THE MYTH OF GANESHA Hindu Scriptures like Shiva Purana and others declare that God Ganesha originally had a human-like body but his head was cut off by Lord Shiva and replaced with the head of an elephant. Professor Courtright and his followers decided to infer from this that, as Lord Shiva is the Supreme Male, he chose an elephant's head for Ganesha as a symbol of inferior virility (allegedly suggested by a "limp trunk") thereby eliminating any potential competition. While the Professor is entitled to his own views, the fact is that there are a number of problems with this interpretation. For example, Lord Shiva is said to have instructed the Gods to replace the original head with that of the first soul they chanced upon, which happened to be an elephant. Hence it may be argued that it was not Shiva directly who chose the elephant head. Even if it had been Shiva's wish, the fact remains that an elephant's trunk can scarcely be said to be limp, which makes it difficult to see how it may be suited to the negative symbolism of a "limp phallus". Moreover, God Ganesha is revered by Hindus as "Remover of Obstacles", a role which cannot be said to involve or presuppose lack of virility by any stretch of imagination. Indeed, Hindu iconography depicts God Ganesha's trunk in a manner suggestive of movement and vigour, not limpness. That such an important fact should have escaped the Professor's expert eye is inexplicable and bizarre, to say the least. This being so, we must either (a) accept the Scriptural account of Shiva's decapitation of Ganesha as actual fact in which case its true meaning is known to Lord Shiva alone and cannot be debated or interpreted by man or (b) take it as an allegorical description of something else. Since, as we have indicated, Professor Courtright's interpretation cannot be substantiated by either fact or reason, it will be worthwile to establish whether an alternative interpretation may be found. What is important to understand is that there is no scientific necessity for any myth to have a psychological meaning. Many myths have a social, cultural, religious, Spiritual and historical meaning without a trace of sexual phantasies or "psychology". Even if we had reasons to insist on giving a psychological interpretation to ancient myths, it is beyond dispute that the psychology of the sages who composed or recorded them must have differed in many respects from that of modern theorists like the atheist Freud and his followers. The imposition of materialist, sex-centered and anti-Spiritual methods of interpretation on fundamentally Spiritual Indian myths must, therefore, be regarded as unwarranted and unacceptable. Leaving psychology aside, the Ganesha myth under discussion may be given a historical interpretation which is easy both to demonstrate and understand. The study of the history of religion shows that originally closely related faiths may in the course of time experience certain tensions or conflicts which may result in a struggle for supremacy between their respective followers. This may be seen in the so-called Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) which claim to have originated with the Middle Eastern Prophet Abraham yet are interpreted by their followers in ways that are so mutually conflicting as to result in wars of religious supremacy against each other. It is not entirely inconceivable that an elephant-headed manifestation of Lord Shiva has been worshipped in India for millennia, in the same way as He has been worshipped as Lord of Yogis. Indeed, as Shiva is the Supreme Deity (Parameshvara) and Creator of all things, Ganesha cannot be anything else but a manifestation of Lord Shiva Himself. This is evidenced by the fact that "Ganapati", which is the same as "Ganesha", is one of the sacred names of Shiva. It is not for nothing that Ganesha is regarded as the son of Lord Shiva. This is graphically illustrated by one version of the myth according to which Lord Shiva Himself and His Consort Parvati once assumed the apearance of elephants and their union produced an elephant-headed issue. Now, at some point in history, a conflict may have arisen between the worshippers of these two aspects of the Deity. Since Lord Shiva is indisputably the Supreme God, his followers naturally gained the upper hand over the followers of Ganesha and peace was restored. Such a scenario would clearly explain the symbolic decapitation of Ganesha by Shiva and the replacement of his head with that of an elephant. (A parallel to this may be found in the myth of Lord Shiva decapitating God Brahma which is reflected in the fact that while Lord Shiva is widely worshipped all over India, Brahma currently enjoys a more limited authority among the faithful.) The possibility of such a conflict is supported by Scripture itself. Thus the Shiva Purana (Rudra-Samhita, Kumara Khanda, Ch. 16) actually describes a fierce battle between Ganesha and the host of Gods under the Supreme Command of Lord Shiva. A similar myth related in the Shiva Purana is that in which Lord Shiva pardons the Demon-King Ravana and restores his severed heads. Again, a historical interpretation is possible. Alternative interpretations which approach the subject from a purely Spiritual perspective are similarly easy to find. However, the most plausible interpretation to such myths must be religious in nature. They are, after all, narrated in religious scriptures. From a religious point of view, the main function of these myths is simply to illustrate the fact that Lord Shiva, the Supreme Being, is the Most Powerful and Most Merciful. As amply demonstrated in the myth of Daksha, who was similarly decapitated and then resurrected, Lord Shiva punishes those who fail to honour Him as the Supreme Deity and also pardons them when they repent. Psychologically and Spiritually speaking, the message conveyed in myths of this type is that every creature must overcome all tendencies to negativity and resistivity within himself and acknowledge Lord Shiva, the Universal Consciousness and Creator of all things, as the Ultimate Reality by embracing Whom alone one may attain mental and Spiritual health and Salvation. What is more, such an interpretation is accepted by Hindus themselves - at least those who follow the Tradition of Shiva (Shiva Dharma). In the final analysis, therefore, Professor Courtright's explanation becomes not only unsafe but quite unnecessary and pointless, both scientifically and logically speaking. What remains to be established is whether his thesis is acceptable from a moral and legal point of view as well as whether American universities ought to support "academic work" of this nature.   Back to HALL OF SHAME