Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shivani Devi
Like I said before, this has got more to do with who owns the rights to the name of "Shiva" isn't it?
Hypothetical - if the Brahmakumaris called their "point of light" as "Jyoti" or "Satya" or something else, would it make any difference?
The name "Shankar" generally refers to the "householder form" of Lord Shiva and not the Ascetic form..
However, I could simply refer to the one you know as "Shankara" AS Shiva, or if the Brahmakumaris want the name to represent a point of light and are offended by the sacrilege of others who attach form, that's cool...I will just go ahead and chant the OTHER 1008 names He has!
Aum Namah Shivaya
|
Yeah, you can do that.
The point I am making is that there is a distinction between Shankar, the trident wearing deity of destruction and Shiva, the cosmic pillar of light.
As per the Vedas and Shaivite scriptures Shiva represents a cosmic pillar of light and not some body part. The latter has been used by anti-hindus and atheists as propaganda to deride Hinduism and paint it as obscene.
__________________
When even one virtue becomes our nature, the mind becomes clean and tranquil. Then there is no need to practice meditation; we will automatically be meditating always. ~ Swami Satchidananda
Wholesome virtuous behavior progressively leads to the foremost.~ Buddha AN 10.1
If you do right, irrespective of what the other does, it will slow down the (turbulent) mind. ~ Rajini Menon
|