This article is
excerpted from an old post in my blog written by our guest writer Mr R Ramanathan.
Is Shiva really a Dravidian god?
By
A fundamental doubt!
Why are western
Indologists only obsessed about the Rig Veda alone and
not the Yajur Veda or the Samans?. They consider these
"later" which means it is un-important?. The Rig Veda has a
very advanced Sacrificial culture in it. In fact all the 3 Vedas mention each
other within themselves and I do not see why one is less or more. Traditional
scholars, who have dedicated their lives for Vedic study, do not say that the
Rig is better than the Yajus or vice versa. Has the opinion of traditional
Vedic teachers who really have lived a Vedic life and breath it, ever been
collected?. As far as I know each veda is functionally different that's
it.
I have some
knowledge of the Yajur veda and the Rig veda. With that I started analyzing the
statement of the AIT proponents that Shiva was a Dravidian God. The only
reason which I saw why Lord Shiva is not accepted as an Aryan gods is that the
word "Shiva" does not appear in the Rig veda but only the term
"Rudra" occurs.
Eka mukha Shiva linga.
5th Century CE, Mrigasthali, Nepal.
But the
Yajur Veda has Shiva repeating multiple times as Rudra's equivalent. Why
on earth based on this one word alone should this be denied?. And also why would
the Yajus be rejected here?. Also some suggest "Siva" & "Shambu"
originated from Tamizh words "Sivappu"
and "Chembu". But I do not think
it is right because there is a distinct difference in the "Sha"
consonant which is an Ushma consonant from Sanskrit grammer.
"Chembu" would use "Cha", which is distinct from
"Sha".
God knows how
one was derived from the other. So based on the non-occurrence of
"Shiva" in the Rig Veda alone Shiva is called a Dravidian god.
Any evidence of Shiva as a Dravidian God
in Tamil lands?
Also since
Vishnu was an Aryan god I started looking into the Shaiva-Vaishnava debates and
what they had to say about this. Nowhere did I find that Shaivaites reject
Vishnu because he is an Aryan god. Or Vaishnavaites reject Shiva saying he
is a Dravidian god. The entire debate is based on either the deeds of the
gods based on the puranas and their appearances. Also some vaishnavaites claim
that the word "Shiva" in the vedas, did not mean "Rudra".
But it meant "Auspiciousness". Since Shiva was a god who hobnobbed
with ghosts from the graveyard he cannot be auspicious. Thus nowhere in
the Shaiva & Vaishnava rivalry we see this Aryan/Dravidian divide.
Also the Thillai Vaazh Andanar (Ancint saivite Brahmins in
Chidambaram) study the Veda seriously. They are also staunch Shaivites. They
don't say Vedas or Vishnu is Aryan or Shiva was Dravidian. They say Vishnu
was one of the minor deities with Shiva being the supreme.
Tamizh Shaivite
saints like Gnanasambandar have sung
"Long live
righteous Vedic Brahmins, whose penance are needed for a proper bountiful
rainfall. Long live the king to protect dharma. Let the name of Hara spread".
As seen here he does not consider Brahmins "Aryan" and shiva a
"Dravidian" god. He himself was a shaivite Brahmin and his father had
performed a Vedic soma sacrifice. All the 4 great shaivaite saints have sungs
very beautiful and highly devotional songs on shiva but none disparage the
vedas as Aryan.
Now consider the
"Divyaprabandam". It consists of 4000
beautiful hymns packed with devotion to Vishnu. It was considered as Tamizh
Vedam. One of the composers was a devotee called Nammazhvar who
belonged to the fourth Varna. As per the Aryan Dravidian divide he should
be Dravidian. But he composed this wonderful work and compares it with the
Vedas. He a "Shudra" singing praises of an Aryan god?
This also goes
to show that the 4th Varna did not think of themselves as
Dravidians and were separate from Aryans. In the same mould are Thirupanazhwar, who was outside the pale of the
four castes. He was highly devoted to Vishnu. He did not consider himself
an Adivasi.
Also one more
point quoted here is that a "Linga" was
found in the Harappan civilization. This proves that it was Dravidian as
this "Linga" worship is predominant in the south. But in the Mahanarayana
Upanishad of the Krishna Yajur Veda, there is a mantra beginning with
"Nidhanapathayee namaha" and ending with "Sarvalingam sthapayati pani mantram pavithram". This
is a mantra for linga pratishta. So where is linga worship absent in the Veda?.
In innumerable
shiva temples in Tamil Nadu (all the ones in the Nava kailasam temple series on
the Thamiraparani), the lord is named "Kailasa
Nathar". If shiva was Dravidian why is he named after a place,
northern most in India?
Also the Shiva
yogi Thirumoola who composed the great
"Thirumandiram" of 3000 verses, says that he was a yogi in the
Himalayas and Nandikeshvara's shishya. The Thirumandiram is a canonical
Shaivite text in Tamizh. Why would they want to choose a book written by a
person from the "Aryan" North?.
Also reference
to Shiva with his consort Ambika occurs in the Yajur veda samhita frequently.
Also again in
the Yajur Veda there is a reference to Shiva wearing a tiger cloth and
having pinaka club in hand.
Also sometimes Rudra
is extolled as Agni and Agni as Rudra in the Yajur veda. Sometimes Indra
too danced as Shiva of the puranas.
Conclusion
All these show
that shiva was never a Dravidian god or Vishnu Aryan or vice versa. There is no
scriptural (Vedic or Agamic) evidence for this.
