The Dravidian system of worship was idolatry, i.e., puja (Poo –sai – Neri) to a concrete religious symbol that enables an average man to love, perceive and comprehend his God. The Dravidians used to worship God with water, leaves and flowers. The Aryan system of worship was ‘yagna’, the imageless worship. The Aryans lit fire and threw animals into it to propitiate their God. They believed that the fire was the messenger who carried their message to their God. This is the fundamental difference between the religions of the Aryans and the Dravidians.
The Himalayas with its splendid, dazzling, magnificent and awe-inspiring aura, overwhelmed the hearts of the Dravidians of the pre-historic age to a great extent that they revered it as the abode of their God and visualized the river Ganges that originated from it as His wife. During their day-to-day prayers and festivals, they used to prepare the image of the abode of their God for their worship. That image depicted the plain land, the mountain over it and the river that flowed from the mountain over the plain. As everyone was permitted (in sharp contrast to the way the Brahmins had later appropriated to themselves the right of access to the deity) to prepare such an image for one’s own worship, and given the fact that all the people were not sculptors, the image, in due course, took the present form in which it is installed and worshipped in the Siva temples. Such transformation in shape had taken place in the Indus Civilization period itself. The base representing the plains was not always circular but was also a square, as could be seen from the famous cave No.16 of the Ellora. Building tall towers with rectangular base for the entrance of the temples were also meant to signify the Himalayas which was the abode of the Lord and the plains. The Kudamuzhukku, the Thirukkudaneerattu vizha was and is essentially and exclusively Dravidian in origin representing the river Ganges that originated from the Himalayas and flowed over and through it towards the plains.
The Himalayas with its splendid, dazzling, magnificent and awe-inspiring aura, overwhelmed the hearts of the Dravidians of the pre-historic age to a great extent that they revered it as the abode of their God and visualized the river Ganges that originated from it as His wife. During their day-to-day prayers and festivals, they used to prepare the image of the abode of their God for their worship. That image depicted the plain land, the mountain over it and the river that flowed from the mountain over the plain. As everyone was permitted (in sharp contrast to the way the Brahmins had later appropriated to themselves the right of access to the deity) to prepare such an image for one’s own worship, and given the fact that all the people were not sculptors, the image, in due course, took the present form in which it is installed and worshipped in the Siva temples. Such transformation in shape had taken place in the Indus Civilization period itself. The base representing the plains was not always circular but was also a square, as could be seen from the famous cave No.16 of the Ellora. Building tall towers with rectangular base for the entrance of the temples were also meant to signify the Himalayas which was the abode of the Lord and the plains. The Kudamuzhukku, the Thirukkudaneerattu vizha was and is essentially and exclusively Dravidian in origin representing the river Ganges that originated from the Himalayas and flowed over and through it towards the plains.
It is worthwhile to mention here
that the practice of preparing such an image, though not in accurate shape,
with turmeric paste or cow-dung, is still prevalent in the South, during
festival occasions. The origin of this practice can be traced only to the
aforesaid worship of Lord Siva of pre-historic
origin.(That the image is now called as Pillaiyar does not contradict the fact,
as this story of Pillaiyar was
due to the later-day evolution of modern Hinduism which even then held that the
said Pillaiyar belonged to the same Saivite cosmic family of Lord Siva).
Besides, the Dravidian custom of
regarding and respecting the mountains as the abode of their God is still held
in high esteem in the South that it gave birth to the adage, “Kundram
Irukkumidam Kumaran Irukkumidam”
(Kumaran, the Lord Muruhan, being another deity of the same cosmic family) This
belief of Tamils in venerating the mountains as the abode of God can also be
traced only to the concept of the
Kayilai of Lord Siva
The tradition
of the Dravidians to visualize their God to be at the highest place, even in
the material sense is, therefore, of pre-historic origin. Their religion was
Siva-ism, the Saivism. And, the seals found in the Indus Valley include the
Mother Goddess, the Siva form, and a male God seated in yogic posture. It,
therefore, becomes crystal clear that Siva worship, in its present form, had
been practiced during the pre-Aryan Indus Civilization period itself.
They ridiculed the Siva worship
The widely held theory that the
Siva symbol represented the “Nadha Vindhu Kalaadhi” concept does not have any
historical or mythological authentication. The earliest reference to the people
who worshipped Siva in this material form is found in the Rig Veda. But, these
Rig Vedic references were only in the context of deriding the symbol and not in
the context of expounding its concept. The Vedic religion, which entered the
sub-continent c.1500 BC, approved only the imageless nature worship, the yagna.
On the other hand, the religion of the native Dravidians whom the Vedic people confronted
was an idolatrous one as is seen from the texts of the Rig Veda itself. The Rig
Vedic people are found to be condemning the worshippers of Siva as “Sisnadeva”s
and Indra’s intercession is sought against them.(VII – 21.5: X – 99.3 of the
Rig Veda). The Lord Siva himself is derided as ‘Sisnadevata’.
“ Their
practices are all different
They
are not men!
O! Destroyer of Foes!
Kill
them, destroy the Dasa race.”
- Rig Veda I – 1008
Is it not ridiculous ,in such circumstances,
to expect the concept of the Siva statues to be expounded by such a Rig Veda which nurtures so much animosity?
Given the fact that these two
peoples were so ill-disposed towards each other, such derisive remarks against
the religion of the Dravidians by the
Vedic Aryans are understandable. But one must not sheepishly accept the
propaganda of the present day Brahmins who persist in the Nadha Vindhu Kalaadhi
theory, by citing this Vedic authority. If anything, these references
authenticate only the fact that there was no connection between the
disgraceful, shocking, contemptible and despicable interpretation given by the
Aryans and the real concept of the Siva statue. That the derision of the Aryans was the offshoot
of their irrepressible antagonism and jealousy is easily
perceivable. An analysis of the world history shows that the antagonism of the
Vedic Aryans towards the religious symbols of the Dravidians is matched only by
the antagonism displayed by the Aryans of Germany towards the religious symbols
of the Jews. The abominable manner in which
the Germans desecrated them is of
recent history. It does not, therefore,
make sense in expecting an alien Vedic religion to interpret the concept
of the religious symbol of the native Dravidian religion, especially when both
these religions were in a collision course.
‘Sisna’ in Vedic language meant
the private part of the males. The words ‘linga’ also means the same thing. In
English it came to be called as ‘phallus’. The Vedic Aryans were the first people in the recorded history of
the world to offend the feelings of the other religious group in such a
repulsive manner which is a crime under the present day Indian Penal Code
Section 125.
Alien’s
derogatory comments- not authentic expositions
It follows that the Rig Vedic
references are, therefore, no authority to expound the concept of the Siva
statue, as the Rig Vedic people were non-idolatrous and did not consider Lord
Siva as their God. Calling the Siva symbol as ‘linga’ or ‘phallus’ is, therefore,
outrageous, to say the least. Saivism is in need of renaissance and the
least the devotees of Lord Siva could do
is to shut the mouth of the propagandists who continue with the
ignominious ‘Nadha Vindhu Kalaadhi’
theory.
The Vedic religion which had
thus derided the Siva-cult originally, absorbed it into its fold only during
the period of Upanishads (Svetasvatara Upanishad of c.600 B.C). But, even then, the Vedic
religion did not become idolatrous. Idolatry gained ground in Vedic religion
only during the post-Upanishadic period. However, because of the absorption of
Lord Siva into its fold, the Vedic religion was made a composite one. As the
references in the Rig Veda against the Siva worship as ‘Sisnadevas’ and ‘Sisnadevata’ could not be erased
overnight, the Vedic Aryans sought to justify it by floating various theories
of “Naadha Vindhu Kalaadhi”. The Vedic
Aryans had no other choice for their
survival through easy means.Because of the onslaught of Buddhism, “The Vedic
yagna rites remained supreme only in theory, but were
progressively neglected in practice. Occasionally, some king might
perform, say, the horse sacrifice: but this was much too rare to be reliable
source of income even for the king’s own high priests. The new ritual
could become paying only if it served the householder class of agrarian trading
society. This service was done by the Brahmins regardless of caste, but
always for a suitable fee on condition that due respect was offered to
Brahmin institutions in general.”… “The Brahmins gradually penetrated
whatever tribes and guild castes remained;”…. “The exclusive nature of tribal
ritual and tribal cults was modified, the tribal deities being equated to
standard Brahmin gods, or new Brahmin scriptures written for
making unassimilable gods respectable”.- (Pages168 –173 The Culture and
Civilisation of ANCIENT INDIA in Historical Outline- D.D.Kosambi- Vikas
Publishing House Pvt.Ltd.-1964). Although the Vedic Aryans had despised the
Siva worship all along, they had to assuage the feelings of the native Saivite
Dravidians by writing new cock and bull stories with the ‘Naadha Vindhu
Kalaadhi’ fictions. After all, survival
through any means was their only aim.
They hate – even now
That theory had to be believed not only by the
common people but by the later day Saiva
Saints themselves too. For, they did not have the access to the Vedas to verify
the veracity of the theory and its source. The plain truth is that Vedic
Aryans had nurtured a very strong hatred towards Siva worship and that hatred continues
even now. The prominence given to
the Pillaiyar cult, the Rama cult, the Hanuman cult,and the Ayyappa cult is aimed at suppressing the
importance of the original Siva worship only.
The laborious attempts made by them to cite the references to the term “Rudra” in the Rig Veda are meant only to cheat the gullible masses.
The Aryans derided the Siva worship. But the Dravidians
became angry with them. They hated the Aryan deity Brahma. So the Aryans created a new God called Hari as an
intermediary between their Brahma -and that is why we are Brahmins- and the native God Siva. But that too
did not become popular. So the Aryans had ultimately accepted Lord Siva also into their fold. But some of
their own people opposed it vehemently. They said that they should never accept Siva worship but
must propagate only the Vishnu worship. But another group of Aryans did not accept it. The pro-Siva group of Aryans theorised that they must
make entry into the Siva temples and then dilute the faith of the people in Siva worship . And they are successfully doing it. They therefore took over the title ‘Iyer’ but those who did not accept the
Siva worship chose to call themselves ‘Iyengar’s, styling themselves even superior to the Iyers. But both of them belong to the same race and
that’s why both of them have retained the Varna identity of being Brahmins, and having Brahmins Associations, etc., Wearing of the same
kind of cross thread is also for the same purpose of retaining their common identity.
The Iyengars imagined that they could subjugate the Dravidians by propagating their Vishnu cult only through the medium of language. One can see that in the Perumal temples pooja is generally being done in Tamil. Kamba ramayanam has been elevated by them to the status of ‘mantra’ for this purpose. They came up with various stories in which the worshippers of Siva were shown to be villains and Vishnu was shown to have defeated them. The Ravana- Rama conflict, the Vali-Rama conflict, the Narahaasuran-Sathyabama conflict, etc., had been written only for this purpose. Not a single story was written and popularized depicting the worshippers of Vishnu being villains and being killed by Lord Siva. To certain extent they emerged victorious also in their venture during the period of the king Krishnadeva rayar of Vijayanagar. They never visit and pray at the Siva temples. The Jeer of Ahobila Mutt accepted the money collected and paid by the Sankaracharya of Kanchi for the construction of the tower at SriRangam. But he refused to reciprocate for the construction of any Siva temple and said that only the insane people would go to Siva Temple. They exhibit their hatredness so openly but the Iyers do not.
And, the theory of Iyers alone has produced marvellous results.The Iyers have occupied the Siva temples and driven Tamil out and introduced their Sanskrit as
the language for the mantras. They told the Dravidians that the latter was nor required to know what we utter as
mantras. The Dravidians believed whatever the Aryans said and offered Swarna pushpas to them. Gradually the Aryans have
been obliterating their original Saivite religion. All this would show that the worship of Lord Siva belongs to native Dravidians and not to invaded Aryans.
The Iyengars imagined that they could subjugate the Dravidians by propagating their Vishnu cult only through the medium of language. One can see that in the Perumal temples pooja is generally being done in Tamil. Kamba ramayanam has been elevated by them to the status of ‘mantra’ for this purpose. They came up with various stories in which the worshippers of Siva were shown to be villains and Vishnu was shown to have defeated them. The Ravana- Rama conflict, the Vali-Rama conflict, the Narahaasuran-Sathyabama conflict, etc., had been written only for this purpose. Not a single story was written and popularized depicting the worshippers of Vishnu being villains and being killed by Lord Siva. To certain extent they emerged victorious also in their venture during the period of the king Krishnadeva rayar of Vijayanagar. They never visit and pray at the Siva temples. The Jeer of Ahobila Mutt accepted the money collected and paid by the Sankaracharya of Kanchi for the construction of the tower at SriRangam. But he refused to reciprocate for the construction of any Siva temple and said that only the insane people would go to Siva Temple. They exhibit their hatredness so openly but the Iyers do not.
The way Mr. Jayendra Saraswathi of Kanchipuram utters the word "Narayana' repeatedly would show that their affection remains only with Vishnu cult and not with Siva worship. The Aryans practised untouchability against the worshippers of Lord Siva. They displayed such a strong hatred against them.
In fact, "it was stated in the Brahmanda Purana that one should bathe with clothes on after touching Saivas, Pasupathas, Lockayatikas and others. Similar rules were prescribed by other authorities for one who touched Buddhists, Pasupatas, Lokayatikas and others" (Page --355 -- History of Medieval India - V.D. Mahajan).
In fact, "it was stated in the Brahmanda Purana that one should bathe with clothes on after touching Saivas, Pasupathas, Lockayatikas and others. Similar rules were prescribed by other authorities for one who touched Buddhists, Pasupatas, Lokayatikas and others" (Page --355 -- History of Medieval India - V.D. Mahajan).
The laborious attempts made by them to cite the references to the term “Rudra” in the Rig Veda are meant only to cheat the gullible masses.
Siva and Rudra are different
The Dravidian God Siva and the
Rig Vedic personality Rudra have no connection whatsoever with each other. As
per “one hymn of the Rig Veda, Rudra carries the bow and arrow and wears
necklaces of all sorts and is followed
by his hosts” (K A N Sastri).But the Indus seals show that there was
trident on the head of the God, with head-dress proper which symbol of divinity
survived in later times in the Trishula of Lord Siva.This Vedic Rudra who was wearing all ornaments had helped the
creation of ‘Vishnu’ later to counter
the Buddhist onslaught on yagna.
Accepted idolatry- after Buddha’s
onslaught
The “phallic symbols in stone found in
abundance” (Surendranath Dasgupta-Page 3- The Cultural Heritage of India – Vol
III – published by the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture) in the Indus
Valley prove that idolatry was in vogue during the pre-Vedic Indus civilization
period, prior to 1500 BC. But, in the Vedic religion, “even in the age of
Upanishads (600 BC), the conception of an impersonal God was the prevailing
idea” (R.C. Majumdar-Page 35- ibid – Vol IV). The Svetasvatara Upanishad, in
which we first meet with the theistic idea of Saivism (after the absorption of non
–Aryan elements in Vedic religion), “identifies Him with eternal Absolute.
There is no form for Him whose name is Supreme Celebrity” (K.A. Neelakanta
Sastri- Page 63 –ibid. – Vol IV). K A N Sastri says that “the origins of
Saivism are lost in obscurity”.It is so ancient and had been in existence long
long before the arrival of the Aryans.
“The highly concrete conception of the deity and the intensely personal
nature of the relation between Him and His devotees are the characteristics
of Saivism”, he says. In the Vedic pantheon, the Gods are
impersonal. So, such a concrete conception of God as was adopted by the
Dravidians in their idolatrous religion
was foreign to the Vedic Aryans. “The cosmic religion of Vedic Aryans tended
towards anthropomorphism, but it was not idolatrous” (R.N. Dandekar-The Cosmic
order in the Vedic hymns – Page 7 –Records of Civilization-Sources of Indian
Tradition- Oxford University Press).The substitution of a personal God called
Hari in place of the abstract idea of a universal soul” (R C Majumdar) took
place in the Bagavatha religion which was of the 6th century BC
only. So, until 600 BC, the Vedic religion did not accept idolatry and
only the simple form of nature worship was followed. Manu condemns as unfit for
the Brahmins to practice the professions of temple-priests (III, 151-166) who
classified the temple-priests alongwith liquor – vendors.
So, the Dravidians of the Indus
Valley who followed an idolatrous religion were different from the Aryans who
adopted idolatry later only from the 6th
century onwards after forming a synthetic religion called Hinduism to acquire
control over the Dravidian temples. It is significant to note that Aryans did
not know and did not have temples for worship.
Thus, the Siva worship,
which was in vogue before, during and also after the
arrival of the Aryans on the Indian scene and which survives till date by
withstanding the onslaught of the Vedic Aryans, itself proves that the
Indus Valley Civilisation was non-Aryan, pre-Aryan and Dravidian , exclusively
Dravidian.
(Added on 10.06.2020, on seeing the readership)
For more:
======
(Added on 10.06.2020, on seeing the readership)
For more:
Not only siva worship, Vishnu worship also belongs to Dravidian people.
ReplyDelete