Yes, Sankara Stones are "Real"

WillKill4Food

New member
The Real Sankara Stones
This thread is the product of the common misconception that the Sankara Stones in ToD were made up artifacts. In fact, they were not. There are no Sankara Stones, per se, but sacred stones do exist. They are known as Lingam. The Sankara Stones, according to Indy, were given to the world by Siva, so the correct name for them would be Siva Lingam.
Adi Sankara was a Hindu philosopher of roughly 800 CE credited with reviving Hinduism. It is he that the "Sankara Stones" are named after.
Like I said earlier, the Sankara Stones, or Siva Lingam, are real. In Hindu practices, Shiva is usually worshipped as the Shiva linga. In images, he is generally represented as immersed in deep meditation or dancing the Tandava upon the demon of ignorance in his manifestation of Nataraja, the lord of the dance.

For more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siva_lingam_stone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Sankara

Photo Gallery:
Statue of Adi Sankara:
Adi_shankara.jpg


The Somnath Jyotirlinga:
Somjyotir.jpg


I would post others, but most are too big.
 

ReggieSnake

New member
Hey WillKill! Where have you been?:)

Interesting topic. This pic looks most like the stone from the movie. Though I guess from the article that "linga" is a broad term and that only those that are symbols of Shiva have this shape. Here is the part of that first wiki article talking about them:
Lingam as a symbol of Shiva

A. L. Basham says that linga have been found in the Harappan remains, and provides these comments relating to the antiquity of the symbol:

"... Shiva was and still is chiefly worshipped in the form of the liṅga, usually a short cylindrical pillar with rounded top, which is the survival of a cult older than Indian civilization itself.... The cult of the liṅga, at all times followed by some of the non-Āryan peoples, was incorporated into Hinduism around the beginning of the Christian era, though at first it was not very important."[7]

Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami explains in the lexicon section of his book, Dancing with Shiva, that "Shivalinga is the most prevalent icon of Shiva, found in virtually all Shiva temples. It is a rounded, elliptical, aniconic image, usually set on a circular base, or peetham. The lingam is the simplest and most ancient symbol of Shiva, especially of Parasiva, God beyond all forms and qualities. The Peetham represents Parashakti, the manifesting power of God. Lingas are usually of stone (either carved or naturally existing, swayambhu, such as shaped by a swift-flowing river), but may also be of metal, precious gems, crystal, wood, earth or transitory materials such as ice. According to the Karana Agama (6), a transitory Shivalinga may be made of 12 different materials: sand, rice, cooked food, river clay, cow dung, butter, rudraksha beads, ashes, sandalwood, darbha grass, a flower garland, or molasses."

Furthermore, there are instances in Hindu lore where a rock or pile of sand has been used by heroic personages as a Lingam or symbol of Shiva. For example, Arjuna fashioned a lingam of clay when worshipping Shiva. Thus, it is argued, too much should not be made of the usual shape of the Lingam. This view is also consonant with philosophies that hold that God may be conceptualized and worshipped in any convenient form; the form itself is irrelevant, the divine power that it represents is all that matters.

Hindu interpreters often use the underlying meaning of "sign" or "mark" for the Sanskrit word linga as the basis for their commentaries. For example:

* The name Lingam appears as a name of Shiva in the Shiva Sahasranama where it is translated by Ram Karan Sharma as "(Identifiable as) a symbol of the origin of the Universe."[8]

* Bansi Pandit, in his book, Hindu Dharma said, that "Shivalinga means "Shiva symbol."

* Swami Sivananda, said that "Linga means a mark, in Sanskrit. It is a symbol which points to an inference. When you see a big flood in a river, you infer that there had been heavy rains the previous day. When you see smoke, you infer that there is fire. This vast world of countless forms is a Linga of the omnipotent Lord. The Siva-Linga is a symbol of Lord Siva. When you look at the Linga, your mind is at once elevated and you begin to think of the Lord." [1]

Western commentators often use the concept of "male generative organ" as the basis for their interpretations. For example: - - *Monier-Williams provides one definition for lingam as: "The male organ... esp. that of Siva worshipped in the form of a stone or marble column..."[9]. - - *Gavin Flood's An Introduction to Hinduism refers to the worship of Shiva "in his form as the Śiva liṅga or 'icon' found in most Hindu temples. The linga represents a phallus..."[10]
 

Michael24

New member
WillKill4Food said:
The Real Sankara Stones
This thread is the product of the common misconception that the Sankara Stones in ToD were made up artifacts. In fact, they were not. There are no Sankara Stones, per se, but sacred stones do exist. They are known as Lingam. The Sankara Stones, according to Indy, were given to the world by Siva, so the correct name for them would be Siva Lingam.

I'd always wondered if the Sankara Stones were derived from the Lingams. And now that I think about it, the old man in the village does say something about "they took Shiva Lingam," though because of his accent it sounds like "linga."
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
Wow, thanks for sharing. I actually like the look of the real stones better then the ToD renditions.
 

China Jim

New member
Linga or Lingam?

Both are correct. It is also a representation of the male reproductive organ there has been a few specials on the history channel confirming this I would recommend checking it out by doing a search on the site of the history channel.
As a side note if you take a look at Indy When hes at the sacrifice the symbol on his head is the trident of Siva or Shiva. I am a historian by training so I looked into things connected to the movie TOD what I found so funny was Indy's speaking a northern dialect to the village folk While in the palace they are speaking Hindi I checked with Indian friends of mine and they confirmed my presumptions. Also I am sure someone has brought this up but if not heres another goof in the film Thug did not use cords to strangle with they used a weighted scarf which they either looped around the targets neck or snapped it out like a whip to encircle the neck pull down and the finished off. After which the Thugs would break the back then fold the target over and bury them. When the Brits during the time of Clive routed them they were identified by what they carried a shovel and a pick ax. Now this is the official report but some info has come to light that the whole outbreak was expanded upon by a British officer who wrote up the reports to gain more money from the crown to fight the uprising of the Thugs but the money went for the officer to purchase land in his area well thats my 2 cents worth so I hope you all will look into it enjoy:whip:
 

Indy Byrd

New member
my "Sankara Stone"

I am new to the Raven. I have a natural stone that resembles the Sankara Stones featured in TOD. My stone is smooth like from a sacred river but only has two lines that are naturally formed across the stone. It is usually the first thing talked about in my "Indy" collection. It is however a little smaller than the props used in the film, it is however a nice piece.
 
WillKill4Food said:
This thread is the product of the common misconception that the Sankara Stones in ToD were made up artifacts.:)
In fact, they were not.:D
There are no Sankara Stones, per se:confused:

Way to bait and switch!:mad:

I thought you were saying Raven Member Sankara HAD NO STONES!:eek:
 

Archaeologist

New member
At University we learned about the worship of the lingam in southeast asian cultures (and their origin) and was surprised to hear that the followers (in this case from modern day Indonesia and Cambodia) held this symbol as the phallus of Siva. Some rituals involved pour water over the top of the standing phallus to solidify rule and, not a surprise, fertility. The use of the phallus lingam in this way can still be found today in southeast asia.
Some Hindu Indians do not like this "interpretation" of the lingam as such. I have interpretation in quotes because it is not an interpretation but how the people use/worship it today.
I have not been able to do any research on the culture of India, specifically in the area of religious practices, but from what I have heard regarding India's modern culture is that they are rather conservative in certain areas (i.e. clothing). Being openly conservative regarding physical issues would be no surprise. Didn't Richard Gere get in trouble for some trivial matter like a kiss whilst in India? Anyways... This could account for why some Hindus do not acknowledge the Lingam as a phallus.
However modern Indians wish to classify the lingam, the fact remains that the lingam came from India, was brought to southeast asia where it is currently worshiped as Siva's phallus and has been since it has arrived as evident in the archaeological record. I have no reason to suspect that it came all the way from India and suddenly (not to mention unconditionally) was worshiped as a phallus, while in India it remained in some sort of original form or concept (i.e. Not a phallus, but something else).

Point is: Indy was going after a collection of magic rock... phalli. :sick:
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Diggin' up an old thread of mine...

Archaeologist said:
...the followers (in this case from modern day Indonesia and Cambodia) held this symbol as the phallus of Siva.
Near as I can tell, most Hindus don't believe that to be the case. I'm not sure about Indonesia and Cambodia, but Indian Hindus, such as Sri Swami Sivananda, think that interpretation is simply incorrect. It seems to have been introduced by William Ward, a British missionary and author of A View of the History, Literature, and Mythology of the Hindoos. Ward claimed that the worship of sivalinga was "the last state of degradation to which human nature can be driven," representing symbolism "too gross ... to meet the public eye." Near as I can tell, other Western scholars took that idea and ran with it.
Archaeologist said:
Some rituals involved pour water over the top of the standing phallus to solidify rule and, not a surprise, fertility. The use of the phallus lingam in this way can still be found today in southeast asia.
If that is the case, it could be a perversion of the original Hindu meaning of the sivalinga. Plenty of what we think of as "primitive" religions worship fertility gods and goddesses, and it could be that these groups in Southeast Asia have substituted Siva in their rituals.
Archaeologist said:
Some Hindu Indians do not like this "interpretation" of the lingam as such. I have interpretation in quotes because it is not an interpretation but how the people use/worship it today.
But it's not how everyone worships it, so I would still think it's an interpretation... At any rate, I'm really confused by your statement that:
Archaeologist said:
I have no reason to suspect that it came all the way from India and suddenly (not to mention unconditionally) was worshiped as a phallus, while in India it remained in some sort of original form or concept (i.e. Not a phallus, but something else).
Anthropologically speaking, that really makes sense. Jesus' original followers didn't celebrate his birthday every December 25th, for several reasons (historically, he almost certainly was not born on that day, and less importantly, the twelve disciples didn't use the Gregorian calender). That people celebrate Christmas today on that date is the result of an evolution of Christian religion and culture. The early Christians found it practical to combine Christmas with pagan practices to make conversion easier. It would make sense that Indonesian cultures would similarly combine the old with the new.
Archaeologist said:
...India's modern culture is ... rather conservative in certain areas (i.e. clothing) ... This could account for why some Hindus do not acknowledge the Lingam as a phallus.
I think the reason they don't acknowledge it as a phallus is that they don't view it as such, and probably never have. The lingam are (generally) aniconic symbols, the reason being that, historically, the Hindu view is that:
Swami Sivananda said:
Lord Siva is really formless. He has no form of his own and yet all forms are His forms. All forms are pervaded by Lord Siva. Every form is the form or Linga of Lord Siva.
As a result, they believe that:
Swami Sivananda said:
The foremost Linga which is primary and is devoid of smell, colour, taste, hearing, touch, etc., is spoken of as Prakriti (Nature).
The lingam are usually (and from what I can gather, ideally) simple stones in a simple form. A statue of Siva does not really represent Him well because He is "formless." According to Swami Sivanada,
Swami Sivananda said:
Linga means ‘mark’, in Sanskrit. It is a symbol which points to an inference. When you see a big flood in a river, you infer that there had been heavy rains the previous day. When you see smoke, you infer that there is fire. This vast world of countless forms is a Linga of the Omnipotent Lord. The Siva Linga is a symbol of Lord Siva. When you look at the Linga, your mind is at once elevated and you begin to think of the Lord.
In the end, maybe the Freudian views the cylindrical lingam as a phallic symbol, but (as the smoker Freud allegedly said) "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Sharkey said:
How can you tell?
The ones who followed Ward, such as Gustav Oppert, all said pretty much the same thing, based on the kind of interpretation he offered. I'm not saying they took his word for it, but he is the earliest one I can find who implies that the stones are phallic symbols. He, and others, didn't understand that the stones represent an abstract symbol of Siva with no sexual reference attached to it.

Some scholars, such as Indologist Wendy Doniger, once claimed that the stones represent Siva's own phallus, but most Hindus whose opinions I've read (and many Western scholars, as well) disagree. Even Doniger herself later recanted her assertion. All of these claims seem to be based on psychoanalytic assessments, and much of psychoanalysis itself doesn't really mesh well with anthropology or even science.
 

I.M.J.

New member
WillKill4Food said:
Even Doniger herself later recanted her assertion. All of these claims seem to be based on psychoanalytic assessments, and much of psychoanalysis itself doesn't really mesh well with anthropology or even science.

I think you mean "Freudian". Psychoanalysis has really given way to psychometric nowadays, which is incredibly quantifiable. Although Psychoanalysis was clearly Freud's contribution to the science of understanding human behavior, you're sort of generalizing or misrepresenting the totality of psychoanalysis here.

I'm just saying that if you really wanted to be accurate, you'd be saying Freudian assessments as opposed to psychoanalytic, which has a broader meaning than you are applying here. :whip:

-Hey, Indy would agree that if you want to have intelligent conversations, then you've got to represent things correctly.-
 

WillKill4Food

New member
I.M.J. said:
I think you mean "Freudian".
Well, yes, in part of the post, but not necessarily all of it. On the one hand, I certainly was referring to Freudian psychoanalysis for a great deal of the preceding comment as well as the one you quoted. In the preceding post, I even referenced Freud,
WillKill4Food said:
In the end, maybe the Freudian views the cylindrical lingam as a phallic symbol, but (as the smoker Freud allegedly said) "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
This discussion about the idea that the lingam are phallic symbols was definitely a discussion about Freudian interpretations, but when I said,
WillKill4Food said:
...much of psychoanalysis itself doesn't really mesh well with anthropology or even science.
I meant psychoanalysis in general. I'm not sure what form (or perhaps 'school' would be the better word?) of psychoanalysis you are referring to as "incredibly quantifiable," but my understanding of it is that it is rather unscientific.* Human behavior is observable, but mental activity itself is not. MRIs and PET scans and indirect tests like that may be "quantifiable," but today's cognitive psychologists have replaced Freud's concept with an "implicit" or "automatic" notion of cognitive processes that diverges from Freud's, using it only as a 'jumping-off point' of sorts. It may sound like I'm just repeating you here, because I'm focusing on Freud rather than today's psychoanalysts, but I am under the impression that this idea of the "unconscious mind" lies at the very basis of all psychoanalysis.
Now, if that is completely wrong, then I stand corrected, but if that is an accurate statement, then I stand by the assertion that psychoanalysis is ultimately a pseudoscience, unless you are saying that neuro-psychoanalysis (which seeks a biological basis) is today's mainstream psychoanalysis.

*Given what we know about biology today, dualism is outmoded, and on a solely theoretical basis, any hypothesis of the "unconscious" is unscientific because it cannot be falsified.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
This thread is the product of the common misconception that the Sankara Stones in ToD were made up artifacts. In fact, they were not. There are no Sankara Stones, per se, but sacred stones do exist.
Nice thread revival, WillKill, though it's puzzling that you recently wrote the below in the Thuggee - Fact & Fiction thread:
WillKill4Food said:
And the whole story is really screwed up to begin with. The Sivalinga MacGuffin is really sketchy.
I'm presuming you say 'sketchy' because diamonds don't magically glow. I wonder if there were ever lingam with gems inside?
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Stoo said:
I'm presuming you say 'sketchy' because diamonds don't magically glow. I wonder if there were ever lingam with gems inside?
Sketchy indeed, because...
WillKill4Food said:
There are no Sankara Stones, per se, but sacred stones do exist.
Besides, telling us that five lingam could be used to overthrow Siva and control the world is like saying that five crucifixes could overpower Jesus* and turn Christianity on its head. The lingam are just a symbol of Siva, and given that many (but presumably not all) Hindu scholars believe that the lingam are supposed to be aniconic, I think putting gems inside them would sort of defeat the point.

*To be fair, in reality, it took only one... But ya know what I mean.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
The lingam are just a symbol of Siva, and given that many (but presumably not all) Hindu scholars believe that the lingam are supposed to be aniconic...
If they are supposed to be aniconic, how can they be 'a symbol of Siva'? Isn't that a contradiction of terms?
WillKill4Food said:
...I think putting gems inside them would sort of defeat the point.
I'm not talking about inserting gems into the stones but rather:
Mining rock from a mineral deposit and then carving the lingam around the gems contained within. Surely, it wasn't a probable practice but it's entirely within the realm of possiblity. I'm just wondering if there was ever a recorded case of something like this?

P.S. I have a lot to say to you in a couple of other India-related threads so, as Short Round said, "Hold on to your potatoes!";)
 
Top