The Shiva Puran account says:—‘On falling in consequence of the sages’ curse, the lingam became like fire, and caused a conflagration wherever it penetrated; the three worlds were distressed, and as neither gods nor sages could find rest, they hastened for protection to Brahma. Having heard them relate all that had happened, Brahma replied:—‘After having committed knowingly a reprehensible act, why say that it was done unknowingly? For who that is adverse to Shiva shall enjoy happiness, and yet when he came as a guest at noon-day you received him not with due honours. But every one shall reap the fruit of his good or bad actions, and the lingam therefore shall not cease to distress the three worlds until it is resumed by that god. Do ye, therefore, adopt such means as you think best for restoring tranquility to the universe.’ The gods said,—‘But, O Lord! what means ought we to adopt?’ Brahma replied,—‘Propitiate by adoration the mountain-born goddess, and she will then assume the form of the yoni and receive this lingam, by which means alone it can be rendered innocuous. Should you thus obtain her favourable assistance, then form a vessel of the eight kinds of leaves, place in it boiled rice and sacred plants; and having filled it with holy water, consecrate the whole with the proper prayers and invocations, and with this water, repeating at the same time suitable prayers, sprinkle the lingam. After, also, Parvati shall have under the form of the yoni received the lingam, do you erect and consecrate the form of a lingam in the yoni; and, by worshipping it with offerings of flowers, perfumes, and such things, by kindling lamps before it, and by singing and music, propitiate Maheshwara, and thus will the forgiveness and favour of that god be undoubtedly obtained.’ Having heard these words, the gods and sages hastened to implore the protection of Shiva and the assistance of Parvati, as directed by Brahma; and these deities having been propitiated, Parvati, under the form of the yoni, received the lingam and thus appeased its consuming fire; and in commemoration of this event was instituted the worship of the lingam.”
The Padma Puran ascribes the origin of the particular form under which this symbol is represented, to the effects of a curse imprecated on Shiva by Bhrigu. It is there said that, when, Bhrigu was sent to ascertain the preeminence of the three gods, on arriving at Kailasa he thus addressed Shiva’s door-keeper:—“Quickly inform Shankara that I, the Brahman Bhrigu, am come to see him.” But the door-keeper said,—‘Stop, stop, if thou wishest to preserve thy life; for my lord cannot be approached at present, as he is engaged in amorous dalliance with Devi.’ The divine sage being thus denied access, waited some time at the gate of Shiva’s abode, and at length incensed with anger imprecated this curse:—‘Since thou, O Shankara! hast thus treated me with contempt, in consequence of thy preferring the embraces of Parvati, your forms shall on that account become the lingam in the yoni.’ It is generally understood that it was in consequence of this curse, that Shiva was deprived of his lingam in the Daruvanan, and that Parvati assumed the form of the yoni in order to receive and render it innocuous.
The Lainga Puran relates the origin of the worship of the linga, differently.
Brahma, addressing the angels.—‘When I sprang into existence, I beheld the mighty Narayana reposing on the abyss of waters; and, being under the influence of delusion, awakened him with my hand and thus addressed him,—‘Who art thou that thus slumberest on this terrible ocean?’ Hari awoke, and dispelling sleep from his lotos eyes, looked upon me, and then arising said,—‘Welcome, welcome, O Pitamaha! my dear son!’ On hearing the first of gods smiling thus speak, I, confined within the bonds of the quality of impurity, replied,—‘Why dost thou say my dear son? for know me to be the eternal god, the universal spirit, the creator, preserver, and destroyer of the three worlds.’ But he immediately answered,—‘Hear the truth, O four-faced! and learn that it is I who am the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer, how canst thou thus forget Nayarana the self existent and eternal Brahm? but thou committest no fault, for thy error proceeds from the delusion of Maya.’ Hence arose between us a terrible combat amidst the waters of the deluge, when, to appease the contest and recall us to our senses, appeared a lingam blazing like a thousand suns. Bewildered by its radiant beams, Hari thus said to me, lost in amazement,—‘I will proceed downwards in order to ascertain the termination of this wondrous column of fire, do thou, O Lord! proceed upwards and seek for its top.’ Having thus spoken, he assumed the form of a boar, and I that of a swan, and we both prosecuted our search for four thousand years but being unable to ascertain its terminations, we then returned back wearied and disappointed. Thus still under the influence of delusion, we prostrated ourselves before the lingam, and were reflecting on what it could be, when we heard a voice, saying, om, om, om,—and shortly after appeared Shiva in the midst of that column of fire.” In commemoration of this event, therefore, was the worship of the lingam instituted.
The Skande Puran relates that the abolition of the worship of Brahma is at the present day generally attributed to the inevitable consequences resulting from the curse of Shiva.
“The lingam of Shiva, having in Daruvanam fallen on the ground in consequence of the curse of the holy sages, instantly increased in size, until its base went far beyond the lowest profound, and its head towered above the heavens; and Brahma, Vishnu, Indra, and all the gods, having hastened to behold this wonder, thus spoke to one another:—‘What can be its length and breath? Where can be situated its top and base?’ Having thus considered, the gods said,—‘O Vishnu! do thou ascertain the base of this lingam, and O Lotos-born, do thou discover its head, and let this be the place where you shall return to relate what you may have seen.’ Having heard these words, Vishnu proceeded to Tartarus, and Brahma to heaven; but high as he ascended, Pitamaha could not perceive the head of that lingam, and he was therefore returning and had arrived at the top of Meru, when Surabhi, as he reclined under the shade of a ketaki tree, saw him and thus spoke,—‘Where hast thou gone, O Brahma! whence dost thou return? Say, can I do anything for you?’ Brahma smiling, replied,—‘I have been sent by the gods to discover the head of this wonderful lingam which fills the three worlds, but I have not been able to reach it. What, therefore, shall I say to them when I return; for, if I falsely assert that I have seen its top, they will require witnesses to attest the truth of it? Do thou, then, with this ketaki, give testimony to what I shall declare.’ Surabhi and the ketaki tree consented to act as Brahma desired; and he, having made this agreement, proceeded to where the angels had remained, and thus addressed them:—‘O gods! I have seen the top of this lingam, which is spacious, pure, delightful, adorned with the leaves of the ketaki, and wonderful to behold, but without my assistance no one can see it.’ On hearing these words the immortals were astonished, and Vishnu said,—‘This is most surprising; for I have penetrated through all the lower worlds, and have not been able to discover its base; but most assuredly this lingam form of Mahadeva has neither beginning, nor middle, nor end; for it was through his divine will that you, O gods and holy sages! were produced, and also this universe with all that it contains, movable and immovable; and in this lingam of the lord is centred creation, preservation, and destruction.’ Brahma then said,—‘O Vishnu! why art thou surprised that I have seen the top, because thou hast not been able to reach the base of this lingam; but what proof dost thou require to convince thee that I have seen it?’ Vishnu, smiling, replied,—‘Explain, O Brahma! how thou could’st have seen the head in heaven, while I could not discover the base in Tartarus; but if this be really the case, who are the witnesses to your having seen it?’ Brahma quickly replied,—‘The ketaki and Surabhi; these, O ye gods! will attest that I speak the truth.’ The immortals then immediately sent for them; and when they arrived, Surabhi and the ketaki declared that Brahma had actually seen the top of the lingam. At this instant a voice was heard from heaven, saying,—‘Know, O Suras! that Surabhi and the ketaki have spoken falsely, for Brahma has not seen its top.’ The immortals then imprecated this curse on Surabhi,—‘Since thou hast with thy mouth uttered a falsehood, may thy mouth be henceforth deemed impure!’ and on the ketaki,—‘Though thou smellest sweetly, mayest thou be considered unworthy to be offered to Shiva!’ After the gods had ceased speaking, the voice from heaven thus cursed Brahma:—‘Since thou hast childishly and with weak understanding asserted a falsehood, let no one henceforth perform worship to thee.’”
Lieutenant Colonel Vans Kennedy remarks that these are the only accounts of the origin of this worship which occur in the Puranas, but Mr. Ward in his “Account of the Writings, Religion, &c., of the Hindus,” says:—“There are several stories in the Puranas respecting the origin of the lingam worship, three of which I had translated, and actually inserted in this work, leaving out as much as possible of their offensive parts; but in correcting the proofs, they appeared too gross, even when refined as much as possible, to meet the public eye.” Lieutenant Kennedy alluding to this, says:—“Mr. Ward takes every opportunity of objecting indecency and obscenity to the Hindu mythology; but, after a most attentive examination of the subject, I have not been able to discover, unless calling a spade a spade be considered a sufficient ground, the slightest foundation for such an objection in either the Purans, Upa-Purans, Ramayanum, or Mahabharat; and with regard to other Sanscrit works, I agree entirely in the justness of the opinion expressed by Mr. Wilson in a note to his translation of the Magha Duta. He says:—‘I have, indeed, in this place concentrated, and in part omitted, two verses of the original, as offensive to our notions of the decorum of composition. I cannot admit, however, that Hindu literature, speaking generally, is more liable to the reproach of indecency than that of Europe: nothing can be found in their serious works half so licentious as many passages in the writings of Ovid, Catullus, Propertius, and even the elegant Flaccus. To descend to modern times, Ariosto and Boccaccio amongst the Italians, Brantome, Crebillon, Voltaire, La Fontaine, and the writers of many recent philosophical novels amongst the French, furnish us with more than parallels for the most indelicate of the Hindu writers. With respect to ourselves, not to go back to the days in which “obscenity was wit,” we have little reason to reproach the Hindus with want of delicacy, when we find the exceptionable, though elegant, poetry of Little generally circulated and avowedly admired. We should also recollect the circumstances of Indian society, before we condemn their authors for the ungarbled expressions which we conceive to trespass upon the boundaries of decorum. These authors write to men only, they never think of a woman as a reader.’”
Moor in his “Hindu Pantheon,” bears general testimony to the perfectly decent character of Hindu worship, on the whole, whatever may take place in exceptional cases. Speaking of the sect of naked gymnosophists, called Lingis, and the Sactas, he says:—“In this last mentioned sect, as in most others, there is a right-handed and decent path, and a left-handed and indecent mode of worship; but the indecent worship of this sect is most grossly so, and consists of unbridled debauchery with wine and women. This profligate sect is supposed to be numerous, though unavowed. In most parts of India, if not in all, they are held in deserved detestation; and even the decent Sactas do not make public profession of their tenets, nor wear on their foreheads the marks of their sect, lest they should be suspected of belonging to the other branch of it…. It is some comparative and negative praise to the Hindus, that the emblems under which they exhibit the elements and operations of nature, are not externally indecorous. Unlike the abominable realities of Egypt and Greece, we see the phallic emblem in the Hindu Pantheon without offence; and know not, until the information be extorted, that we are contemplating a symbol whose prototype is indecent. The plates of my book may be turned and examined, over and over again, and the uninformed observer will not be aware that in several of them he has viewed the typical representation of the generative organs or powers of humanity.” “From the very nature, also, of this symbol,” says Kennedy, “it will be evident that it was never intended to be carried in the processions consecrated to Shiva,” and Abraham Roger, two hundred years ago, has in consequence correctly stated,—“Mais quand on fait la procession par les villes avec l’idole Eswara, ce qui arrive en certains temps, on ne la porte pas sous la figure de lingam, mais sous la figure d’homme: la raison est, comme le Brahmine témoignoit, pour ce que les hommes ont plus de plasir et de contentement en la veuë d’une figure humaine que dans la veuë du lingam, en laquelle figure il est dans son pagode.”[6]
Both Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, as noticed by Gyraldus, though speaking of the phallus, fail to explain its precise nature and form. Mr. Payne Knight in his “Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology,” says:—“In Egypt and all over Asia, the mystic and symbolical worship appears to have been of immemorial antiquity. The women of the former country carried images of Osiris in their sacred processions, with a movable phallus of disproportionate magnitude, the reason for which Herodotus does not think proper to relate, because it belonged to the mystic religion. Diodorus Siculus, however, who lived in a more communicative age, informs us that it signified the generative attribute; and Plutarch, that the Egyptian statues of Osiris had the phallus to signify his procreative and prolific power, the extension of which through the three elements of air, earth and water, they expressed by another kind of statue, which was occasionally carried in procession, having a triple symbol of the same attribute. The Greeks usually represented the phallus alone, as a distinct symbol, the meaning of which seems to have been among the last discoveries revealed to the initiated. It was the same, in emblematical writing, as the Orphic epithet, Pan-genetor, universal generator, in which sense it is still employed by the Hindus.” Herodotus, in allusion to the above, says:—“To Bacchus, on the eve of his feast, every Egyptian sacrifices a hog before the door of his house, which is then given back to the swineherd by whom it was furnished, and by him carried away. In other respects the festival is celebrated almost exactly as Bacchic festivals are in Greece, excepting that the Egyptians have no choral dances. They also use, instead of phalli, another invention, consisting of images a cubit high, pulled by strings, which the women carry round to the villages. A piper goes in front; and the women follow, singing hymns in honour of Bacchus. They give a religious reason for the peculiarities of the image.” Payne Knight supports his statement relative to the discovery of the meaning of the symbol by a quotation from Tertullian: Concerning the Valentinians (a sect of Ophites or of Gnostics) “After many sighings of the seers, the entire sealing of the tongue (from divulging it) an image of the virile organ is revealed.” This opinion, however, has been pronounced by others as extremely questionable; “but were it admitted,” says Colonel Kennedy, “it seems indisputable that the phallus was always formed in such a manner as to leave no doubt with respect to the object which it represented, and that in religious processions it was always attached to a human figure. It hence appears evident that the phallus bore no similarity to the lingam, and that, though the causes which may originally have produced the worship of these objects may have been the same in Egypt and India, still the symbols adopted for their representation, and the adoration paid to them by the Egyptians and the Hindus, differed most materially.”
Clement of Alexandria was most severe in his condemnation of the abominations connected with certain festivals in which the phallus occupied a conspicuous position, but as the lingam is never carried in procession, and its worship is not celebrated by bacchanalian rites, his castigation could have had no reference, or at any rate, was not applicable to the Hindus. “Extinguish the fire, O hierophant!” he said, “be ashamed of thy own torches, O torch-bearer! the light betrays thy Jacchus: permit, if thou wish them to be reverenced, thy mysteries to be concealed by night, and thy orgies to be covered with darkness; fire does not dissimulate, but exposes and punishes all that is subjected to its power. These, therefore, are the mysteries of atheistical men; atheists I call them justly, because ignorant of the true God, they unblushingly worship an infant who was torn in pieces by the Titans, and a lamenting woman, and those parts of the body which modesty forbids us to name.”