|
PROFESSOR COURTRIGHT’S GANESHA MYTH Hindu Scriptures like Shiva Purana
and others declare that God Ganesha originally had
a human-like body but his head was cut off by Lord Shiva and replaced with
the head of an elephant. Professor Courtright and his followers
decided to infer from this that, as Lord Shiva is the Supreme Male, he chose
an elephant's head for Ganesha as a symbol of
inferior virility (allegedly suggested by a "limp trunk") thereby
eliminating any potential competition. While the Professor is entitled to his own views, the fact is
that there are a number of obvious problems with this interpretation. For
example, Lord Shiva is said to have instructed the Gods to replace the
original head with that of the first soul they chanced upon, which happened
to be an elephant. Hence it may be argued that it was not Shiva directly who
chose the elephant head. Even if it had been Shiva's wish for Ganesha’s
head to be specifically replaced with that of an elephant, the fact remains
that an elephant's trunk can scarcely be said to be limp, which makes it
difficult to see how it may be suited to the negative symbolism of a
"limp phallus". Moreover, God Ganesha is revered by
Hindus as "Remover of Obstacles", a role which cannot be said to
involve or presuppose lack of virility by any stretch of imagination. Indeed, Hindu iconography depicts God Ganesha's
trunk in a manner suggestive of movement and vigour,
not limpness. That such an important fact should have escaped the Professor's
expert eye is inexplicable and bizarre, to say the least. This being so, we must either (a) accept the Scriptural
account of Shiva's decapitation of Ganesha as
actual fact in which case its true meaning is known to Lord Shiva alone and
cannot be debated or interpreted by man or (b) take it as an allegorical
description of something else. Since, as we have indicated, Professor Courtright's
interpretation cannot be substantiated by either fact or reason, it will be worthwile to establish whether an alternative
interpretation may be found. What is important to understand is that there is no scientific
necessity for any myth to have a psychological meaning. Many myths have a
social, cultural, religious, Spiritual and historical meaning without a trace
of sexual phantasies or "psychology". Even if we had reasons to insist on giving a psychological
interpretation to ancient myths, it is beyond dispute that the psychology of
the sages who composed or recorded them must have differed in many respects
from that of modern theorists like the atheist Freud and his followers. The
imposition of materialist, sex-centered and anti-Spiritual methods of
interpretation on fundamentally Spiritual Indian myths must, therefore, be
regarded as unwarranted and unacceptable. Leaving psychology aside, the Ganesha
myth under discussion may be given a historical interpretation which is easy
both to demonstrate and understand. The study of the history of religion
shows that originally closely related faiths may in the course of time
experience certain tensions or conflicts which may result in a struggle for
supremacy between their respective followers. This may be seen in the
so-called Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity
and Islam) which claim to have originated with the Middle Eastern Prophet
Abraham yet are interpreted by their followers in ways that are so mutually
conflicting as to result in wars of religious supremacy against each other. It is not entirely inconceivable that an elephant-headed
manifestation of Lord Shiva has been worshipped in India for millennia, in
the same way as He has been worshipped as Lord of Yogis. Indeed, as Shiva is
the Supreme Deity (Parameshvara) and Creator of all
things, Ganesha cannot be anything else but a
manifestation of Lord Shiva Himself. This is evidenced by the fact that
"Ganapati", which is the same as "Ganesha", is one of the sacred names of Shiva. It is
not for nothing that Ganesha is regarded as the son
of Lord Shiva. This is graphically illustrated by one version of the myth
according to which Lord Shiva Himself and His Consort Parvati
once assumed the apearance of elephants and their
union produced an elephant-headed issue. Now, at some point in history, a conflict may have arisen
between the worshippers of these two aspects of the Deity. Since Lord Shiva
is indisputably the Supreme God, his followers naturally gained the upper
hand over the followers of Ganesha and peace was
restored. Such a scenario would clearly explain the symbolic
decapitation of Ganesha by Shiva and the
replacement of his head with that of an elephant. (A parallel to this may be
found in the myth of Lord Shiva decapitating God Brahma which is reflected in
the fact that while Lord Shiva is widely worshipped all over India, Brahma
currently enjoys a more limited authority among the faithful.) The possibility
of such a conflict is supported by Scripture itself. Thus the Shiva Purana (Rudra-Samhita, Kumara Khanda, Ch. 16) actually describes a fierce battle
between Ganesha and the host of Gods under the
Supreme Command of Lord Shiva. A similar myth related in the Shiva Purana
is that in which Lord Shiva pardons the Demon-King Ravana
and restores his severed heads. Again, a historical interpretation is
possible. Alternative interpretations which approach the subject from a
purely Spiritual perspective are similarly easy to find. However, the most
plausible interpretation to such myths must be religious in nature. They are,
after all, narrated in religious scriptures and the main subject matter of
scripture is neither history nor psychology but religion. From a religious point of view, the main
function of these myths is simply to illustrate the fact that Lord Shiva, the
Supreme Being, is the Most Powerful and Most Merciful and, therefore, man’s
only real choice is to be devoted and obedient to Him. As amply demonstrated in the myth of Daksha,
who was similarly decapitated and then resurrected, Lord Shiva punishes those
who fail to honour Him as the Supreme Deity and
also pardons them when they repent. This fact is stressed again and again by
Scripture itself: “Even after committing a great sin, if any
one worships Shiva with devotion he is freed from his sin…Shiva is compassionate towards His
devotees. Hence He is called Bhaktavatsala (favourably disposed to His devotees)”, etc. (Shiva Purana). Thus the Shiva Purana concludes the
story with Shiva’s pardoning Ganesha and
acknowledging him as His son, while Ganesha himself
asks for forgiveness for his arrogance. Ganesha is
then rewarded for his repentance by being conferred the title of Lord of
Hosts (Gana-Isha) and is worshipped by all as a
great being. Ganesha’s transgression
evidently consists in his disobedience to the Supreme Lord and not in the
supposed competition for Parvati’s sexual favours imagined by amateur Freudian psychoanalysts like Courtright. As an academic, Courtright
ought to be aware of the fact that Freud’s obsession with finding sexual
undertones in human behaviour has long been
repudiated by modern psychology. Both psychologically and spiritually speaking, the message
conveyed in myths of this type is that every creature must overcome all
tendencies to negativity and resistivity within
himself and acknowledge Lord Shiva, the Universal Consciousness and Creator
of all things, as the Ultimate Reality by embracing Whom alone one may attain
mental and Spiritual health and Salvation. It must be remembered that Shiva
is the Lord of Unity (Yogeshvara) and that
Salvation can only be obtained through Unity with Him. As repentance removes all obstacles which obstruct a Soul’s
path to Heaven, divine punishment is ultimately for the Spiritual elevation
of the penitent and thus constitutes a favour or an
act of grace and compassion. Another Puranic story
involving a battle between Shiva and the Elephant Demon, Gaja
Asura, concludes with the following statement: “I
have narrated to you the story of Shiva which shows His affection to His devotees, which is conducive to the
attainment of heaven, etc.” Indeed, what to the uninitiated seems to be anger, jealousy or
vengeance, is in reality an expression of pure goodness. It is not for
nothing that God, in the Indian tradition, is called Shiva – which means
Good. Shiva is the Supreme Principle of Goodness and he who has tasted divine
punishment experiences it as grace. This is why, in another Puranic story, the demon Bana Asura, who gets his arms cut off, afterwards thanks Shiva
for removing his arrogance. Thus divine punishment cannot be motivated by
something as base and trivial as sexual envy but only by the noble desire to
elevate all creatures to the original condition of Unity and Harmony with
God. On the occasion of His punishment of Daksha
and other Gods, Shiva Himself makes this clear by declaring that “It is only
to bless you that this punishment has been meted out to you”. What is more, such an interpretation is accepted by
Hindus themselves - at least those who follow the Tradition of Shiva (Shiva
Dharma) – who know their
scriptures well and are in no need of interpretations offered by ignorant and
hostile non-Hindus. In the final analysis, therefore, Professor Courtright's explanation becomes not only unsafe but
quite unnecessary and pointless, both scientifically and logically speaking.
What remains to be established is whether his thesis is acceptable from a
moral and legal point of view as well as whether American universities ought
to support "academic work" of this nature. |