When did Rudra start to be called Shiva?

[Buddha Dharma]

Greetings friends,

I'd be grateful if one of you could help me with this one. Like, even Buddhists use the name Shiva generally, when he's venerated as a Bodhisattva. I wonder when and how that started? Is Rudra ever called Shiva in the Vedas? I don't recall that he is.

 

[atanu]

Greetings friends,

I'd be grateful if one of you could help me with this one. Like, even Buddhists use the name Shiva generally, when he's venerated as a Bodhisattva. I wonder when and how that started? Is Rudra ever called Shiva in the Vedas? I don't recall that he is.

In Veda itself, Rudra is said to be shiva, the good, the auspicious.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

In Veda itself, Rudra is said to be shiva, the good, the auspicious.

Thanks so much. The Vedas in Sanskrit, I would reckon?

 

[Aupmanyav]

In Veda itself, Rudra is said to be shiva, the good, the auspicious.

Sure, he is considered auspicious, but here the word Shiva is not used as being a God but for auspiciousness.

Aryans probably came to India around or later than 2,000 BC, so I think the relationship may have started around 1,500 BC.

 

[spyrichuwel]

Ask yourself this and see if it makes any sense

degeneration, decomposition(a form of disease for living tings), breaking down

is it not closer to complete destruction / turning to non-existence?

just read who Rudra is and what He means in the Vedas His attributes and actions tally with what I said
"degeneration, decomposition(a form of disease for living tings), breaking down"

so what do you think is closer to "Sustaining" of the universe or any existent thing?

something to do with "maintaining" which must mean "restoration" and "perpetuation of order"

actually as with the paradigm as illustrated, Rudra consonant with Shiva

Something / another "form" of Vishnu (that has not been named thus but should) consonant with Vishnu

Shiva = Transcendant, does not operate "within"

Vishnu is illusory Immanent, a completely out of nothing, between Creation and Destruction, giving or rather supporting Existence

Vishnu is Transcendant but apparently Immanent

actually Indra is more Immanent because He is operating "within creation"

Vishnu is simply existence

but Indra is more regarding "what kind of existence", "what is its condition", differentation within creation, flunctuating mind

don't you think Hinduism should have a constantly incarnating Indra that saves the day rather than a Vishnu?

but see my earlier point

something to do with "maintaining" which must mean "restoration" and "perpetuation of order"

this seems to be a paradox because if Vishnu just means Sustaining, simply making things be existent, without regard to however they may be what does it matter if how they exist?

its the same as Rudra being correlated with Shiva

do these things make any sense from a theological standpoint?

Lakshmi seems even more Immanent than Vishnu

but Lakshmi is even more intensified materialism, because She is the Giver, who gives you your Wants, desires intensify tightens the grip of maya

 

[spyrichuwel]

Could it be that Vishnu = gives or supports existence

and

Lakshmi = gives or supports objects

therefore they are one/related i.e. "married as a couple"

also the connection between Vishnu and Bhumi Devi is VERY obvious

Vishnu = Sustains

sustains, what?

sustains matter

so he is "more tied to matter" as that which makes it be existent

where do we get the concept of matter from?

well duh as inhabitants of the planet earth!

earth as a more localized and obvious form of matter

 

[ajay0]

Could it be that Vishnu = gives or supports existence

and

Lakshmi = gives or supports objects

therefore they are one/related i.e. "married as a couple"

also the connection between Vishnu and Bhumi Devi is VERY obvious

Vishnu = Sustains

sustains, what?

sustains matter

so he is "more tied to matter" as that which makes it be existent

where do we get the concept of matter from?

well duh as inhabitants of the planet earth!

earth as a more localized and obvious form of matter

Vishnu, imo, stands for the application of truth in action leading to spiritual and material prosperity. He stands for good work habits.

That is why you see Vishnu and his avatars in the midst of all activities. Where there is Vishnu with correct understanding and application of spiritual and material knowledge in action, Lakshmi is sure to follow with spiritual and material prosperity.

Improper understanding of spiritual and material knowledge, or the improper application of knowledge in action is a sign of the demonic Kali ( Lord of Kali Yuga), and Alakshmi is sure to follow him with spiritual and material poverty.

 

[atanu]

Greetings friends,

I'd be grateful if one of you could help me with this one. Like, even Buddhists use the name Shiva generally, when he's venerated as a Bodhisattva. I wonder when and how that started? Is Rudra ever called Shiva in the Vedas? I don't recall that he is.

In the Vedas itself all gods are called shiva. In Rudram of Yajurveda, shiva epithet is used for Rudra. Many upanishads, Rudra and Shiva terms are interchangeably used.

However, Shiva, Rudra, or Vishnu do not mean localised anthropomorphic personalities.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Well I can't speak about Shiva from the Hindu perspective @spyrichuwel, but I can tell you some of the traditional Buddhist views of him, that you may or may not find insightful. Buddhists see Lord Shiva as protective in a traditional Mahayana framework. He destroys malevolent forces like demons and protects Dharma practitioners from hostile forces, as indeed he does the Dharma itself. He is a great Bodhisattva for traditionalists, as is Lord Brahma. Lord Vishnu is also invoked in some long mantras for protection by Buddhists.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Yeah @atanu I didn't think so. I asked Hindus because you'd know something like this about a Deva. I was curious about where calling Rudra Shiva came from because Buddhists call him both.

 

[Aupmanyav]

also the connection between Vishnu and Bhumi Devi is VERY obvious, therefore they are one/related i.e. "married as a couple"

Purusha, Prakriti; Driver, Driven; Vishnu, Lakshmi.

Yeah I was curious about where calling Rudra Shiva came from because Buddhists call him both.

IMHO, Aryans (Rudra people) came to India around 2,000 BC or a little later and met the indigenous people of India (Shiva people). So the mix-up happened after that (perhaps between 1,500 BC - 1,000 BC).

 

[spyrichuwel]

Purusha, Prakriti; Driver, Driven; Vishnu, Lakshmi.IMHO, Aryans (Rudra people) came to India around 2,000 BC or a little later and met the [B]indigenous people of India (Shiva people)[/B]. So the mix-up happened after that (perhaps between 1,500 BC - 1,000 BC).

lawlz

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sure, welcome.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Greetings friends,

I'd be grateful if one of you could help me with this one. Like, even Buddhists use the name Shiva generally, when he's venerated as a Bodhisattva. I wonder when and how that started? Is Rudra ever called Shiva in the Vedas? I don't recall that he is.

Namaste,

In the Sukla Yajur Veda Samhita, the name of Rudra was known as Shiva, There is a Mantra to Rudra and it loosely states "Shivo Nam Asi", therefore the answer is yes to Rudra called as Shiva in Veda.

This is calling Rudra by NAME as Shiva not as benevolent ect attribute.

Dhanyavad

 

[Aupmanyav]

Shukla YajurVeda written by Yajnavalkya is not the older one. The older one is Krishna YajurVeda which Vaishampayana had taught him and later asked to be vomited. Vedas, before the codification as we know them today, were liquid.That is why there are 'shakhas'. Many of the verses were written aftr the Aryans had come to India, Book 10 and 1, and even Book 7, which describes the 'Battle of Ten Kings'. That surely happened in India.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"Aupmanyav,"

Namaste,

Shukla YajurVeda written by Yajnavalkya is not the older one.

Does not matter which one is older or newer, the idea of Rudra having the Name of Shiva is Vedic (Sukla Yajur Veda to be precise), this is not Abrahamic Faith mate, its not like the old and new testament where the newer version superseded the older. All 4 Samhitas (Inc Krishna Yajur) is considered as "Vedika", not just the oldest one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

History thinks the Veda dateline may extend from before 4,000 BC to later than 1,000 BC, though the old and new are oven together.