A Comparison of Vaisnavism and Saivism

Copyright 1994 by John R. Mabry

If the religion of the Vedic period was basically uniform, it can be said that later Hinduism is a kaleidoscope of various beliefs and practices. The two great gods of this confused morass, Siva and Vishnu have become the primary focus of later Hinduism, although they have certainly not completely supplanted other gods. "The Vedic gods were not forgotten within the space of a few centuries," Gonda tells us,1 and a host of other deities throughout the centuries--even up to the present time--have held their own against the "dynamic duo" without being appropriated by them as incarnations or consorts, although their numbers, in comparison, are small. More commonly found are Hindus who recognize either Vishnu or Siva (or both) as the Great god, these often are seen as distant and unconcerned with their daily lives, and so the average Hindu's primary concern is "rather with a host of minor deities whose special business it is to regulate matters of immediate personal interest,"2 very like the concerns of the nature deities of the Vedic period. The Hindu conception of divinity, is, Basham explains, a very multi-faceted affair:

The Divine is a diamond of innumerable facets; two very large and bright facets are Visnu and Siva, while the others represent all the gods that were ever worshipped. Some facets seem larger, brighter, and better polished than others, but in fact the devotee, whatever his sect, worships the whole diamond, which is in reality perfect."3

Let us now turn our attention to the two large and bright facets known as Saivism and Vaisnavism, their differences and commonalties.

Reference to both of the two great gods is found in the Vedas, although both are shadowy and ill-defined in comparison with such major gods in the Vedic pantheon as Indra or Agni. Neither of them has much to do with the other in the Vedic literature, either. The accounts of their interactions would have to wait for the puranic period of writings, when their roles and status are clearly and fully developed. Even in the epic materials, their roles are ambiguous, being, as Gonda says,

on the one hand deities with heroic traits of character and, on the other, rising to supramundane dignity, representing or tending to represent the Supreme Being. Not rarely it is not at all clear whether they are to be regarded as devas or as the supreme God.4

We first see Vaisnavism as a vital force in the literature of the second century b.c.e., and Saivism not until at least the first century of the common era, and according to Gonda, the spread of their cults, "though steady and constant, must have been slow and gradual."5 Their influence, however, is pervasive and profound. Even remote villages are often aligned towards one of the great gods or the other.6

The primary scriptures of Saivism and Vaisnavism, the Svetasvatara Upanishad and the Bhagavad Gita, respectively, both affirm the gods as identical with the Highest Brahman, and thereby establishes the two religions' claim to orthodoxy.

Saivism constructs its theology in terms of manifestations, or "faces" of Siva, and that of his eight forms or embodiments. The five manifestations are "Isana, Tatpurusa, Aghora, Vamadeva, Sadyojata," and the eight embodiments are "the five elements, sun, moon, and sacrificer, to each of which corresponds on of [Siva's] traditional names."7 This is very like the doctrines of correspondences and other attempts to organize the universe found in the Vedas and early Upanishads.

In contrast, the Vaisnavas proclaim a doctrine of the vyuhas, or emanations from God, which probably arose largely as a means of reconciling the ever-evolving and growing appropriation of gods under the Vishnaic umbrella. There are at least thirty-nine vibhavas, or "special existencies" of Vishnu, including the well known avatars Krishna and Rama.8

The difference in character between the two religions can easily be related to the respective personalities of their gods. In the Vedic literature, Siva appears quite a malign character. According to Gonda, "He houses in forests and jungles, in places where man falls a victim to fright and terror. He is the lord of the wild animals, which are said to be a manifestation of his cruel nature."9 Siva is said to be "uncanny, wrathful and incalculable, not rarely terrible, fierce and impetuous, famous for his preponderantly destructive energy...a much feared author of mischief."10 (Later, however, Siva's reputation will soften, and a more benevolent side is extolled by many followers.)

Vishnu, on the other hand, although possessed of a warrior nature in many stories, appears to be Siva's mirror opposite. Where Siva may seek out conflict and is known to side with the demons on occasion, Vishnu is one who seeks to avoid violence and pain, and is always a foe to the demonic.11 Visnu's benevolence, says Gonda, "is rarely in doubt, and he essentially remains actively interested in the welfare and prosperity of man and the world.... Vishnu is, generally speaking, a friend nearer to man, Siva a lord and master, ambivalent and many-sided."12

Both streams recognize god as having certain attributes: both Siva and Vishnu can be, at times horrific and beatific, and each tradition has rendered their god's attributes in their own distinctive iconographic terms. Gonda writes,

Visnu's Man-lion aspect--the main exception to the general preponderance of kindly, human traits in this god--corresponds to Siva's shape of terror; the whiteness of the latter's teeth to that of the garland which Laksmi gave to her bridegroom; the third eye in the former's forehead to the double pair of arms of the other god; the crescent of the former to the kaustubha jewel suspended on the breast of the latter. Vishnu is described as appearing together with the goddesses of Fortune, Glory, Victory...and other female deities, whereas Siva is, in the same context, said to be accompanied by Parvati, the Ganas, demons and Mother-goddesses.13

Temple worship in both communities tends to be similar, both in terms of the structure of the sanctuaries and in the performance of rites. Placement of temples, however, tend among the Saivites to correspond to places where there has been a miraculous appearance of the linga, or where worship of the linga is particularly ancient. Vaisnavas, however, construct their temples in honor of the geographical locations where particular avatars were believed to have lived out their lives.14

The temple rites of both religions tend to employ Sanskrit (although their are exceptions on both sides) and rituals in one temple are likely to appear much the same as rituals in another, with the exception of feast days, and the fact that Saivites often worship Siva using the aniconic linga as their focus. Regarding the feast days and festivals, the Saivite observances are less likely to be strictly vegetarian and non-alcoholic than the other. The Vaisnava will feel no hesitancy to partake of food that has been part of an offering to Vishnu, but such is forbidden to Saivites. Both of these examples can be seen as an extension of the personalities of their respective gods.

For both communities, initiation, or diksa is of extreme importance, although the purpose for the rite differs. For Vaisnavas, diksa denotes the entrance of the initiate into a life of devotion, and a more intimate relationship with God. For the Saivite, in contrast, the rite is essential for the efficacy of the Saivite path, and must be performed with strict observance for it to be valid. For the Saivite, diksa is an absolute prerequisite for liberation. In both communities it achieves purification, which the Vaisnava needs to achieve intimacy, and which the Saivite needs to embody Siva. The initiator in both traditions must be a guru, who is seen by Saivites as the physical embodiment of Siva, and similarly by Vaisnavas, as a partial avatar.

Like the temple rituals, the daily rites of the average householder, such as ritual bathing, attention to hygiene, honoring of one's ancestors, the offerings, prayers and attention to the fires are nearly identical for both traditions, although the texts of the prayers will differ according to the various sects within each tradition, although again, as with the diksa rite, the goal of the Vaisnava will be proper access to God, and of the Saivite, assumption of divine identity.

Both religions sport their compliment of ascetics, as well. Says Gonda,

The ascetic usually wears some distinctive mark on his forehead and often carries some symbol of his religion. If he recognizes Vishnu as the Supreme Being he may possess a discus and a conch shell, replicas of God's invincible flaming weapon, through which its owner is superior to men, gods, and demons, and of His instrument of beneficent power an protection against evil which, penetrating the universe, symbolizes his omnipresent power.... If he is a Saivite he will, impersonating his God himself, carry a trident which denotes empire and the irresistible force of transcendental reality, wear a small linga and possess a human skull which shows his being above the terror inspired by worldly transitoriness of which it is reminiscent, and a damaru drum, which symbolizes God's creative power, and a tiger skin, his well-known garment. In imitation of his god he may have his body smeared with white ashes and he will set u the linga--from which all life in the universe has issued--for worship wherever he settles.15

As we have seen in the last couple of pages, there is a distinct difference in the goals of the Vaisnava and the Saivite. Though ultimately, liberation from rebirth and union with god is the object of both paths, how that union is best to be achieved is subject to discussion. Most Vaisnavas, after the manner of the Gita, advocate Bhakti, or devotion, as the highest and most efficacious way to liberation, while at the same time, almost grudgingly affirming that other methods do apply. Saivites, on the contrary, tend to favor jnana, or knowledge of one's identification with Siva as the most efficacious route, even though, again almost grudgingly, the Svetasvatara Upanishad does affirm devotion as an important element.

Saivism, in general, has more appeal to the ascetic, is more of a "fit" for those called to such a life. The Vaisnava religion, by contrast, is much more egalitarian, and like the breakthrough of Mahayana Buddhism, much more likely to capture the imagination of the householder than the way of the Theravadan, or the Saivite ascetic. It is curious to me that Saivites outnumber Vaisnavas, but historically and presently. Vishnu is a much more approachable, "warm and fuzzy" sort of deity than Siva, and Vaisnaism more suited to the householder path.

Both religions have their versions of Tantric practice, and both deities a spectrum of consorts and sexual exploits. Indra is the prototype for Vishnu in many ways, Krishna having assumed the former's prowess with women. Krishna's cavorting with the gopis is legendary, and much devotional literature--and indeed entire schools--has arisen around this myth, emphasizing Krishna as the lover of the souls of humanity, and imagining the human life as one engaged in an ongoing cosmic romance. The sexual aspect of Siva is paradoxical, since as the ideal ascetic, sexual activity is forbidden. But it is in Tantric practice where the forbidden and profane becomes by ritual means sacramental and a means to liberation.

Hopkins describes Tantric theology thusly:

In the Tantric view, Siva is passive, pure intelligence, while Sakti [his consort] is the active female power of Siva who brings about the creation of the phenomenal world. Sakti is the Tantric equivalent of the female Vac, "Speech," of the Vedic system, the creative agent in the process by which Brahman is manifested as name and form. Tantra makes the Brahmanical cosmology tangible, identifying the human body with the cosmos so that the body can be used as an instrument to restore the original oneness.16

In many Tantric rituals (often referred to as the "left-handed paths", this original oneness is achieved by a man and woman ritually identifying themselves with Siva and Sakti, and in the culmination of a long and complex ritual that involves the consumption of profane substances such as meat and alcohol, actually achieving sexual intercourse.

The "right handed schools" (nobody calls them that) have remythologized this union, however. Hopkins continues,

The cakras are the depositor of all the names, forms,and gods brought forth in creation. The Kundalini is Sakti, the creative energy or power of Siva, resting at the opposite end of creation from Siva. The Tantric yogin rouses Sakti and brings her back into union with Siva, bringing back with her all that has been created. The cakras are heated by the passage of Sakti on her return and are left cold and lifeless as Sakti reabsorbs the created entities into the unformed state, gathers the seeds of creation, as it were, and brings them back to their primal place of rest. The final union of Sakti with Siva is, for the person who experiences is, an actual resolution of the duality that constitutes the phenomenal world.17

As hinted at earlier, the attitudes of the two traditions towards each other have been a grudging acceptance of the rivals' gods and methods of salvation. As Basham explains,

From the beginning of the Christian era, if not before, most educated Hindus have been either Vaisnavites or Saivites--that is to say they have looked on either Vishnu or Siva as the high god, or indeed as the only God, the others being merely secondary expressions of the divine, holding rather the same positions as the saints and angels in the mind of the Roman Catholic. Thus the Vaisnavite does not deny the existence of Siva, but believes that he is merely one god among many, the creation or emanation of Vishnu or of his demiurge Brahma. In the same way the Saivite looks on Vishnu as an emanation of Siva.18

Thus, Krisha in the Bhagavad Gita, says, rather condescendingly, "If any worshipper do reverence with faith to any god whatever, I make his faith firm, and in that faith he reverences his god, and gains his desires, for it is I who bestow them."19 According to the Saivites, however, although they revere Vishnu-Krishna as "the eternal highest atman, endowed with the incomprehensible and divine creative power called maya, enjoying everything,"20 they still regard Siva as the superior and more efficacious name.

According to Gonda,

With regard to their attitude towards the other great religious community we find, generally speaking, a characteristic trend on both sides. In social intercourse Visnuism tends to be passively intolerant. That means: a Vaisnava should avoid direct contact with the Saivas but not injure them or prejudice their rights. An adherent of Vishnu should consider the others unworthy to perform rites; he should not ritually behave like a Saiva; he should purify himself and subject himself to an atonement for receiving a non-Vaisnava priest as a guest, eating with him, honoring him, or employing him, because such a man is contemptible everywhere. A true Vaisnava should be edantin, i.e. "devoted to only one goal or god" and disinclined to permit the cult of another god beside Vishnu.21

Gonda goes on to note that Saivites are likely to believe similarly about their god, even holding out the threat of hell to those who exclude Siva from "divine honors."

Vaisnavas then, are quick to admit to the divinity of Siva, but believe that one should not adore him in his own right. In fact, most Vaisnavas will avoid referring to Shiva by that name, preferring Rudra or Sankara, or others. Says Gonda, "this aversion is not rarly mutual: brahmans belonging to some Saiva or Vaisnava communities would not even mutter the names of each other's gods."22 Gonda goes on to note that violence between the two traditions is not unheard of. As Basham writes, "Occasionally this difference of viewpoint has led to friction and some degree of persecution, but generally the two great divisions of Hinduism have rubbed along happily together, in the conviction that, on ultimate analysis, both are equally right."23

In the puranas we see the coming together of the two strains, where the two gods often cooperate, and even praise one another, although rarely are they regarded as being on equal par. Though both may be revered, one will usually have the premiere place. Even as early as the Mahabharata we see both deities revered, and even thought of as complimentary.

Says Basham, "With this background of tolerance it is not surprizing that attempts were made to harmonize Vaisnavism and Saivism. As early as Gupta times a holy trinity of Hinduism, the Trimurti, or triple form, was evolved, of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Siva the destroyer."24 The Trimurti never caught on in a big way, however, although it was a fine idea. Another attempt at harmonization was the god Harihara (Hari is a title for Vishnu, and Hara a title of Siva), which, according to Basham, was "worshipped in the form of an icon which combined characteristics of both gods."25 Harihara fared better than the trimurti, and is still worshipped in some areas of India.

As we have seen, Saivism and Vishnuism has similar origins in the Veda, but ascribe very different personalities to God. Though similarities abound, there is a prevalent difference in tone that distinguishes even those things which appear identical. Though the ends are the same, these paths are very different.

Notes

1. Gonda, J. Visnuism and Sivaism (London: Athlone Press, 1970), 88.

2. Ibid., 62.

3. Basham, A.L. The Wonder that was India (New York: Grove Press, 1954), 309.

4. Gonda, 12.

5. Ibid., 89.

6. Ibid., 63.

7. Ibid., 35.

8. Ibid., 54.

9. Ibid., 4.

10. Ibid., 13.

11. Ibid., 124.

12. Ibid., 13.

13. Ibid., 122.

14. Ibid., 75.

15. Ibid., 66.

16. Hopkins, Thomas J. The Hindu Religious Tradition (Belmont: Dickenson Publications, 1971), 128.

17. Ibid., 128.

18. Basham, 309.

19. Bhagavad Gita 7:21-22.

20. Gonda, 95.

21. Ibid., 93.

22. Ibid., 94.

23. Basham, 309.

24. Ibid., 310.

25. Ibid., 311.