Sarasvati. 'Savitri' is the word for fertility, the ability to give birth ingeneral.

Creator's consort is creativity. Creator 'has'/'possesses' creativity.

8. The distinction between destruction/nullification and devolution is very important for the cyclic system of Trimurti functions. Śiva's function is devolution and not destruction to naught. This is where he needs to 'have the power of the sustainer Viṣṇu/Devī.

To be continued.

Nagaraj

[Rest of this thread at Nagaraj's post (01 June 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7339]

9. It is again the cyclic nature of the Trimurti system which is the basis of Brahma's birth from the navel of the sustainer Viṣṇu.

10. Kali is the feminine version of Kala, one of the main forms of Śiva . Kala = time is the synonym for death, destruction. Kali, the destroyer (devolver)of the manifest world (into its unmanifest/seed form) is different from Devi/Viṣṇu the destroyer of the destructive. Kali is a version of Śiva  whereas Devi/Viṣṇu is the power possessed by Śiva .

To be continued.

Nagaraj

[Rest of this thread at Nagaraj's post (03 June 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7340]

11. Among various cyclic patterns, the Viṣṇu to Brahma cyclic relation is analogous to the tree to fruit/seed cyclic relation. Brahma the seed 'creates' the tree, the Virāt the cosmic manifest universe visualized as Viṣṇu, from which/whom the fruit/seed for the next creation gets generated. Brahma from the navel of Viṣṇu is a depiction of this cyclic relation.

12. Śiva is Prakṛti in the devolving, devolved form, Lakṣmī is Prakṛti in its evolving, evolved form. Purusha possessed by or in the possession of this Prakṛti is Devi/Viṣṇu the anti-anti-evolutionary power (Asuras , demons are anti-evolutionary, Asura-samhāra, demon-killing is anti-anti-evolution) for Lakṣmī or the power required by Śiva / Śiva a/Kaala/Kaali to remain only a devolutionary but not a destructive/nullifying entity.

To be continued.

Nagaraj

[Rest of this thread at Nagaraj's post (04 June 2014) at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Abhinavagupta/conversations/messages/7341]

13. Shiva is Prakriti in the form of dusk and night. Lakshmi is Prakriti in the form of dawn and day . Shiva is Prakriti in the form ofS'is'ira (endingseason of the six seasons cycle). Lakshmi is Prakritiin the form of Vasanta (beginningseason of the six seasons cycle). In all the forms, Prakriti possesses or ispossessed by Purusha in the form of Devi/Vishnu.

14. Brahma is Prajapati the creator. Any creator project not incorporating the dissolution/devolution program in itself does not fit into a cyclic system. In a cyclic system, a creator's project that does not 'honour' (involve/incorporate) the dissolver/devolver crashes. This is exemplified by Daksha Yajna. Daksha the creator ('prajapati') attempts to execute his project ('yajna') without honouring Shiva. The project crashes.

15. Equally, any dissolver/devolver project, in a cyclic system, that does not incorporate a creator program, moreover kills the creator program develops a snag with the killed creation program haunting it perpetually until the creation program is resurrected and the previous wrong program is properly 'cleaned' (redeemed).Shiva resurrects Daksha, Brahma's head hangs to the hand of Kaalabhairava, Virabhadra redeems his 'dosha' of Brahmahatya.