[ [ From our homepage ] Comments on Saivism and Shaktism.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I was reading your article on the differences between Shaivism and

Shaktism, and I noticed that you said that Shaivites define Siva as

being the unmanifest or transcendent. It is known that in many parts

of India a part of Saivite practice involves smoking Bhang or

Cannibis for meditation or to attain an altered state.

 

Also in Hindu 'mythology', Siva is mentioned as having matted locks

and smoking Hash. There are also references to Him in sexual union

with Sakti, so how could it be that the only view of Siva to the

Saivites is that He is wholly transcendent and unmanifest when so

many things point to Him being manifest and ''earthly'' as well?

 

I am inclined to think that He is both manifest and unmanifest

because in Hindu lore and practice He is associated with wild

places, ecstasy, sexuality etc. as well as transcendence and non-

manifestation.

 

In Hindu literature, Siva and Sakti are often associated with similar

things I.e. spiritual ecstasy, wild places, outcastes, altered

states, and cremation grounds (in Vamacharya Tantric practice.) So

therefore I think it is unfair to state that Siva is only the

transcendent and unmanifest.

 

Thanks,

JTurner204BC