Paradox
Vishnu is symbolized as the
preserver of the universe. Resting in the cosmic ocean (sheer sagar), he
sleeps. The ferocious 100-headed Sheshnag is domesticated and serves as the
bed. The goddess of all prosperity sits at Vishnu’s feet, symbolizing his
power. Vishnu is the preserver. He symbolizes social structure. Yet, Vishnu takes
no real family. Laxmi is more of a consort than a wife. Of course in the mortal
avatars, Vishnu marries Laxmi. But Vishnu himself isn't depicted as a family
man.
On the other hand, the hermit (vairagi)
god, Shiv, is depicted as a family man with a complete household. He has a
battery of household staff, residence, legitimate wife, children, daughters-in-law,
rides etc. Shiv is represented as a household man, even though his role is that
of a ascetic, yogi, and destroyer.
There is a natural dichotomy in
this. Why would this be? Is there a narrative explanation? Shiv has been
depicted as a family man to showcase that even a vairagi can be a household
person. But this is not shown in Vishnu. What other explanations can be there?
Vishnu
Vishnu is the preserver of the
cosmic order (dharma), which is beyond the narrow human family unit. If
he is shown enmeshed in family, his scope would shrink. His domain is the whole
universe. Why tie him to one household?
He doesn’t need children or a
household, because Lakshmi herself represents fertility, prosperity,
continuity. She is the generative force. Thus, the Vishnu and Lakshmi
combination serves as a self-sufficient unit.
When Vishnu enters the world as
Ram or Krishn, he takes wives, sons, in-laws, and through them demonstrates
righteous conduct in family and society. The avatar “borrows” household
responsibilities so that Vishnu himself can remain unbound.
Vishnu’s role is meta-social. He
preserves structure, not by embodying it in his personal life, but by
overseeing and restoring it through avatars.
Shiv
Shiv is depicted as a yogi,
outside the world. Yet, he is at once the most complete family man. This is holds
a deliberate lesson – detachment does not require renunciation.
One can be rooted in the world, yet free from its boundations.
Unlike Lakshmi who is seen to
serve Vishnu, Parvati is a partner – in tapasya, power, and household. Through
her, Shiv is forced to engage in worldly life – have sons, fight demons, and
care for devotees. He doesn’t preserve order like Vishnu; he challenges it,
destroys arrogance, but at the same time nurtures his family.
Shiv’s paradox teaches a
different ideal – the sage need not abandon family; the deepest yogi can still
be husband and father.
Reconciliation
Vishnu worship historically was
linked with kingship and order – kings wanted a god beyond petty family
disputes. Shaiva traditions, often rooted in folk and tribal cultures, needed a
god who was close to daily life – hence the family setting.
For householders, Shiv provides
a relatable deity – even the greatest ascetic cooks for his kids, fights with
his wife, solves domestic quarrels. For rulers and administrators, Vishnu
provides the archetype – beyond family, concerned with law, order, and dharma.
Dharma is not one path but a
balance.
This reversal is not
accidental. Vishnu shows how to run the cosmos; Shiv shows how to run the home.
The preserver is personally detached; the destroyer is personally
entangled. Each battles the idea of detachment and renunciation. Where
Vishnu teaches cosmic preservation without personal attachment, Shiv teaches
personal attachment without loss of cosmic detachment. Each looks towards the
other as an ideal to strive for. They are enthralled by each other and aspire
to one another. In the process, they become one – Hari-Har.
