I would like to direct a question in a respectful, non-debating way to followers of Hinduism. Since this is the Hindu section of the forum and I'm not Hindu, I'll allow myself one follow up only. The following question is quite interesting, since Hinduism is one of the world's oldest and largest religions and theogony, the formation of the gods, and cosmogony, the creation of the Cosmos are fundamental questions in religion.
Adherents of Shiva or Vishnu may have a teaching that Shiva or Vishnu is Ishvara Svayam Bhagwan, the Lord God Himself. And this applies not only to Shivaites and Vishnavites, but to some other major sects as well. In this teaching, all other gods are merely aspects or avatars of Shiva or Vishnu, etc., who is the one true deity.
A common Creation story in Hinduism is that of Purusha Prajapati. One place in the Vedas says that Purusha created Nature/Brahman, and that then Nature/Brahman gave birth to Purusha (perhaps in a different form than his pre-creation self). Purusha divided himself into male and female persons. His male self mated with the female goddess he had just created, producing the gods. Later, Shiva or another god objected to Purusha having had sex with Purusha's daughter, and sacrificed Purusha. Purusha's sacrifice led to further Creation of the Cosmos. Please forgive me if I have some aspects of this story wrong, I heard that there are different versions in the Vedas.
My question comes down to this: How does one accommodate Purusha being the pre-Creation, pre-Cosmic deity who created Nature and the Cosmos with the teaching that Shiva, a distinct god who may have sacrificed Purusha, Vishnu, or another deity is the one true Lord God Himself? How could the authors of the stories of Purusha have conceived of any god other than the original pre-Brahman First God, Purusha Prajapati, as being "God Himself"?
And secondly, how could a god like Shiva, or the other gods, have the power, authority, moral right, and choice to kill Purusha, their father who was so strong enough that he could create Nature, Brahman, and the Cosmos?
That is an understatement. Have you seen the Nasadiya Sukta? Rigveda 10:129. Verses 6 and 7 are the "punchline", and is my preferred "go-to" for the answer to "how did it all start?" The other stories are just that... other stories. I don't think many people try to make literal sense of them, because if one digs deep enough, it's not a literalism, but metaphors and lessons that one finds. Especially lessons.
Nasadiya Sukta
Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.
In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is kin to that which is not.
And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
My question comes down to this: How does one accommodate Purusha being the pre-Creation, pre-Cosmic deity who created Nature and the Cosmos with the teaching that Shiva, a distinct god who may have sacrificed Purusha, Vishnu, or another deity is the one true Lord God Himself? How could the authors of the stories of Purusha have conceived of any god other than the original pre-Brahman First God, Purusha Prajapati, as being "God Himself"?
And secondly, how could a god like Shiva, or the other gods, have the power, authority, moral right, and choice to kill Purusha, their father who was so strong enough that he could create Nature, Brahman, and the Cosmos?
Since I failed miserably in my previous post of addressing these questions, I'll point you to this to for some expansion on the concept of Purusha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha
As the article points out, this story parallels the killing of Ymir by Odin and his brothers in Norse mythology. We find the same sort of thing in the Greek creation stories. Kronos killed and castrated (ouch!) his father Ouranos, who was the primordial being. From that castration and Ouranos's parts came the rest of creation. Seems to be a common Indo-European myth, probably from Proto-Indo-European, of a second generation of gods/deities/beings overthrowing the first and taking power.
I don't think the average garden-variety Hindu devotee takes it very seriously or more than metaphor, since much of Hinduism today is puranic and agamic (based on stories from the puranas and agamas), which posit Shiva, Vishnu or Devi (or others, depending on sect) to be the Supreme Brahman, cause of all and basis of all.
How does one accommodate Purusha being the pre-Creation, pre-Cosmic deity who created Nature and the Cosmos with the teaching that Shiva, a distinct god who may have sacrificed Purusha, Vishnu, or another deity is the one true Lord God Himself? How could the authors of the stories of Purusha have conceived of any god other than the original pre-Brahman First God, Purusha Prajapati, as being "God Himself"?
And secondly, how could a god like Shiva, or the other gods, have the power, authority, moral right, and choice to kill Purusha, their father who was so strong enough that he could create Nature, Brahman, and the Cosmos?
I can't speak for all Hindus for sure, and I'm no scholar. Perhaps some person with a scholarly approach will happen along.
I'm a Saivite. There is no creation like this. Siva just is ... always was, always will be, so He is that pre-Cosmic deity, unmanifested, permanent, absolute reality, in one of His perfections. From that He manifests, or emanates, none other than Himself, like sparks from a fire, raindrops from a cloud. So there is no distinct God as you suggest. It's all Siva, both manifest, and unmanifest. Immanent and transcendent.
In the light of this, the second question makes no sense.
I would like to direct a question in a respectful, non-debating way to followers of Hinduism. Since this is the Hindu section of the forum and I'm not Hindu, I'll allow myself one follow up only. The following question is quite interesting, since Hinduism is one of the world's oldest and largest religions and theogony, the formation of the gods, and cosmogony, the creation of the Cosmos are fundamental questions in religion.
I will give my Hindu perspective on the question. Firstly i don't agree that Creation, Cosmogony and the formation of the Gods are a Fundamental question in Hindu Dharmah, Especially for the Practitioner of Hinduism. These questions are not essential when it comes to Hinduism as it is practiced.
Adherents of Shiva or Vishnu may have a teaching that Shiva or Vishnu is Ishvara Svayam Bhagwan, the Lord God Himself. And this applies not only to Shivaites and Vishnavites, but to some other major sects as well. In this teaching, all other gods are merely aspects or avatars of Shiva or Vishnu, etc., who is the one true deity.
Not only applies to those in Sampradayas (Not "sects" by the way), but to a average everyday Hindu who does not associate with a Sampradaya or Darshan. Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Rama, Krishna are all Svayam Bhagvan.
A common Creation story in Hinduism is that of Purusha Prajapati. One place in the Vedas says that Purusha created Nature/Brahman, and that then Nature/Brahman gave birth to Purusha (perhaps in a different form than his pre-creation self). Purusha divided himself into male and female persons. His male self mated with the female goddess he had just created, producing the gods. Later, Shiva or another god objected to Purusha having had sex with Purusha's daughter, and sacrificed Purusha. Purusha's sacrifice led to further Creation of the Cosmos. Please forgive me if I have some aspects of this story wrong, I heard that there are different versions in the Vedas.
Is this from the Purusha Sukta? there are many versions, but you state that this is from the Veda.
My question comes down to this: How does one accommodate Purusha being the pre-Creation, pre-Cosmic deity who created Nature and the Cosmos with the teaching that Shiva, a distinct god who may have sacrificed Purusha, Vishnu, or another deity is the one true Lord God Himself? How could the authors of the stories of Purusha have conceived of any god other than the original pre-Brahman First God, Purusha Prajapati, as being "God Himself"?
Your question has a pre-assumption that Purush/Brahman is similar to the common popular concept of God, where there can be only one supreme God. But the Hindu idea goes beyond the limitations of "God" to the concept of Aham Brahmasmi or Tat Tvam Asi, so the idea that Purusha is God, Brahman is God ect is not correct.
Shiva, Brahman, Visnhu, Purusha ect are not Names of entities which have a separate existence to each other or our own Atmans, but are aspects, attributes and characteristics of the ultimate reality which pervades all existence.
When you say "sacrifice", the word which is incorrectly always translated as sacrifice is the word Yajna, which must be used in context of a mantra, so if your talking about the Purusha sukta of the Rigved, then Yajna is not "sacrifice", but as "the primordial energy ground for all existence".
Purusha is the Cosmic Being, or the entire cosmos personified, Vishnu is preservation of that, Shiva is transformation of that, Brahma is origination of that. The PuruSha Mantras are not about "Gods", but are a way of teaching the concept of integral unity of the entire existence.
These Mantras are not to be taken as literal, there are certain criteria of interpretation of the Mantras. Such as Adhyatmik, Adhidevik and Adhibhutik ect. depending on the context.
And secondly, how could a god like Shiva, or the other gods, have the power, authority, moral right, and choice to kill Purusha, their father who was so strong enough that he could create Nature, Brahman, and the Cosmos?
This seems again like a question where the assumption is that the Vedic Dharmah is similar to Abrahimc style of religion, or similar to pre-Abrahmic traditions. Which i don't agree with, because there is no evidence to support such assumptions.
Nowhere is Yagna ever used in the sense of Killing, even if one translates it to "sacrifice", this is not the same sacrifice as the killing.
When you say "Creation", this word does not apply to the Purusha/Prajapati story, the better word is manifestation.
The questions are vary confusing, and to a Hindu there seems to be many pre-assumptions and pre-conceived idea embedded in the actual question which are not relative to Hinduism.
I'm a Saivite. There is no creation like this. Siva just is ... always was, always will be, so He is that pre-Cosmic deity, unmanifested, permanent, absolute reality, in one of His perfections. From that He manifests, or emanates, none other than Himself, like sparks from a fire, raindrops from a cloud. So there is no distinct God as you suggest. It's all Siva, both manifest, and unmanifest. Immanent and transcendent.
Haha, the 'advaita' reply also would exactly be the same except that it will replace the word Shiva with Brahman. Other than the name, there won't be any other difference. Brahman is Shiva, Brahman is Vishnu, Brahman is Krishna. Brahman is me, Brahman is you. There is nothing other than Brahman in the universe. 'Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti'. (There is one, and no second).
As Satyamevajayanti said in his post above, we are not fixated on Gods or Goddesses, it is conduct that is paramount in Hinduism. That is why it is said 'Satyam vada, dharmam chara' (Speak truth and act according to your duties/responsibilities and be humane in your action). That is the essence of Hinduism. The rest are but guesses, stories. And when it comes to stories, we have more in number and in imagination than many others. Who created the universe and life will have many Gods/Goddesses and many answers in Hinduism.
Purusha divided himself into male and female persons. His male self mated with the female goddess he had just created, producing the gods. Later, Shiva or another god objected to Purusha having had sex with Purusha's daughter, and sacrificed Purusha.
My question comes down to this: How does one accommodate Purusha being the pre-Creation, pre-Cosmic deity who created Nature and the Cosmos with the teaching that Shiva, a distinct god who may have sacrificed Purusha, Vishnu, or another deity is the one true Lord God Himself? How could the authors of the stories of Purusha have conceived of any god other than the original pre-Brahman First God, Purusha Prajapati, as being "God Himself"?
And secondly, how could a god like Shiva, or the other gods, have the power, authority, moral right, and choice to kill Purusha, their father who was so strong enough that he could create Nature, Brahman, and the Cosmos?
We have no story of Purusha dividing itself in male and female. Rudra (and not Shiva in the Vedic mention) is supposed to have beheaded Prajapati. We now know that the story represents an astronomical event sometime before 2,000 BC - precession of equinox from Orion (Mrigashiras) to Aldebaran (Rohini).
Vedas have this tradition of praising the God to whom a hymn is dedicated as the Supreme God. All Gods have been praised in that manner. That does not indicate that one particular God is superior to another God.
6 When Gods prepared the sacrifice with Puruṣa as their offering,
Its oil was spring, the holy gift was autumn; summer was the wood.
7 They balmed as victim on the grass Puruṣa born in earliest time.
With him the Deities and all Sādhyas and Ṛṣis sacrificed. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10090.htm
Purusha, the Supreme Spirit was sacrificed by all other Gods, those who were the worshiped (Sādhyas) and the Sages; and not just any particular God; and the purpose was to have creation.
How does one accommodate Purusha being the pre-Creation, pre-Cosmic deity who created Nature and the Cosmos with the teaching that Shiva, a distinct god who may have sacrificed Purusha, Vishnu, or another deity is the one true Lord God Himself?
The puruṣa is none other than Viṣṇu or as you call "lord god". The scenario of śiva sacrificing prajāpati puruṣa doesn't involve chopping the head into some sacrificial pit (as perhaps that of a goat) but the symbolical āhuti of a particular tattva ( nearest eng tr - fundamental principle imperative for creation to ensue) into the yajgna (~sacrifice) called creation. It is a common, though not unfounded (some purāṇas do narrate this incident), confusion among people that prajāpati-brahma had five heads, one of which was chopped off by his very son śiva, angered at brahma expressing desire for Saraswati, his wife! You must also consider that the very same purāṇas mention that prajāpati-brahma emerged from the navel-lotus of nārāyaṇa as chaturmukha-brahma and not pancamukha-brahma. The chopping is symbolic and sheds light on some theological aspects that is beyond the scope of this thread.
How could the authors of the stories of Purusha have conceived of any god other than the original pre-Brahman First God, Purusha Prajapati, as being "God Himself"?
Well, simple answer it was not deductive reasoning based / imagination based conception. The vedas themselves provide sufficient information on 'Who' that "first god" / "god himself" is.
how could a god like Shiva, or the other gods, have the power, authority, moral right, and choice to kill Purusha, their father who was so strong enough that he could create Nature, Brahman, and the Cosmos?
First thing, most gods within the hindu paradigm are considered gods because they are capable of transcending humane limitations.
Secondly, there was really no killing involved at all, for prajāpati-brahma is well alive and therefore this creation exists, the lifetime of creation is intimately linked to the life-span of prajāpati-brahma, at the end of whose life all deities like yama, varuṇa, kubera, indra, find dissolution in śiva, śiva in turn finds dissolution in prajapathi-brahma whose dissolution is in durgā - the eternal energy of dissolution of bhagavān viṣṇu. Creation ensues in the reverse order, and the cycle is eternal.
Thirdly, there is no absolute creation or absolute dissolution, all principles necessary for creation already exist in the subtle form, which the emergence of specific deities transform into gross form that is seen, heard, etc.
Finally, i'd recommend that when forming conclusions on hindu narratives, the best way is to understand them from those who have studied all the śāstras, it is nigh impossible to form definite understanding based on reading of just say one purāṇa or portion of passages from the vedas; also always bear in mind that many narratives mingle actual historical occurrences with symbolic representations, not to be able to differentiate is the common cause of most misunderstandings even within practicing hindus.
***This is a vaidika (~based on the vedas) vaiṣṇava perspective!***
Haha, the 'advaita' reply also would exactly be the same except that it will replace the word Shiva with Brahman. Other than the name, there won't be any other difference. Brahman is Shiva, Brahman is Vishnu, Brahman is Krishna. Brahman is me, Brahman is you. There is nothing other than Brahman in the universe. 'Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti'. (There is one one, and no second).
I am allowing myself only one follow-up reply, as I mentioned at the outset: I want to make sure that I have made my question and how I got to it clear. In case you disagree with any of the question's premises that I underlined and placed with Roman numerals, please let me know. I am also aiming to address here ideas written above in the thread, which I appreciate.
I. The Sampradayas (what I meant by "sects") often consider the god of their Sampradaya to be Ishvara Svayam Bhagavan, the one Blessed Lord Himself, with all other gods being his manifestations, aspects, avatars, parts, or products, etc.
So for example तत्त्वप्रह्व wrote above about how in his order, Vishnu is the ultimate one of the gods:
the lifetime of creation is intimately linked to the life-span of prajāpati-brahma, at the end of whose life all deities like yama, varuṇa, kubera, indra, find dissolution in śiva, śiva in turn finds dissolution in prajapathi-brahma whose dissolution is in durgā - the eternal energy of dissolution of bhagavān viṣṇu. Creation ensues in the reverse order, and the cycle is eternal.
The Sampradayas who call their god Ishvara and consider him the ultimate god will give lots of extreme praises about the god's extreme greatness, eternality, ultimacy, absoluteness, totality, supreme authority, etc. They say that their god is Ishvara and that the other gods are his avatars or products, and not the other way around.
This already leads to a preliminary question: If a god is born of another god, like the sky god Varuna was born of the goddess Aditi, doesn't that imply that the newborn god is actually the product of the parent god, rather than the other way around?
So if Shiva is born of Brahma or Vishnu in the Trimurti philosophy, or as तत्त्वप्रह्व suggested, Shiva is from Durga or Vishnu, doesn't that suggest that Shiva is the product of Brahma, Durga, or Vishnu who pre-existed him?
One way to answer this I suppose is to posit that Shiva, or the newborn god in question, is the ultimate god but that he birthed himself in a new form out of the parent god of the story.
Vivek Kumar tries to answer it in this way with two stories: http://www.speakingtree.in/allslides/whos-the-father-of-lord-shiva
In one story, Shiva is a distant ancestor of Shiva. In a second story, Shiva and Braham ask about Shiva's origins and then a pillar appears and Shiva comes out, suggesting that Shiva is everywhere. However, Kumar also mentions something about Parvati suggesting she is also a pre-Creation god with a comparable status to Shiva's:
5. What Parvati is called?
Parvati is called Poorvaja. This means a person (female) who is born earlier to whosoever you mention. It means she is also beyond the beginning.
6. She is also Aadyaa
Another name for Parvati is Aadyaa. This means that she is the beginning. This again connotes the same meaning. It's like Sesh Naag is also called Ananta Naag.
So Shiva is called Anaadi, beginning.... but so is Parvati called Aadya - beginning... and not only that but Poorvaya- earlier than the other god.
II. Purusha Prajapati is a god who is distinct from Shiva. So they are either very separate gods, or as in the classical common thinking of the Sampradayas, one of them is Ishvara and the other is only his product or manifestation.
One way to see the difference between Purusha and the other gods is the story of the sacrifice of Purusha. When you read the story at face value, it looks like they are talking about killing Purusha because they are using flames and logs like when they perform animal sacrifice and because the verses call Purusha a victim:
15. Seven fencing-logs * had he, thrice seven layers of fuel were prepared, When the gods, offering sacrifice, bound as their victim, Purusha.
16. Gods, sacrificing, sacrificed the victim; these were the earliest holy ordinances.
('Rig Veda,' X, 90)
* Borders of the sacrificial fire; usually three green sticks, but here a sacred number, seven.
Since the horse sacrifice parallels Purusha's and the horse is killed, it makes sense that Purusha is killed too. Wendy Donger writes in "Textual sources for the Study of Hinduism": "The horse is like the cosmic Person... the horse creates the hymns, the formulas, and the chants in a manner that parallels their creation from the dismemberment of the cosmic Person. ... the horse is allowed to grow for a year, just as Shunahshepa is allowed to grow older before he is sacrificed; Shunahshepa duplicated this wandering when he went into the wilderness [compared to the stallion's allowance to wander for a year]". Donger quotes:
[In the beginning, there was nothing at all here. This world was enveloped by death.... Then death thought to himself 'I wish I had a body'... He desired 'I wish that a second body were produced for me'... The seed that was there became the year... [Death] thought to himself, 'If I kill him, I will make just a little food for myself' With that speech, with that body, he emitted this whole world... And whatveer he emitted, he started to eat. Indeed, he eats (atti) everything; that is why Aditi (the infinite) is called Aditi. ... 'Let me sacrifice more...' .. out of him ... came virility.... his body began to swelll.... 'It has become fit for sacrifice(medhyam)' ... After a year, he sacrificed him to himself, and assigned sacrifical animals to the other gods. Therefore when men sacrifice to Prajapati they call it a sacrifice to all the gods. .... The brightness and the horse sacrifice .... are also a single god, death. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.1.1-2;1.2.1-7)
I find this a scary tale because it says that the universe or original being who is Prajapati is death filled with water and it eats everything (hence "Aditi), killing it all. It also gives the scary thought that worshiping this first being within this scheme according to the passage's theology would be worshiping death.
Now of course there are different versions of the Prajapati sacrifice story, so one need not accept that particular one. But still, the theme that the sacrifice is killed remains, as in the Purusha Sukta.
Donger says about the Purusha Sukta, "This sacrifice creates the whole universe.... [and] designates botht he ritual and the victim killed in the ritual; the sacrifice creates the sacrifice..." She quotes then quotes the Sukta. If the ritual performed by the Sukta's adherents involves sacrificing animals, it would imply that Purusha was killed like they are.
I can see two objections:
First, that this is just a metaphor or a story not to be taken very seriously - like all these things about logs and fire and body parts. I can see that. However, at face value, this is not a metaphor. If Hinduism teaches numerous supernatural narratives like Krishna living on earth and playing with cows and supervising battles and many people believe them literally, why would the audience that passed down Purusha's story have taken it literally? Nowhere does it say that Purusha did not experience death in the story when he is burned on logs. At face value, the story of Purusha did actually involve some real being called Purusha going through an experience like the animal ritual victims.
Second, after the sacrifice, Purusha could still be alive, as Purusha is still immortal. However, this continued life also does not rule out that he experienced a version of death, because in Hinduism there is also the concept of the cycle of death and rebirth or returning to life. (cont.)
III. The story of Purusha Prajapati is a major and quite ancient creation story in different forms, dating back to the period of 1500-300 BC, if not earlier.
Jainarayan wrote about how some version of Purusha's atory is quite old among Indo-Europeans:
Seems to be a common Indo-European myth, probably from Proto-Indo-European, of a second generation of gods/deities/beings overthrowing the first and taking power.
Ellen Goldberg wrote about primordial androgynous gods in Hinduism in her essay "Ardhanārīśvara: An Androgynous Model Of God". Aupmanyav pointed out to me correctly that Ardhanarisvara (the androgynous Shiva) is a more recent god, with statues of him/it/her dating to about the 1st centuries AD. On the other hand, Purusha is in the Vedas, where he is described as splitting into two gender halves (as in Brhadāranyaka Upaniṣad Ṛ Ṛ (1.4.3-4)).
Puṛus aṛ , the cosmic man who cṛeates the univeṛse in the Puruṣ Ṛa-ṣūkta by gestuṛing to the andṛogynous pṛinciple of dividing and splitting (ṚṚg Veda 10.90). In a lateṛ Vedic text, the Brhadāranyaka Upaniṣad Ṛ Ṛ (1.4.3-4) we find a single body (ātman) shaped like a man (puruṣa) Ṛ who pṛocṛeates the univeṛse by dividing into two halves, male/husband (patī) and female/wife (patnī).
Perhaps Aupmanyev, who has a good skeptical mind, will wish to make a critical comment on the androgynity issue - for me here it is not that important, except that it correlates with findings at Harappa.
Namely, at Indus Valley sites from 1500-3000 BC, many androgynous hermaphrodite figurines have been found. And such figures, being unnatural, could only be imagined as mystical beings. And the significance of androgynity is that the being can, in the narratives, procreate by itself. Thus it was a well-known self-sufficient creator important in the role of creation. So the findings of androgynous figures go along with the story of Purusha Prajapati. Such figurines are commonly thought of as fertility totems, and this would go along with how the story of Purusha Prajapati has been customarily recited at Hindu weddings.
Gregory L. Possehl mentions the figures in The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective:
males can have indications of breasts, too (fig 10.8). The ambiguity of gender markers in the figurines brings up the distinct possibility that some Indus figurines may represent beings that were both male and female, or androgynous. ... The figurines portraying individuals combining two sexual markers may not represent the realities of Indus life [ie. that transgender people were a normal part of the culture]
Another writer also proposed that the androgynous figurines referred to a creator deity.
Lingams and yonis have also been found at Harappan sites, and represent the male and female creative forces. If one conceives of these engendered forces, then the question arises of where these forces came from. And the concept of an androgynous Purusha Prajapati can serve as an explanation for the source of them- that the two creative forces have a united source in one being, Purusha, who is also a creator.
IV. The stories about Purusha Prajapati describe him as the first god, first "Person", the Creator and Lord of all. Hence he is called "Prajapati", Lord of People, "Rajanya" or "Rajan", king of kings.
James D. Ryan writes in The Encyclopedia of Hinduism about Purusha's creative status as the very first being:
Prajapati, 'Lord of all born beings'.... In the period of the Brahmanas.... he was ritually identified witht he cosmic Purusha, the source of all reality. .... This story was ritually reenacted each year in the Agnichayana - the ritual building of the fire altar.... Prajapati retained his aggrandized status in the Upanishads
The Independent Vaishnava News website lays out the Purusha Sukta showing Purusha existing even before the Virat or immense universal form, being the creator of the Virat, and that everything in the past or future is this Purusha. Not only that, but he is even greater than "this". In fact, all beings are only a fraction of Purusha.
All this is verily the Purusha. All that which existed in the past or will come into being in the future (is also the Purusha). Also, he is the Lord of immortality. That which grows profusely by food (is also the Purusha).
Verse Three etaavaanasya mahima
ato jyaayagamshcha purushaha
paadosya vishvaa bhutaani
tripaadasyaamritam divihi
So much is His greatness. However, the Purusha is greater than this. All the beings form only a quarter (part of) Him. The three-quarter part of His, which is eternal, is established in the spiritual domain.
Verse Five tasmad viraadajayata
viraajo adhi purushah
sa jaato atyarichyata
pashchaad bhumimatho puraha
From Him (the Adipurusha or original Supreme Being) was born the Virat (or Virat Purusha, the immense universal form). Making this Virat as the substratum (another) purusha (or being, Brahma) (was born). As soon as he was born, he multiplied himself. Later, he created this earth and then, the bodies (of the living beings). http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/10-09/features1515.htm
Where is Shiva in Purusha stories mentioned as existing before or alongside Purusha, the first being? He is not mentioned at that point, but as Aupmanyav mentioned, in one version Rudra, who is especially associated with Shiva, sacrificed Purusha. Actually, Shiva is not emphasized often in the Vedas anyway, I think.
Lingams are quite ancient and many have been found at Harappa, and they are also identified with Shiva as the male force that mated with the yoni, female force, or Shiva's consort. Starting from the concept of the Shiva lingam, the relationship we find also points to Purusha as the father of Shiva. This is because the male Shiva lingam's relationship to a hermaphroditic "first person" unifying both the male and female forces would have to be the relationship of one part to its preceding whole - Purusha. Isn't then the relationship of the Shiva Lingam to the hermaphrodite Purusha therefore another suggestion that Purusha Sukta's teaching that Purusha is Prajapati applies even to Purusha's relationship to Shiva?
Unlike Shiva, in the Vedas, Varuna is emphasized as a ruling sky god. But Varuna is the child of the goddess Aditi, who would have come from Purusha too, and Varuna is not mentioned as co-existing with the first being Purusha either.
This leads to the main question in the thread: Considering these primordial, supreme, and ultimate qualities of the First Person, Being, and Creator Purusha, how can the authors of the accounts of Purusha have conceived of any other gods besides Purusha as the one ultimate original Blessed Lord Himself, Ishvara Svayam Bhagavan, of whom all other gods are merely his avatars, parts and products?
To the extent that any god, including Shiva, Vishnu, or Varuna, is categorized as a different god from Purusha, how can we call the first being Purusha only a product or avatar of that god and never the other way around? After all, if Shiva pre-existed Purusha, then can Purusha really be the "first" being and Lord of "All"?
One explanation came from Satyamavejayanti. He speaks of "Purush/Brahman" and says "Purusha is the Cosmic Being, or the entire cosmos personified, Vishnu is preservation of that".
The word "Purusha" means person. I have read that Brahman just by itself is personless. It does not know, it is knowingness. Paramātmā however is the supreme spirit. And Ishvara or Bhagwan is indeed a person. Especially in the Advaita philosophy, Bhagwan is Brahman personified, or the person of Brahman, the ultimate reality. Thus, we can speak of the three concepts: Brahman as ultimate reality, Paramatma as supreme spirit, and Ishvara as the personification of Brahman.
Do you agree with this talk?:
Since "Purusha" means person, then when we talk about the person of Brahman, it entails that Brahman personified is Purusha. This explains why Satyamavejayanti spoke of "Purush/Brahman" together. And so when we say that the "person" of the ultimate Brahman is Ishvara Bhagwan, this statement effectively names Purusha ("Person") as Ishvara Bhagwan, the ultimate Lord. It is in this sense that I take the phrase "Purush/Brahman". So within Advaita, all gods are really avatars or manifestations of the ultimate reality, "Brahman", whose own entity, "person" or being is Bhagwan. This still makes Purusha("Person") directly the person of Brahman, leaving any different gods to be his avatar.
Now let's say that we do not agree with what I've just said, and instead accept Dvaita philosophy and call the gods different from Brahman. Still, within the Purusha story, if Purusha is actually the "first" god and lord of "all" and unity of the male and female forces, where does that leave all other gods, including Shiva who is matched to the male force as the lingam?
A second answer to the main question can be that ultimately all the gods are one and that therefore Purusha and Shiva are so closely identified with each other that to call only one of them only the avatar of the other doesn't make sense. To take the story of Purusha literally as showing any real separation between gods, is incorrect. To borrow phrases from what Vinayaka said above, "It's all Ishvara Bhagwan, both manifest, and unmanifest. Immanent and transcendent. In the light of this, the question makes no sense."
I can understand such an answer and find it reasonable. However, if we really do follow this answer, then we can no longer say that "all gods", which would include Purusha, are only avatars of Shiva. We could not talk about avatars vs. non-avatars of any one specific god who is different from any other god. We can only talk about Ishwara Swayam Bhagwan, and that to the extent an individual specific god is different from Purusha (eg. Vishnu as maintainer or Shiva as transformer), then those gods can only be aspects of the one true God, Ishwara Bhagwan.
To ask whether Purusha is Shiva's avatar or Shiva Purusha's avatar leads to the answer "In the light of this, the... question makes no sense." Hence we cannot say that all gods are the avatar of just one of the main Sampradyas' gods like Shiva or Vishnu, as asking about avatars vs. non-avatars is not really entertained as part of the real philosophy.
A third answer is that it's just a story, it's not serious, and it's not important.
In fact, when one tries to learn how Hinduism sees the origin of the cosmos and gods, stories about Purusha are common ones that appear: we find it in the Vedas, we find it in Indo-European stories like Jainarayan mentioned, Indus findings point to it, and it narrates the united origin of the male and female forces. Considering this, the beliefs about theogony held by the authors and the audiences who passed down the stories seem important.
A fourth answer could be that I am just trying to trick or trap you and that in my mind I have this all worked our to my own satisfaction. However, that is also not the case. I am sincerely interested in this question because Hinduism and its foundations provide some of the oldest recorded religious traditions in the world. And the reason that I post it here is because I find that your section of the forum is one of the most thoughtful and discussion-oriented on the internet.
V. In the story of Purusha, the god or gods who sacrifice Purusha have or achieve more power or authority than Purusha.
In the stories, Purusha is the first being and called Prajapati. At that moment when he was first, he would be considered to have the most authority and power. Indeed, he created the cosmos. However, even in the narratives about him, he seems to end up with a lesser position among the gods, as no longer first. Varuna, a descendant of Prajapati, became the chief or supreme god, and called "lord of creation".
Jainarayan talked about the change of authority in his post earlier in the thread:
Seems to be a common Indo-European myth, probably from Proto-Indo-European, of a second generation of gods/deities/beings overthrowing the first and taking power.
One of the objections that can be made is that Purusha himself chose to undergo the sacrifice, and therefore there is no question of Purusha being outranked in power or authority. However, if this was simply Purusha's completely independent voluntary decision, then why in the discussions of the horse sacrifice is the sacrificed "victim" said to wander wild for a year trying to avoid the sacrifice?
And why else is it said in Purusha Sukta that Purusha was tied or "bound" by the gods for the sacrifice, except that tying a sacrifice stops him from escaping?
This leads to my second main question: How can it be that Purusha Prajapati, the "lord of all born beings", the first man so powerful as to create the world and of whose body the gods are merely one quarter, could be subjected to the power and authority of other gods?
How could one of them like Rudra (a name, avatar, or associate of Shiva) or other gods have the power, authority, right, and decision to sacrifice the conscious man Purusha like he was a captive animal?
I appreciate your thoughtful answers so far and look forward fondly to more.
I wonder if this thread with many speculative ideas and not based on traditional beliefs belongs to Hinduism DIR.I request the moderators to review it and in case the DIR isn't the appropriate place,kindly move it.
I wonder if this thread with many speculative ideas and not based on traditional beliefs belongs to Hinduism DIR.I request the moderators to review it and in case the DIR isn't the appropriate place,kindly move it.
Namaste, Bhadr!
Any decision will be fine, I sincerely appreciate all comments made, and in respect for the forum being dedicated to inner-Hindu discussions, I will not make any more follow up discussions on this topic in your section myself.
Peace.
6 When Gods prepared the sacrifice with Puruṣa as their offering,
Its oil was spring, the holy gift was autumn; summer was the wood.
That makes Purusha the Satra, the Samvatsara, the ritual year. Purusha was not a being, a God, which they sacrificed. This is metaphor.
7 They balmed as victim on the grass Puruṣa born in earliest time.
With him the Deities and all Sādhyas and Ṛṣis sacrificed.
Purusha born in the earliest times was different. That was balmed and sacrificed. Perhaps shows the adoption of new ways, a new understanding to which all agreed, the Gods, the Sādhyas and the Rsis.
If a god is born of another god, like the sky god Varuna was born of the goddess Aditi, doesn't that imply that the newborn god is actually the product of the parent god, rather than the other way around?
Aditi is the God Mother, mother of suns, Adityas. Aditi is the year, Aditi is the Samvatsara. Father's name is not mentioned. In Puranas it is Sage Kashyapa. RigVeda 2.27.1 mentions the name of Mitra, Aryaman, Bhaga, Varuna, Daksha and Amsha. The name of the seventh sun is not mentioned.
RigVeda 10.72.8-9 says "Of the eight sons of Aditi, who were born from her body, she approached the gods with seven and cast out Mârtânda. With seven sons Aditi approached (the gods) in the former age (pûrvyam yugam); she brought thither Mârtânda again for birth and death.
The following is from BG Tilak's book, "Orion or the Antiquity of Vedas'. This book too is available at Archives.com.
"There are many passages in the Brahmanas and Samhitas, where Samvatsara and Yajna are declared to be convertible terms, and no other theory has yet been suggested on which this may be accounted for.
Transliteration of the Devanagari portions.
1 & 4.Samvatsarah Prajapatih. 2. Prajapatiryajnah. 3. Yajno vai Prajapati Translation
1& 4.The year (sacrificial cycle) is Prajapati. 2. Prajapati is Yajna. 3. Yajna is Prajapati.
The etymology of the word ‘ritvija’ (ritu+yaj=season sacrificer) shows that even in the oldest days there existed a certain correspondence between the sacrifices and the seasons, and what is true of the seasons is true of the year which according to one derivation of samvatsara (vas = to dwell) is nothing but a period where seasons dwell, or a cycle of seasons. The priests were not only the sacrificers of the community, but were also its time-keepers, and these two functions they appear to have blended into one by assigning the commencement of the several sacrifices to the leading days of the year, on the natural ground that if the sacrifices were to be performed they must be performed on the principal days of the year.
Cf. Sanskrit yaj; Zend yaz; Greek agos.
“Plato states that the months and years are regulated in order that the sacrifices and festivals may correspond with the natural seasons; and Cicero remarks that the system of intercalation was introduced with this object."
“In Rome the care of the calendar was considered a religious function, and it had from earliest times been placed in the hands of the pontiffs”
Lewis's Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, p. 19 & 24.
There is no express passage which states that Punarvasu was ever the first of the Nakshatras, nor have we in this case a synonym like Agrahayana, or Orion, wherein we might discover similar traditions. There are, however, some indications about the oldest position of Punarvasu preserved in the sacrificial literature. The presiding deity of Panarvasu is Aditi, and we are told in the Aitareya Brahmana i.7, and the Taittiriya Samhita vi. 1. 5. 1, that Aditi has been blessed with a boon that all sacrifices must commence and end with her. The story begins with the statement that the Sacrifice (Yajna, the mysterious sacrificial personage) went away from the gods. The gods were then unable to perform any further ceremonies, and did not know where it (the sacrifice) had gone to; and it was Aditi who helped them, in this state, to find out the proper commencement of the sacrifice. This clearly means that before this time sacrifices were performed at random, but it was at this time resolved and fixed to commence them from Aditi. Aditi was thus the oldest and the first commencement of the sacrifice or the year. In the Vajasaneyi Samhita 4.19 Aditi is said to be ‘ubhaya-shirshni’ (double–headed) and the commentators interpret it to mean that the two termini of the sacrifices, which began and ended with Aditi, are the two heads here alluded to.
This is the oldest period which can be inferred from Vedic evidence and it spans from 6,000 BC to 4,000 BC.
One way to answer this I suppose is to posit that Shiva, or the newborn god in question, is the ultimate god but that he birthed himself in a new form out of the parent god of the story.
No go, Rakovsky. Shiva is not an Aryan God, he is indigenous, and he is eternal. I am not aware of any proto-Shiva, which is different. And a small correction to the pillar tale. The two Gods discussing the pillar were Brahma and Vishnu.
Sure, Prajapati was an Aryan God. Now do not say that he was the first God. Neither the Vedic nor the Indigenous Hinduism was/is Abrahamic. We have no concept of Yahweh or Allah. We have many Gods and Goddesses. I chanced upon another interesting description for Prajapati, which I paste here for your information. Prajapati was the representation of the whole sky. Quoted from 'Orion and the Antiquity of Vedas'. The translation is by Prof. Max Muller.
My request will be not to jump top conclusions when thinking about Indian myths, not to insert Sumerian and Abrahamic concepts while trying to understand them (you can add Zoroastrian, Baltic, Greek, Roman, Germanic, Celtic, Irish, and Norwegian/Lithuanian myths) because they too belong to the Indo-European family, and more often than not, you would find a correspondence.
Since the horse sacrifice parallels Purusha's and the horse is killed, it makes sense that Purusha is killed too. Wendy Donger writes in "Textual sources for the Study of Hinduism": "The horse is like the cosmic Person...
Never go by Wendy Doniger. She is a conceited dame. Purusha Sukta and Ashwamedha (horse-sacrifice) are two very different things. Ashwamedha was for invigorating Indra and his horse. It was a night sacrifice (Ratri Kratu) and began with the arrival of the two-month long dark and cold Arctic night when there was not much else to do and ended with the coming of dawn. The Aryans thought that by performing Yajna and imbibing Soma drink (followed by grand feasts) Indra and his horse will be invigorated. He then had to fight against the demons of darkness (Vritra, Vāla, etc.), defeat them, free the imprisoned sun, and bring spring and waters. IMHO, it was a stratagem by the priests to have a nice time and get gifts/remuneration in bargain. Priests/Shamans are known to do these kind of things.
15. Seven fencing-logs * had he, thrice seven layers of fuel were prepared, When the gods, offering sacrifice, bound as their victim, Purusha. .. but here a sacred number, seven.
Not only that , but even the priests (Ritvijas) number seven. Why? Because even Aditi in the oldest verses of RigVeda has only seven sons (Adityas). Later, it was said that there are eight, but the eighth was born unformed. This is a reference to Aryan urheimat in Arctic circle where the sun remained in the horizon for seven months and waned in the eighth. Even the sun's chariot has seven horses or a seven-headed horse. That is why the number seven is sacred/special over half the world (Snow-white and the seven dwarfs). Read Tilak's book to understand the Aryan times. IMHO, you need a lot of study.
Note: Purusha Sukta may not be very ancient. It appears in Book 10. Book 1 and 10 are considered to be the latest in RigVeda.
"Books 1 and 10, which were added last, deal with philosophical or speculative questions about the origin of the universe and the nature of god, the virtue of dāna (charity) in society, and other metaphysical issues in its hymns." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda
There is no mention of Shiva, Durga, Rama or Krishna in RigVeda. That is natural because all these were indigenous Gods and Goddess and not Aryan Gods or Goddess. Don't mix up things. Aditi and Purusha are far apart and there is no correlation.
Edit: Aditi is one of the earliest references in RigVeda, Purusha may be the latest. They may be separated by some 4,000 years.
Finally, don't make Purusha all that important. It is just one hymn. The others in the same category are Brahmanaspati (6 hymns), Brahaspati (8), Vastospati (2), Vishvakarman (2). There is no hymn dedicated to Prajapati. These Gods had their times, but were replaced by a succession of Gods, Varuna (46, Ouranos), Parjanya (3, Perun), Twastr (1, Thor), and finally Indra (289). Vishvedevas (all gods together) have been invoked 70 times.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigvedic_deities
When Indra came to India, he was reduced to a status of secondary God and the indigenous Gods and Goddesses Rama, Krishna (merged into Vishnu), Shiva (in to whom Rudra merged) and Durga (in whom Saraswati merged - Mahsaraswati) continued to be worshiped as before. You can say that it was the victory of Dravidian Gods.
@Rakovsky , I have made some additions in two of the last three posts. Just have a look again. I have bolded the changes so that you may easily find them.
A common Creation story in Hinduism is that of Purusha Prajapati. One place in the Vedas says that Purusha created Nature/Brahman, and that then Nature/Brahman gave birth to Purusha (perhaps in a different form than his pre-creation self). Purusha divided himself into male and female persons. His male self mated with the female goddess he had just created, producing the gods. Later, Shiva or another god objected to Purusha having had sex with Purusha's daughter, and sacrificed Purusha. Purusha's sacrifice led to further Creation of the Cosmos.
