Siva-linga and its symbolism

Dealing with a topic which aims at understanding the dynamics between ritual and philosophy in the Lakulisa-Pasupata order the interdisciplinary study of history, philosophical meanings and the ritual practices related to this potent symbol have proved to be very useful. The idea that this practice was simply a fertility rite followed by “less civilized and barbaric people” has long been rejected. The more scholars have worked on the levels of meanings it conveys, more they have been convinced of dangers of too simplistic or literal a reading.Now this does not go to say that all phallic symbolism associated with it is just a farce. On the contrary the visual representation is definitely phallic but its meaning is not limited to fertility and reproduction. Man creates symbols according to his ideas. The idea of creativity and procreation is associated with sexual organs. Here one is reminded again of Upamanyu’s discourse with Krsna where he categorically specifies that it is Siva and Devi that are the true gods because we all humans are marked by their symbols, rather born with them while you don”t see a child born with a conch or a chakra. That is to say the most fundamental characteristic that we as humans share with the supreme reality is the process of creation and hence anything which is responsible for such a similitude becomes worth worshipping sheer by the law of synecdoche and assumes automatically assumes a mystical and awe-inspiring aspect.

Unfortunately the sexual symbolism here has selectively been associated with eroticism and it’s other more important function as the creative principle has not been given any thought by early scholars of Indian art and culture. The apologetic Indian scholars too joined the gang and openly disowned this disturbing symbol and blamed it on so called “Non Aryan” people who were untouched by highly philosophical expositions of Veda’s. They elaborately quote from RgVedic mention of Sisna deva,(people whose lord was the sexual organ)(Rg Veda 7. 21. 5; 10. 99. 3) the only example but repeated again and again to emphasize the otherness of Linga worship. Sayana^[1] in his commentary has clearly explained Sisna devas, as licentious people and not as people who worship linga.

Language is never wholly transparent, rather the beauty of language lies in its opacity. To derive such final statements on the basis of one or two verses from whole gamut of Vedas points at if not a strategic plan but definitely to a lack of understanding. Here I would like to say that those scholars who have shown any depth in their studies and have not treated the subject like some laboratory experiment have left their studies open ended realizing very well the limitations of a scholarly approach to a subject which needs an initiation to begin with.

Susan Langer^[2] in her important study, Philosophy in a New Key states that:

“Symbols are not proxy for their objects, but are vehicles for the conception of objects. In talking about things we have conceptions of them, not the things themselves and it is the conceptions, not the things, that symbols directly mean”.

She further goes on to enumerate three types of symbols viz: Discursive symbol, Presentational symbol and Artistic symbol and being a Formalist considers the Artistic symbol to be the most significant one:

An artistic symbol-which may be product of human craftsmanship or (on a purely personal level)something in nature seen as significant form has more than discursive and presentational meaning: its form as such, as a sensory phenomenon has what I have called implicit meaning, like rite and myth, but of a more catholic sort. It has what L.A Reid called “tertiary subject matter”, beyond the reach of “primary imagination” and even the “secondary imagination”that sees metaphorically.³

I have tried in this section to compile all that I have seen, read and analyzed about Linga worship as it has strong links with the developmental stage of Saivism i.e Lakulisa-Pasuapta order. Siva linga being the main object of veneration for the aspirants of this order its esoteric meaning has been delved deeply in their literature. Moreover in this tradition Siva as well as Lakulisa himself are shown as Ithyphallic.

Human narcissist tendency is such that it is always believed we are moving to a more progressive level as the time passes. The technology that we today boast of would have been a marvel for our ancestors and hence the aspect of philosophizing is considered to have been beyond their reach.Rather my enquiry started very much at this point where I wondered how can an order which follows radical and extremely objectionable practices have a highly evolved philosophy.At the beginning I also thought that philosophizing must have taken place at a later stage but in due course I was surprised to find both the streams progressing together.We were seriously missing out something in between, something not as easily legible as a direct word and here is where mythology and art comes to the rescue.It wonderfully bridges the gap between the esoteric ritual practices and complicated philosophical speculations former due to its narrative and human approach and the latter because of its wide appeal and tangible form. The orientation of early Saivite art is decidedly theological. The emphasis is on knowledge of God’s nature and the translation of this knowledge into forms fit for worship.Hence here while on one side I will be studying the historical development and philosophical speculations on the subject, on the other hand myths related to Linga worship and their depictions from various places will be subjected to an iconological study.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Rgveda-Samhita Srimat Sayanacharya virchita bhasya-sameksa Ed. by N.S Sontakke, Published by Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, Pune, 1972

[2]:

Langer Susan, Philosophy in a new key, A Study in Symbolism of Reason, Rite and Art, Harvard University Press, 1996³ Ibid.