35
My dear murugappan,
THE COMPARISON OF SYMBOLISM IN FREUDIAN SCHOOLS AND SAIVA
SIDDHANTHAM:
SIDHANTHA OF SIVAGNANABODHAM:
The pati qualities as mentioned
in the first two sutras of the Sivagnana bodham are highest qualities. They are
analogous to the super ego in psychoanalysis.
The pasu has five states of
existence, transient knowledge, a transient life and transient thought(memory)
as mentioned in the third sutra of sivagnana bodham. The pasu is analogous to
ego.
Life is bonded with(pasa) and
hence contaminated by dirt(mala) and it prevents the acquisition of knowledge.
The pati is responsible for the knowledge, but it is destroyed by dirt and hence
becomes transient . The pasa are
analogous to the id.
In the seventh sutra of
sivagnanabodham the pasa and pati antagonism is clearly demonstrated as they
never unite. The process or the method of pasu(body) reaching the pati are
explained in all the rest of sutras. The pathi-pasu-pasa relationship forms the
core of the siddhantham ontology.
The Freudian theory is the
study of physical matter-mind. In fact he is a biologist of mind. The
description, the language and the symbols he has used to profound it are the
one which are very pertinent.
The Saiva doctrine is the
study of metaphysical one. The relationship between the body and soul is dual
one. While the body is physical the Siva is beyond physical mode. The body
relieves from material bonding and reaches the soul(Siva). The symbols here are
namely lingam, bull and the sacrificial pedestal as seen in all saivite
shrines.
The pedestal stands for
severance of bonds. The bull(Nandi) for the body+mind. The lingam is the
almighty.
The symbolism in Saiva school
and Freudian school are similar.
Pati=lingam=superego.
Pasu=Nandi=ego.
Pasa(mala)=pedestal(for
sacrifice)=id(primitive drives).
Like the Nandi moving towards
the lingam severing the pasa -mala, the ego regulates itself with superego and
minimizes the id drives to achieve higher social ideals.
It is needless to say the
meanings in both theories are aimed at different perspectives. But the superego
qualities desired in saivite society are the one desired in the sutras. The
symbolism in the two schools should be cross matched against each other. It
should not be taken in the literal sense and also not in the core metaphysical
sense. The core metaphysical sense of siddhantha does not deal with the
physical mind or ego. The object studied in each are different –materialistic
(Freud) and spiritual(Saiva).
The pathi-pasu-pasam and
superego-ego-id trilogies are central to both schools. In fact the core
metaphysics of siddhantham is called ontogenic triadism. The comparisons starts
when we observe the pattern of the temples in Cauvery delta are watched keenly.
The worshiper in the temple and the person who goes for psycho-analysis are put
in the same light the comparison becomes more obviously closer to the reader.
Symbolism is a mental process
and Saiva schools have used it liberally. Mental processes are studied by Freud
but with materialistic- worldly approach.
There is need for study in
this area in the post modern context where there is a revival of a dialogue between spiritual and
materialistic schools.
Affectionately,
Gandhibabu
Comments
Post a Comment