Forlong - Rivers of Life

Serpent and Phallic Worship.
Ama or “Uma the great mother of the universe” being incarnate in the Queens or
Wives of all gods, whether Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Isis, Juno or Venus, and in our later
Mary. He says:—
“The mother of God of the Mariolaters is none other than she. The eight divine mothers of the
Tantras are invariably represented each with a child in her lap, and are the exact counterparts of the
‘Virgin and Child’ of European art.” . . . . . . “In Indian philosophical works, the concrete mother
Uma passes into the abstract Máyá or delusion, i.e. the mystery by which the Great Spirit evolves the
universe from within himself. The usual character assigned to that Spirit being a negation of all human
faculties, wants, and feelings, the mediation of Maya became necessary to extricate the philosophers from
the cocoon which they had woven around themselves. This Maya then is the power which disturbs the
calm repose of the Godhead, and excites him into action, and is, therefore, his energy or power (Sakti),
or his consort Prakriti, or plastic nature. The Vedanta approves the term Maya as it suits best its
non-dualistic dogma. The materialistic Sankhya prefers Prakriti, or plastic nature, as most consonant
with its mode of exposition of the mystery of creation; and Sakti finds the greatest prominence in the
Tantras as in accord with a purely anthropomorphic theory. The Puranas adopted these terms at
option according to their particular leaning, some giving prominence to Maya, some to Prakriti, and
some to Sakti. They all, however, accept the three words and synonymous. Thus, Uma is the same
with Maya, Sakti, and Prakriti of the Hindus, and with ‘IO, Isis, Astarte, Ishtar, Mylitta, Sara, Maia,
Mary, Meriam, Juno, Venus, Diana, Artemis, Aphrodite, Hera, Rhea, Cybele, Ceres, Eve, Frea,
Frigga, &c., of other nations, everywhere representing the female principle in creation. She is equal
to the Godhead, because creation cannot be accomplished without her, and she is greater than God,
because she sets him into action. ‘Sakti gives strength to Siva; without her he could not stir a straw.
She is, therefore, the cause of Siva.’ Again, ‘of the two objects which are eternal the greater is Sakti.’
Mysticism revelled in these ideas, and developed them into a variety of forms. By herself Uma is a
maiden or mother; united with the Godhead, she produces the androgynous figure of Ardha-Narisvara,
the left half of a female joined along the mesian line to the right half of a male figure. 1 Now, Rudra
having been identified with the male principle, she necessarily becomes his wife, and as a symbol of the
former is the Lingam, that of the latter is Yoni, which appears in art, as the crescent, the star, ‘the
circle, the oval, the triangle, the door, the ark, the ship, the fish, the charm, the cave,’ various fruits,
trees, and a host of other forms alike among the Hindus, the Egyptians, and the mystics of Europe.
The union of these symbols with those of the male principle produces the innumerable cabalistic
symbols, talismans, amulets, and mystical diagrams, which have deluded mankind for ages, and still
occupy so prominent a place in the history of religion. The Lingam and Yoni united is the form
in which Siva appears most frequently in India, and is best known in our temples. It should be
noticed, however, that in the most ancient temples, the ‘upright’ or the emblem of the male principle
is along met with. In the great temple of Benares, it occurs to the entire exclusion of the modern
symbol of the Lingam and the Yoni united in one.”
I will have occasion to speak of this separate devotion to emblems, when I
sketch early Arabian faiths. The learned Baboo, one 0f the Council of our Asiatic
Society in Bengal, here anticipates almost exactly what I see I wrote some half-dozen
years ago, before I saw my way from want of time to publish; and so it is with very
much more that will be found in these volumes. If men, however, get the truth
put clearly before them, let us be content; for very much which I worte several years
ago has, I see, been both written and published within the last year or two; and though
we cease to be original, it is highly satisfactory to know, that we must be correct,
when such various minds arrive at the same conclusions from entirely different sourccs,
and often when living in opposite. hemispheres.
1 I give this as Fig. 1 in my Plate XIV.
277