The "Shiva is Tamasic" mentality.

[StarryNightshade]

Okay, I've noticed that, as of late, there has been a lot of "Shiva-is-a-Tamasic God" posts going around the DIR. I've kept my mouth shut about it until a recent thread which inquired about Nataraja that was, unsurprisingly, hijacked by various unrelated posts about the nature of Shiva. The OP's question was answered, but two posts popped that I want to respond to, but didn't want to derail the other thread further.

Most of the Vaishnava-s that I have encountered, on the other hand, have a difficult time getting down from their high horse---thinking they are so high and mighty in their self-anointed "sattvic"-ness.

Only Vaishnavas consider Shiva as Tamasic.

As a Sri Vaishnava, I really don't like the whole "only Vishnu is Sattvic and Shiva is Tamasic" mentality. Yes, in my theology, I consider Vishnu supreme, but that doesn't mean I consider Shiva to be a "demi-god" or of an inherent less importance than Narayana. To me, Shiva is of the same essence as Vishnu, but is also his own separate entity. One with his own role to fulfill and one on which many devoted Hindus seek refuge. Just because some Hindus go to Shiva instead of Vishnu, it doesn't mean that they are "lost" or "caught in Maya". Like @Poeticus said, many Vaishnavas seem to be on this high horse of "I'm right and you're wrong" that seems just completely undharmic in nature. They take a God from the Trimurthi and go overboard with a "this is the only true God" state of mind that seems more akin to a couple of other faiths.

It just seems very unfortunate that some Hindus have to tear down others down for being "wrong". Or for following the "wrong God". Or for following the "wrong philosophy". Or the "wrong scripture". Or trying to intellectually out do another for not being intellectual enough. Why is it so wrong for letting others practice as they see fit and to be pluralistic in approach to our faith?

 

[Vinayaka]

Starry, if a Christian comes into the Hindu DIR and says that kind of derogatory stuff about my God, I can report them to the moderators, but if a fellow Hindu who I supposedly has a great deal in common with me by the very fact they declare that they're Hindu does it, I cannot report them. They're Hindu. I'm left with the option of letting it go in one ear and out the other - non-reaction, which is part of my training in Hinduism anyway. So it's no big deal ... I see it for what it is ... another viewpoint differing from mine.

 

[Vinayaka]

Snakes will be snakes, P, one cannot turn them into flowers.

 

[StarryNightshade]

@Vinayaka

Not saying we should report any differing POVs (far from it), but it's just a shame that there is a seemingly inherent "I'm superior" complex among many Hindus. That the whole "it's all just different paths" speech is given one minute, but then the next, it's "this is why x is superior to y". Not even necessarily just on RF, but in general. However, I suppose since it's human ego involved, it's generally bound to happen.

I suppose the DIR is also just going through it's annual intruding-controversial-posts spell that it does a few times a year.

 

[Poeticus]

@Vinayaka

Not saying we should report any differing POVs (far from it), but it's just a shame that there is a seemingly inherent "I'm superior" complex among many Hindus. That the whole "it's all just different paths" speech is given one minute, but then the next, it's "this is why x is superior to y". Not even necessarily just on RF, but in general. However, I suppose since it's human ego involved, it's generally bound to happen.

I suppose the DIR is also just going through it's annual intruding-controversial-posts spell that it does a few times a year.

Something similar happened on another forum (not saying which) a few days ago. A sincere and honest inquiry, by a poster that I personally know to have never harbored any ulterior motives, about inter-avatar stories of Vishnu and Mahadev, was brutally strawmanned by charges detailing that the OP was being anti-Hindu and anti-Vaishnava, that the OP (who is actually a Rama-bhakta) was feeling "inferior" and posted something that was akin to "anti-Hindu trolling" that didn't "appeal to a Vaishnava".

I was so flabbergasted that I facepalmed for a good minute or so, laughing incredibly hard because I didn't know how to process such severe stupidity. In my head I was like, "Anti-Hindu? Are you kidding me? Who in the world are you, someone who most likely will never engage in the physical protection of Dharma against yAtudhAnic encroachments, to charge an honest inquiry as 'anti-Hindu trolling'?"

 

[Stormcry]

Rudro looks like a Ghost. Daksha even insulted him. But Sages, who take shelter of his lotus feet, know him beyond Guna-s. He's Shiva - Blissful.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Rudro looks like a Ghost.

Rudra is ruddy (babhrave), fair, handsome, with flowing hair with bow and arrows in his hands. He seems ferocious only to the enemies.

पर बभ्रवे वर्षभाय शवितीचे महो महीं सुष्टुतिमीरयामि l
नमस्या कल्मलीकिनं नमोभिर्ग्र्णीमसि तवेषं रुद्रस्य नाम ll
pra babhrave vṛṣabhāya śvitīce maho mahīṃ suṣṭutimīrayāmi l
namasyā kalmalīkinaṃ namobhirghṛṇīmasi tveṣaṃ rudrasya nāma ll
To him the strong like a bull, great, tawny, fair-complexioned, I utter forth a mighty hymn of praises.
We serve the brilliant God with adorations, we glorify, the splendid name of Rudra.
The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 2: Hymn 33

 

[Shantanu]

Okay, I've noticed that, as of late, there has been a lot of "Shiva-is-a-Tamasic God" posts going around the DIR. I've kept my mouth shut about it until a recent thread which inquired about Nataraja that was, unsurprisingly, hijacked by various unrelated posts about the nature of Shiva. The OP's question was answered, but two posts popped that I want to respond to, but didn't want to derail the other thread further.





As a Sri Vaishnava, I really don't like the whole "only Vishnu is Sattvic and Shiva is Tamasic" mentality. Yes, in my theology, I consider Vishnu supreme, but that doesn't mean I consider Shiva to be a "demi-god" or of an inherent less importance than Narayana. To me, Shiva is of the same essence as Vishnu, but is also his own separate entity. One with his own role to fulfill and one on which many devoted Hindus seek refuge. Just because some Hindus go to Shiva instead of Vishnu, it doesn't mean that they are "lost" or "caught in Maya". Like @Poeticus said, many Vaishnavas seem to be on this high horse of "I'm right and you're wrong" that seems just completely undharmic in nature. They take a God from the Trimurthi and go overboard with a "this is the only true God" state of mind that seems more akin to a couple of other faiths.

It just seems very unfortunate that some Hindus have to tear down others down for being "wrong". Or for following the "wrong God". Or for following the "wrong philosophy". Or the "wrong scripture". Or trying to intellectually out do another for not being intellectual enough. Why is it so wrong for letting others practice as they see fit and to be pluralistic in approach to our faith?

Here is a story that tells us much about Shiva: how Ganesha got his elephant head.How Ganesh Got His Elephant Head - Sacred Elephants

 

[StarryNightshade]

Here is a story that tells us much about Shiva: how Ganesha got his elephant head.How Ganesh Got His Elephant Head - Sacred Elephants

So? What's your point? Besides, that isn't the only story related to Ganesha's birth.

 

[Shantanu]

So? What's your point?

Perhaps you can explain what was it about Shiva's character that made him so angry as to pick a fight with a child and promptly cut his head off?

 

[StarryNightshade]

Perhaps you can explain what was it about Shiva's character that made him so angry as to pick a fight with a child and promptly cut his head off?

Who's to say that the story is literal? Or that everyone who is a follower of Shiva even regards it as truthful? Or even follows that particular story? As far as I'm concerned, the Puranic tales go by an individual basis: with some having more emphasis placed upon them than others; depending on the samparadaya and individual. Also, they are just that: tales.

Yes, Shiva is regarded as a God of destruction. But guess what? That's not a bad thing. Destruction does not have to be a negative (or even physical) thing. It can be the destruction of ego. Which is how I regard Lord Shiva.

 

[Yogi1054]

Perhaps you can explain what was it about Shiva's character that made him so angry as to pick a fight with a child and promptly cut his head off?

What do you make to the story that Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu had a child? Lord Ayyappan Ayyappan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shantanu]

Who's to say that the story is literal?

Do you think that mischievious Vaishavites invented the story then to take the high moral ground?

 

[StarryNightshade]

Do you think that mischievious Vaishavites invented the story then to take the high moral ground?

...no. I have no inherent issue with Shaivas. Nor do I believe Vaishnavism has the "high moral ground".

 

[Chakra]

The Shiva cutting of Ganesh's head is found is some un-authoritative text and is to be rejected.

Going back to the OP, I have a lot of respect for Mahadeva Rudra and most certainly do not believe him to be a tamasic deity, contrary to the opinion of shivsomasekhar. With that being said, I prefer to follow the opinion of my sampradaya (and the opinion of Adi Shankara, Chaitanya, Madhva, Vallabha etc) and not my own sentiments regarding Shiva. I hope people will not accuse me of being Abrahamic/Un-Hindu/Sectarian/a Shiva Dveshi just because I follow my sampradaya's views! But even if they do, I am not bothered. Eka bhakti is indeed a boon.

 

[Poeticus]

The Shiva cutting of Ganesh's head is found is some un-authoritative text and is to be rejected.

Going back to the OP, I have a lot of respect for Mahadeva Rudra and most certainly do not believe him to be a tamasic deity, contrary to the opinion of shivsomasekhar. With that being said, I prefer to follow the opinion of my sampradaya (and the opinion of Adi Shankara, Chaitanya, Madhva, Vallabha etc) and not my own sentiments regarding Shiva. I hope people will not accuse me of being Abrahamic/Un-Hindu/Sectarian/a Shiva Dveshi just because I follow my sampradaya's views! But even if they do, I am not bothered. Eka bhakti is indeed a boon.

Don't worry, bro, it's all good. No one is going to accuse you of anything. Just please enjoy this song:

And this...don't forget to enjoy this one as well (first brought to my attention by Ratiben):

 

[Poeticus]

I also really like this rendition (an edited version that's one hour long!):

And Jagjit Singh did Hey Raam Hey Raam really well:

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram malola ji

As a Sri Vaishnava, I really don't like the whole "only Vishnu is Sattvic and Shiva is Tamasic" mentality. Yes, in my theology, I consider Vishnu supreme, but that doesn't mean I consider Shiva to be a "demi-god" or of an inherent less importance than Narayana. To me, Shiva is of the same essence as Vishnu, but is also his own separate entity. One with his own role to fulfill and one on which many devoted Hindus seek refuge. Just because some Hindus go to Shiva instead of Vishnu, it doesn't mean that they are "lost" or "caught in Maya". Like @Poeticus said, many Vaishnavas seem to be on this high horse of "I'm right and you're wrong" that seems just completely undharmic in nature. They take a God from the Trimurthi and go overboard with a "this is the only true God" state of mind that seems more akin to a couple of other faiths.

Here we have the most beautifull version of Vaishnava janato
sung even by non Hindus , .....

If non Hindus recognise the beauty of the true vaishnava principles , we too can recognise these principles , ....not just the Vaisnava amongst us prehaps others can too ?

and it is sad to say that in this world there are many who would think them selves Vaishnava but canot behave like Vaishnava , ...we should tale pitty on these people and try to help them becone better vaishnava's, ....

વૈષ્ણવ જન તો તેને કહિયે જે પીડ પરાયી જાણે રે
પર દુ:ખે ઉપકાર કરે તો યે મન અભિમાન ન આણે રે. ॥ધૃ॥

वैष्णव जन तो तेने कहिये जे पीड परायी जाणे रे।
पर दुःखे उपकार करे तो ये मन अभिमान न आणे रे॥

Vaishnava (devotees of Lord Vishnu) people are those who,
Feel the pain of others,
Help those who are in misery,
But never let ego or conceit enter their mind.

સકળ લોકમાં સહુને વંદે, નિંદા ન કરે કેની રે
વાચ કાછ મન નિશ્છળ રાખે ધન ધન જનની તેની રે. ॥૧॥

सकळ लोकमां सहुने वंदे, निंदा न करे केनी रे।
वाच काछ मन निश्चळ राखे, धन धन जननी तेनी रे॥

Vaishnavas, respect the entire world,
Do not censure anyone,
Keep their words, actions and thoughts pure,
The mother of such a soul is blessed.

સમદૃષ્ટિ ને તૃષ્ણા ત્યાગી પરસ્ત્રી જેને માત રે
જિહ્વા થકી અસત્ય ન બોલે પરધન નવ ઝાલે હાથ રે. ॥૨॥

समदृष्टि ने तृष्णा त्यागी, परस्त्री जेने मात रे।
जिह्वा थकी असत्य न बोले, परधन नव झाले हाथ रे॥

Vaishnavas see all equally, renounce greed and avarice,
Respect women as they respect their own mother,
Their tongue never utters false words,
Their hands would never touch the wealth of another.

સમદૃષ્ટિ ને તૃષ્ણા ત્યાગી પરસ્ત્રી જેને માત રે
જિહ્વા થકી અસત્ય ન બોલે પરધન નવ ઝાલે હાથ રે. ॥૨॥

समदृष्टि ने तृष्णा त्यागी, परस्त्री जेने मात रे।
जिह्वा थकी असत्य न बोले, परधन नव झाले हाथ रे॥

Vaishnavas see all equally, renounce greed and avarice,
Respect women as they respect their own mother,
Their tongue never utters false words,
Their hands would never touch the wealth of another.

મોહ માયા વ્યાપે નહિ જેને, દૃઢ વૈરાગ્ય જેના મનમાં રે
રામ નામ શુ તાળી રે લાગી સકળ તીરથ તેના તનમાં રે. ॥૩॥

मोह माया व्यापे नहि जेने, दृढ़ वैराग्य जेना मनमां रे।
रामनाम शुं ताळी रे लागी, सकळ तीरथ तेना तनमां रे॥

Vaishnavas do not succumb to worldly attachments,
They are detached from worldly pleasures,
They are enticed by the name of God (Shri Ram),
All holy sites of pilgrimage are embodied within them.

વણ લોભી ને કપટ રહિત છે, કામ ક્રોધ નિવાર્યાં રે
ભણે નરસૈયો તેનું દર્શન કરતાં કુળ એકોતેર તાર્યાં રે. ॥૪॥

वणलोभी ने कपटरहित छे, काम क्रोध निवार्या रे।
भणे नरसैयॊ तेनुं दरसन करतां, कुळ एकोतेर तार्या रे॥

Vaishnavas encompasses the absence of greed and deceit,
They have renounced all types of lust and anger,
The author of this poem (Narsi) would be grateful to meet such a soul,
Whose virtue liberates their entire lineage.


and here another beautiful version , ....

It just seems very unfortunate that some Hindus have to tear down others down for being "wrong". Or for following the "wrong God". Or for following the "wrong philosophy". Or the "wrong scripture". Or trying to intellectually out do another for not being intellectual enough. Why is it so wrong for letting others practice as they see fit and to be pluralistic in approach to our faith?

it is sad , and this only leaves me asking what is Hindu , it covers a multitude of people with a multitude of veiws and like all peoples some have clear understanding and others are confused , and some even not ready to put down the ego which foolishly says my god is better than yours , ....we should recognise this to be spiritual imaturity and try our best to set the record streight without stooping to the same level of agressive argument , ...and sadly here there is a fair bit of anti Vaishnava sentiment this too comes from those who may also not be young in years , but interms of spiritual maturity they are children so if we can find it in our hearts not to take insult this , is by far the best mode of action ....


whether by birth or by choice we are Vaisnava , ...and should be proud , ...but never arogant .....

one thing we must never forget is that inside the heart of all others is the small seed of the supreme , we must try to let each person realise ths in their own way and in their own time even if it is not in this lifetime , ...prehaps it will be in the next , ......

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The Shiva cutting of Ganesh's head is found is some un-authoritative text and is to be rejected.

Going back to the OP, I have a lot of respect for Mahadeva Rudra and most certainly do not believe him to be a tamasic deity, contrary to the opinion of shivsomasekhar. With that being said, I prefer to follow the opinion of my sampradaya (and the opinion of Adi Shankara, Chaitanya, Madhva, Vallabha etc) and not my own sentiments regarding Shiva. I hope people will not accuse me of being Abrahamic/Un-Hindu/Sectarian/a Shiva Dveshi just because I follow my sampradaya's views! But even if they do, I am not bothered. Eka bhakti is indeed a boon.

Just so we are clear, this is not my personal opinion.There is a lot more to it.

1. The Shaiva/Vaishnava rivalry has been around for thousands of years and continues to this day. Anyone who has lived in India and has taken interest in these matters, would be well aware of it.
2. Some Vaishnava Puranas classify themselves as Sattvic and Shaiva Puranas as Tamasic. No such classification is found in non-Vaishnava Puranas.

Therefore, this is not personal opinion. It also does not mean that all Vaishnavas see Shiva and Shaivas the same way. Some like the idea of worshiping a superior God who is higher in the hierarchy while some others do not take interest in these matters. It is different for everyone.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Yes, in my theology, I consider Vishnu supreme, but that doesn't mean I consider Shiva to be a "demi-god"

Well, there are multiple posts which posit Viṣṇu as rajasic and Śiva as tamasic! In most Vaiṣṇava siddhāntas Śiva is indeed considered a demi-god, but at the same time Śaivas too have both purāṇas and āgamas and of course a tradition that present Viṣṇu as a demi-god. The Śaktas have pañcapretas. I think, just because someone considers say Viṣṇu as a demi-god, it is not possible that His glory or greatness gets diminished in any way. Nor is a need to water-down any Ācarya's siddhānta justifiable, if only to sound politically correct, as long as it is not chest-thumping rhetoric against the other. Haven't we seen several posts that say Viṣṇu is not even a vedik god, and if at all, a minor one? Or that Vaiṣṇavism is a cult that emerged after the supposed Aryan invasion? Or the sweeping generalization about Vaiṣṇavas being useless to the society, writing off all of their sacrifice in a few strokes, toward not only preserving our heritage and culture to the extent possible amidst a totally antagonistic socio-political environment first under the barbaric invasions from outside, then during the freedom struggle, and presently as active participants in various organizations?

1. The Shaiva/Vaishnava rivalry has been around for thousands of years and continues to this day. Anyone who has lived in India and has taken interest in these matters, would be well aware of it.

I agree, it indeed has historical antecedents. There's a reason why Śri Rāmānuja had to relocate to Karṇāṭaka. But i feel this is reactionary rather than an innate hatred, driven mainly by erstwhile socio-political conditions.

2. Some Vaishnava Puranas classify themselves as Sattvic and Shaiva Puranas as Tamasic. No such classification is found in non-Vaishnava Puranas.

Just to clarify on this - Śri Vyāsa who composed the brahmasūtras is considered an authority with regard to the understanding of purport of Vedas. Śri Vyāsa is also believed to be the composer of all purāṇas and it would be untenable to hold that He composed tāmāsa purāṇas without undermining His authority as the composer of brahmasūtras. Purāṇas have always been interpreted in the light of Vedas and Itihāsas. The reference to a purāṇa as tāmasa doesn't mean it leads to nescience but only that its statements are to be interpreted properly. It is to be noted that purāṇas popularly considered as sāttvika can also have statements that are contradictory while those considered tāmasa can have statements complying perfectly with the Vedas. However, what i feel is more important is that:
1) Most purāṇas have been corrupted irreconcilably thru' interpolations and misprints
2) Most translations are mired with inconsistencies and contradictions on top of 1)
3) Most translators lack the required competency to interpret them - some even presenting symbolic narratives as facts!

Candramouḷīśvara and Ananteśvara in Udupi -- both liṁgas: one on the left is Śiva and other Viśnu both temples are positioned one behind the other, Arcakas in both temples are Vaiṣṇavas. So i don't think it would be appropriate to hold that Vaiṣṇavas consider Śiva as tamasic.

I wouldn't pretend there are no misgivings between the two panthas. Indeed there are. But sincere sādhakas have never been bogged down by such things which have zero adhyātmic value. When jñāna is as clear as crystal such things hardly matter, and the opinions of those lacking clarity is just that - opinion lacking clarity.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।