• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Worship of Shiva/Rudra

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Bhiarava is a gana of Shiva. Now, since Shiva is Brahman, everything is only a form of him only. In that way you could consider Bhairava also as Shiva. And since Bhairavas are soldiers of Shiva so they will wear the 'tripund' on their forehead and carry 'trishul' (trident) as their weapon. Basically, Bhairava/Bhairavas represent the regional Gods right from Kashmir to Tamilnadu (Kshetrapala - protectors of the region). They were incorporated in Hinduism like many other Gods and Goddesses. At the Bhairava temple in New Delhi (near the supposed Pandava fort of Indraprastha) he is worshiped with liquor and wine. Meat also is offered. So, the freebooters abound. Since Bhairavas may have accompanying dogs so a dog 'samadhi' also. Please the dog to please the Bhairava. There is a Bhairava temple near Nigambodh Ghat also.

batuk-bhairav-nath.jpg
dog-01_1441091108.jpg


117-640x360.jpg
1241953745_eb25849973.jpg


"It is said that Shiva allocated the job of guarding each of the 52 Shakti Peethas to one Bhairava. There are said to be 52 forms of Bhairava, which are considered a manifestation of Shiva himself." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhairava#Worship
 
Last edited:

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
WHo is Bhairav and how is he worshipped?

Wouldn't Bhairava be more aligned with Rajas than Tamas since it is a fierce form?

There is alot of evidence in the puranas about this categorization of sattvic, rajasic and tamasic deities. I've seen verses from Padma Purana, Garuda Purana, Skanda Purana and also Matsya Purana on this actually. Bhagavatam is very clear that Lord Shiva is a deity of tamo guna, and Bhagavtam is one of those puranas that has not been interpolated (all 18000 32 syllable verses are still with us, thanks to Sridhara Svami's commentary). Of course opponents will say they are all interpolations, but I beg to differ.

It is the interpretation of tamo guna that is a controversy. I've heardshaivites say that tamo guna refers to the destructive properties of Lord Shiva.

Could one consider Shiva's destroying aspect as being Sattvic as it being the dissolution of false perception?
 

निताइ dasa

Nitai's servant's servant
Could one consider Shiva's destroying aspect as being Sattvic as it being the dissolution of false perception?

Maybe, or Lord Shiva is destroys the false perception of those in tamo guna. From my reading of scripture and puranas, Shiva Himself is not sattvic, but tamasic, which is not always a bad thing. I mean without tamo guna, we would not be able to sleep. The very meanings of Tamsic, Rajasic and Sattvic are controversial (because Gita says one thing, and other Puranas say something else). I know in Bhagavatam, Lord Shiva has to be tamo guna, because it is He who destroys the creation with His tandava, and Brahma need to be in raja guna, because it is necessary for the creation of the world. .
 

Sumit

Sanatana Dharma
Bhiarava is a gana of Shiva. Now, since Shiva is Brahman, everything is only a form of him only. In that way you could consider Bhairava also as Shiva.
batuk-bhairav-nath.jpg
dog-01_1441091108.jpg


117-640x360.jpg
1241953745_eb25849973.jpg

That may be puranic view but in tantra scriptures there is no difference between Shiv, Bhairava or Mahakaal.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
There is no difference other than quality. Mahākāla or Kāla-Bhairava is Shiva which lords over all other Bhairavas. Only he controls time. Again from Wikipedia:

"Traditionally, Kāla Bhairav is the Grāma devatā (Village God) in the rural Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, where he is referred to as "Bhaivara/Annadhāni" Vairāvar. In Karnataka, Lord Bhairava is the supreme God for the community and commonly referred to as "Gowdas." In the Gangadikara Gowda caste especially, he is considered the caretaker and punisher. Another set of people in Kashmir that have their origin from Gorat, or the minister of Mata Sharika, worship Bhairava during Shivratri. In Tamilnadu, he is often presented as a Grāma Devatā or village guardian who safeguards the devotee in eight directions (ettu tikku - Dikpāla, Lord of the direction, there being eight of them).

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muthappan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrikas
 
Last edited:

Sumit

Sanatana Dharma
There is no difference other than quality. Mahākāla or Kāla-Bhairava is Shiva which lords over all other Bhairavas. Only he controls time. Again from Wikipedia:

"Traditionally, Kāla Bhairav is the Grāma devatā (Village God) in the rural Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, where he is referred to as "Bhaivara/Annadhāni" Vairāvar. In Karnataka, Lord Bhairava is the supreme God for the community and commonly referred to as "Gowdas." In the Gangadikara Gowda caste especially, he is considered the caretaker and punisher. Another set of people in Kashmir that have their origin from Gorat, or the minister of Mata Sharika, worship Bhairava during Shivratri. In Tamilnadu, he is often presented as a Grāma Devatā or village guardian who safeguards the devotee in eight directions (ettu tikku - Dikpāla, Lord of the direction, there being eight of them).

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muthappan
Please, no more links from Wiki, here I am asking you if you have read tantric scriptures. If you have then we can discuss in detail.
 

Sumit

Sanatana Dharma
Sumit, Hinduism is not built just on scriptures. There is much more than that, what people believed.
Of course, it isn't completely but it does take a lot from scriptures and scriptures aren't something falling from the sky, they contain the belief of people.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Ayappan is what happens over a longer period of time when an individual is worshiped, and slowly becomes God. The same is happening today with BAPS, and both Sai groups. Slowly what was once the Guru only gets glorified right into God. These days you can go to some temples, and see a murthi of Ganesha or Vishnu right beside one of Shirdi Sai. It's a bit different with Mahavira in Jain temples or Hindu temples with Jain corners, as the people actually recognise they are honoring a founder of a religion, and aren't trying to make Him the equivalent of God.

So, Aup, I'm surprised. Given your disdain for BAPS, and that it's the same as Ayappan worship once was, you accept this, but not that.

In my case, I just accept it all, in the spirit of Hindu Solidarity.
 

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No, it won't.

May I respectfully ask why you have that position?

Maybe, or Lord Shiva is destroys the false perception of those in tamo guna. From my reading of scripture and puranas, Shiva Himself is not sattvic, but tamasic, which is not always a bad thing. I mean without tamo guna, we would not be able to sleep. The very meanings of Tamsic, Rajasic and Sattvic are controversial (because Gita says one thing, and other Puranas say something else). I know in Bhagavatam, Lord Shiva has to be tamo guna, because it is He who destroys the creation with His tandava, and Brahma need to be in raja guna, because it is necessary for the creation of the world. .

I guess I am coming from the perspective that Shiva is more than just a destroyer. I kind of see Tamas in a mostly negative light as I see it as mostly personified as laziness and ignorance. I didn't really consider something good like sleep to be in it but that's something I hadn't considered. I kind of fell like I'm not sure if I fully understand Tamas nearly as much as the other two gunas.

That may be puranic view but in tantra scriptures there is no difference between Shiv, Bhairava or Mahakaal.

Right and he (in my beliefs) is also Sattva and Rajas. I kind of think that in differing quantities a personified form of Shiva will consist of the gunas. I believe that because any personification exists as a part of his Shakti. In my belief the non-personified Shiva itself would be transcendent of the gunas but the forms one worships or works with towards that truest aspect of self/reality wouldn't be.
 

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Bhiarava is a gana of Shiva. Now, since Shiva is Brahman, everything is only a form of him only. In that way you could consider Bhairava also as Shiva. And since Bhairavas are soldiers of Shiva so they will wear the 'tripund' on their forehead and carry 'trishul' (trident) as their weapon. Basically, Bhairava/Bhairavas represent the regional Gods right from Kashmir to Tamilnadu (Kshetrapala - protectors of the region). They were incorporated in Hinduism like many other Gods and Goddesses.

....

"It is said that Shiva allocated the job of guarding each of the 52 Shakti Peethas to one Bhairava. There are said to be 52 forms of Bhairava, which are considered a manifestation of Shiva himself." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhairava#Worship

An odd question, but could there be more than 52 forms? More specifically is it possible that Shiva could of made something similar to Bhairavas to guard other things and other places and not just the Shakti Peethas?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
So, Aup, I'm surprised. Given your disdain for BAPS, and that it's the same as Ayappan worship once was, you accept this, but not that.
Vinayaka, what you say is 100% correct. It is a matter of drawing a line. Where do we draw a line separating Hinduism and its farthest variant? My line stops at Dashavataras (with Buddha as the ninth). That is why no BAPS or Sais (as you know there are two) or even A. Samaj. The idea should be at least about 500 years old. I am not the arbiter. The arbiter will be history. I can choose only for myself. :D
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
An odd question, but could there be more than 52 forms? More specifically is it possible that Shiva could of made something similar to Bhairavas to guard other things and other places and not just the Shakti Peethas?
:D Numbers do not frighten Hindus and they could be infinite. Then Apart of the Bhairavas, Shiva has Bhutas, Pretas, Pramathas, Guhyakas, Dakinis, Pisacas, Kusmandas, Vetalas, Vinayakas and Brahma-raksasas in his ranks, all under his and Ganesha's control. Ganesha is the chief, 'Ganapati'. It is a merry house.

 
Last edited:

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Based on something I've seen and experienced myself, I think there might be something similar to Bhairavas that are more vast in numbers. I was mostly curious if there was something similar or perhaps in another form that had a very similar role (protectors of certain things or more generally as warriors of Shiva).
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
For us, in this diverse ocean of schools, Bhairava is Siva. He can be represented as a trident alone, and often is. In the great Saiva temples, he stands inside the main entrance, and is like a guardian. He will also hold the key that opens the sanctum doors. So he is the aspect of protection.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Vinayaka, what you say is 100% correct. It is a matter of drawing a line. Where do we draw a line separating Hinduism and its farthest variant? My line stops at Dashavataras (with Buddha as the ninth). That is why no BAPS or Sais (as you know there are two) or even A. Samaj. The idea should be at least about 500 years old. I am not the arbiter. The arbiter will be history. I can choose only for myself. :D
Don't get me wrong. On a personal level, I agree. It's just that my practice of Hinduism has two levels, one very narrow, and the other very broad. In practice, it's about 90-10 split. So one one hand, I'm monistic Saiva Siddhanta, but on the other, I'm all for Hindu Solidarity, and accept every single path in the umbrella. Not philosophically, obviously, but the right to do that, the right to practice without criticism from other sects, other Hindus, and all that. We're all brothers. The hardest part, I must admit, is to be tolerant of the intolerant, but that too, with sadhana, and daily clearing of the subconscious via meditation, is very possible.
 
Top