Enlightening Pilgrimage of Indian Heritage

A Wish That Came Through

(From the Travelogues of Mathew D. Kunnappilly)

Shiva Lingam

When I left the Sanctuary of the Vishnupada Temple I decided to go in the direction opposite the one I came in so that I could see the outside of the temple also. As I came to the back of the temple wall I saw the Shiva Lingam. Not one but several of them. They are on a raised platform, may be two feet high, against the temple wall. They all are placed on a straight line. I am not sure of the total number. They are either 9, or 11, or could be 13. The center one is the tallest. Those on either side of it are in a descending height. Each one is at equal height to the corresponding one on the other side. If you look at them from either side, they look like one body rising toward a common head. All on both sides except the center one is the conventional pillbox shaped, cylindrical once. The center one is a different matter. That one is biologically accurate in its minutest details. It has the head, the blood vessel, and even the glands at the edges.

There were people, young and old, male and female, praying, making offerings, and doing pujas.

Was I shocked? No. Surprised may be the right word. Surprised only because I was not expecting it. I never knew such one ever existed anywhere. No one ever told me, I never read anywhere, and I never heard that such a one does exist at Gaya.

I was not shocked because there was no reason for it. I knew that it was a symbol. A symbol is a symbol, regardless of its shape or form or size.

Here I like to give a discourse on the concept of Hindu Shiva Lingam, firstly for my non-Indian friends, secondly for my non-Hindu friends, and thirdly for any one who cares to listen. Any one of you or all of you can, if so desire, hit "delete" To those of you who have reading it, I wish to say in advance, these are my own analysis, interpretations, surmises, and conclusions. No books, Sacred or otherwise, or any person is responsible for them. When and if I am wrong, those who know the right can correct me.

The most aversion inducing Hindu concepts (that I know of) are the worships of Shiva Lingam and Bhadra Kali, for Westerners and other non-Hindus. I was not free of these prejudices until I went deep into these concepts, not by merely reading alone but by analyzing as well.

Let me say few words here about Kali worship. Let us, first, come into terms with the fact that the Hindu concepts are five thousand or more years old. You cannot look at them with modern binoculars.

How could any one worship such a frighteningly horrible looking Goddess? They ask. Simply put it, "How should she present to you before you can worship her?"

Kali is not ONE goddess eternally present that way. She has other names and other manifestations, lovable, beautiful, elegant, charming, good natured, kind, and compassionate. Is this not what Sri Ramkrishna found in her? What Kali represent is the appearance she might take when she is displeased, annoyed, angry, and mad with what we may do, in words or in deeds.

In other religions artists and sculptures have not depicted a really mad God. The closest one that comes to mind is a painting of Christian God kicking Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. That was for disobeying Him? Is that the biggest crime against God? What if they did not eat that apple only "thought" of eating it? Would the God had been UN-upset? Do we not read " He who looks at a woman with lust commits adultery with her" (The kind Jimmy Carter did and none of us had ever done) Does God need the physical manifestation before He could know what is going on in the mind or in the body. (Like an UN-married woman is always a virgin until she is found pregnant or caught in the act) By the way, this I mean in India, mainly) A God or Goddess does not need a physical or materiel proof like what is needed in a man’s court of law.

She is worshiped in that FORM for the atonement of all the crimes we committed in our hearts.

This is what I meant when I said at the student union meeting at the University of Toledo, years ago, "Christian God is a personal God. Hindu Gods and Goddess are symbolic once."

Enough about Kali. Back to Shiva Lingam.

Two most important complains about this are, 1) It is a phallic representation, 2) It is obscene. (Nothing is meat to be obscene in the land of Khajuraho and Kama Sutra) Are they? Let us examine one by one.

Before we can decide whether it is phallic or not we should know the meaning of Lingam. I do not know if the Sanskrit word Lingam has a direct meaning as male "penis" or female vagina. The correct usage is "Pullingam" (Sign or symbol of male) and "Shrilingam" (Sign or symbol of female) This is exactly like the English "Gender" Male gender does not mean male penis, nor female gender means vagina.

We can tell the difference between a lion and a lioness, a cow and a bull. But can we identify a male and female among kittens or birds, or some fishes without close examination? A female can be identified with her breasts. But for a male, his penis is the unmistakable identity. However, when it is a symbolic identity, it can be anything.

An expressed meaning can have an implied object. When we hear "nose" and "year" we know the implied objects. Suppose we are going to change it. Starting today, we say, nose will be year and year will be nose. A generation or two latter, they would not know the difference.

With Hinduism many a thing, over the centuries, lost its intended meanings, and gained unintended one. (Like ‘chathur varnam’ had become 4 Castes. The Sanskrit word "Varnam" has a remote meaning "color" but its most obvious meaning is "Division" This is a separate subject for a different time) Anything that represented can be called "Shiva Lingam" We read in the biography of Sri Sankaracharya that at Bedarinath, Lord Shiva appeared to him and gave 6 "Shiva Lingas". Does this mean that Shiva took 6 penises, one after another, and gave? It is, therefore, self evident that those were not 6 penises, but some symbolic objects.

Let us not forget the fact that these ideas, Vedic ideas, were presented more than 5 thousand or so years ago to unlettered people. They could not have understood abstract philosophy. They needed tangible objects. They could not worship an invisible cosmic God. Thus came the so-called Idol worship

Now, let us suppose that it is Shiva’s penis. Will that make it obscene? The fact that 830 some million Hindus, educated and uneducated, sophisticated and simple, at least most of them, do not think as such, is beside the point. Is the human body, male or female or a part thereof, obscene? If it is, then God is the biggest pornographer.

In Michealangelo’s painting, Creation, Adam is stark naked with his genital fully exposed. Does anyone think that that is an obscene painting? The largest number of nude paintings, in any one place, is on the ceilings of Sistine Chapel in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Are they obscene?

What make something obscene or not, is its intended purpose or motivation for displaying it. Do you get the same feelings when you look at the above mentioned paintings, as when you look at Playboy or Playgirl or Hustler Magazines?

Are the feelings we get when watching a woman dancing in a club, topless, with firm or not so firm breasts (if they are two sagging pouches, forget it, the owner of the club lost his investments) and watching another woman, lifting her blouse and the bra to feed her infant? Absolutely not, although both are the same organ. One is obscene. The other is not.

In order to understand fully the idea of Shiva Linga worship, one need to know the story behind it.

One day (Nay, since we do not know how long is the celestial day, we must be careful. So let us say one time) Shivan and his wife Parvati were having sex. Both were drunk. At that time Vishnu and his consorts came for a visit unannounced. (Just like the doorbell ringing at the "Right" time in our own days) Shiva and Parvati paid no attention and went on with what they were doing. Upset and annoyed Vishnu and company left. When Shiva and Parvati were sober, they learned of Vishnu’s unexpected visit. They were shocked. They both died out of shame. They died in the position they were caught. When Shiva died he left his creative power behind. This is the story.

If we take this story literally, we could ask why Vishnu with his Devin Power did not know what was going on with Shiva and Parvathi? This is like asking why the author did not kill the villain when he committed his terrible deed at the first time? If there is a further development of the story, the author cannot kill the villain because the story will end there. If Vishnu knew, with or without his Devin power and did not come, then we would not have had a story and the Shiva Lingam.

This is not so simple a story as it may sound. It needs deep exploration.

A God and Goddess died out of "Shame"? Shame in what? Having Sex? They were husband and wife. With Hinduism there is no hang-ups with sex itself. Hindu dogma does not consider sex as vulgar or wrong or dirty. In fact, in Hindu philosophy, it is the duty of all living things to procreate. When, where, why, and with whom it is done make it right or wrong. Then why they felt shame and died since they were husband and wife? Because they have done it in the presence of others. If this is not enough (The death of a God and a Goddess) to prove that sex is a privet matter and should NOT be done in public, then no number of books or any amount of preaching, or any other kind of educating will do no good. This is what I meant when I said, "Hindu Philosophy is better BALNCED"

The story ends with saying, "Shiva left his creative energy behind as His symbol" Here, one may ask why Shiva had to leave the creative energy behind? He is not the creator. Brahma is. Shiva is the Destroyer in the Hindu Trinity. But He has His own energy, like we all do. If we did not have this energy, we would not have children. Reincarnation was not an option open to Shiva. A God cannot simply die and leave no trace of Him. Therefore, He left His own energy as His symbol.

From the beginning of time everyone, scholars and ignorance, literate and illiterates, and all, knew a new life is formed from the union of a male and a female. ((Exemptions are not considered subject matter here. Because the exemptions you are thinking of did not exist during the time frame we are dealing with here) But they did not know the mechanics of it. It was believed then, (erroneously, of course) that the creative energy was with the male penis.

Today we know better. The male penis function just like a siring and the female vagina function just as a receptacle. They do not create a new life. (Now I am stepping in the territory of my medical friends. I hope that they do not feel offended. If I am wrong they can correct you.) By the union of a sperm and an egg create a new life. That much we do know. Not withstanding the new discoveries on DNA and the rest, how much more do we know? Where is this life dormant? Is it with the sperm? Or is it with the egg? Or is it half-and-half? Can life be half-and-half? What is the function of a sperm? Is the life dormant in the sperm and it manifest into life in an egg, like a plant growing in the soil? Or the life is dormant in the egg, and the sperm trigger that life into activation, like a light switch? In all probabilities both these hypotheses may be wrong because the child carries the trait of both mother and father, and therefore, it could not have come from just one.

The fundamental question still remains unanswered. Where was this life dormant before the union? We do not know. Therefore, the Vedic writers could not have given a better symbol.

Next - Bodha Gaya