The following post is nothing but an assortment of few thoughts on the symbolism of the rose/lily in Christian culture, and that of the lotus, in Indian culture.
Simply put, in Christianity, Virgin Mary & Jesus – both – are often compared to the rose and/or the lily.
As for the lotus, it is the most prevalent symbol in Indian literature, art & iconography.
I’d like to think that the rose/lily in the west is the equivalent of the lotus in India, albeit with some differences.
This post itself was inspired when I recollected something I’d written a couple of years ago, on this topic.
I had been deeply impressed by these words of Pope Pius IX, from his Encyclical INEFFABILIS DEUS, issued in 1850:
“Everyone is cognizant that this style of speech has passed almost spontaneously into the books of the most holy liturgy and the Offices of the Church, in which they occur so often and abundantly.
In them, the Mother of God is invoked and praised as the one spotless & most beautiful dove, as a rose ever blooming, as perfectly pure, ever immaculate, and ever blessed.
She is celebrated as innocence never sullied and as the second Eve who brought forth the Emmanuel.”
“rose ever blooming”: that was really beautiful.
I was aware of the Virgin Mary’s comparison to a rose, and of the White Rose in Dante’s Paradiso (not that She is the rose there), but I had never quite read anything about it.
That Mary maybe compared to a rose is one thing – but the idea of an ever-blooming rose is actually quite fascinating – very appealing to the mind – or rather, to the heart.
One is spontaneously reminded of something enthralling & beautiful – some object of great beauty – infinitely, continually, perennially expanding, growing, blossoming, spreading out in all directions, penetrating & permeating everything like a soothing fragrance, or a soft but bright light.
There is a sense of inexhaustibility and plenitude in this conception, which quite captivates the heart.
Virgin Mary is also known as Rosa Mystica, or the Mystical Rose.
The epithet, found in the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is traced to the poetic images surrounding the Shulamite in the Song of Solomon (2.1) also known as the Song of Songs, the Canticle of Canticles, from the Old Testament: “I am the Rose of Sharon, a lily of the valley”.
The translations vary nominally, mostly with respect to “valley” – it’s sometimes, “...a lily of the valleys” – sometimes translations say “wild crocus” or “wild flower”, instead of “rose”.
This seems to be the fundamental scriptural basis, of comparing Mary to the Rose, and to the Lily, or to the Flower.
According to John Henry Newman, a 19th century British Anglican priest who later joined the Roman Catholic Church {“On the Blessed Virgin Mary”}:
“In ancient times, the month of May was dedicated to sexual love with its rites in honour of Pan.
The Church has done an astonishing sublime deed in transforming these pagan and sensual rites into the cult of the Most Pure Virgin!
The month of May is the Spring of the year, and Mary is the Spring of Grace; the month of May is the month of flowers, and Mary is “The Flower,” the Mystical Rose.”
Further:
“...our first parents {i.e. Adam & Eve} were placed in “a garden of pleasure” shaded by trees, “fair to behold and pleasant to eat of,” with the Tree of Life in the midst, and a river to water the ground.
Thus our Lord, speaking from the Cross to the penitent robber, calls the blessed place, the heaven to which He was taking him, “paradise,” or a garden of pleasure.
Therefore St. John, in the Apocalypse, speaks of heaven, the palace of God, as a garden or paradise, in which was the Tree of Life giving forth its fruits every month.
Such was the garden in which the Mystical Rose, the Immaculate Mary, was sheltered & nursed to be the Mother of the All Holy God, from her birth to her espousals to St. Joseph, a term of thirteen years.
{This means Mary married Joseph when she was 13 years old.}
For three years of it she was in the arms of her holy mother, St. Anne, and then for ten years she lived in the temple of God.
In those blessed gardens, as they may be called, she lived by herself, continually visited by the dew of God’s grace, and growing up a more & more heavenly flower, till at the end of that period she was meet for the inhabitation in her of the Most Holy.
This was the outcome of the Immaculate Conception.
Excepting her, the fairest rose in the paradise of God has had upon it blight, and has had the risk of canker-worm and locust.
All but Mary; she from the first was perfect in her sweetness & her beautifulness, and at length when the angel Gabriel had to come to her he found her “full of grace,” which had, from her good use of it, accumulated in her from the first moment of her being.
Mary is the most beautiful flower that ever was seen in the spiritual world.
It is by the power of God’s grace that from this barren & desolate earth there have ever sprung up at all flowers of holiness and glory.
And Mary is the Queen of them.
She is the Queen of spiritual flowers; and therefore she is called the Rose, for the rose is fitly called of all flowers the most beautiful.”
Do note the methodology of interpretation:-
The Spring – of grace
The dew – of grace
The most beautiful flower – in the spiritual world
Flowers – of holiness & glory
Take out the “of grace”, “in the spiritual world”, and “of holiness...” – and what do you have?
“Nature worship”.
It is not “Nature worship”.
Similarly, there was no “Nature worship” in any other advanced culture of the world.
There is another reason for the association of the flower-plant-tree symbolism to Mary, and that is these words in the Book of Isaiah 11:1: “But a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom”.
Here too the translations vary a bit, but not importantly.
Jesse is the father of the King David, and ancestor of Mary & Jesus, and the bud that blossoms, strictly speaking, is Jesus.
It is precisely this “stump of Jesse” which appears to be a later adaptation of the Viṣṇu Padmanābha image, in the West.
According to one of the greatest figures of the Catholic Church, St. Bernard of Clairvaux {from “Sermons of St. Bernard on Advent and Christmas including the famous treatise on the incarnation”, Sermon I}:
“It is delightful to contemplate the manner of His {i.e. Jesus’s} visible coming, for His “ways are beautiful, and all his paths are peace”;
“Behold,” says the Spouse of the Canticles, “he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills”
... and with respect to this passage:
“The mountains and hills we may consider to be the Patriarchs & the Prophets, and we may see His leaping & skipping in the book of His genealogy.
“Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob”; etc.
From the mountains came forth the root of Jesse, as you will find from the Prophet Isaias: “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him”.
The same prophet speaks yet more plainly: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a Son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which is interpreted, “God with us””;
He Who is first styled a flower is afterwards called Emmanuel, and in the rod is named the virgin.”
Here St. Bernard compares the “stump/stem/rod of Jesse” to Virgin Mary, and the flower to Jesus.
He further calls this entire symbolism a “sublime mystery”.
In reference to some passage which I haven’t been able to locate, St. Bernard expostulates upon the Savior eating “butter and honey”.
The meaning is something like the discrimination & choice between the good & the bad.
{Ghṛta, clarified butter or ghee {comparable to butter}, and Madhu, honey – are very crucial concepts, in Vedic literature.
Along with Dadhi, curd, they are significant metaphysical tattvas, in the scheme of things in creation.
Nor does Bernard take the butter or cheese or honey literally.
Nobody ever did.
One of the names of Viṣṇu is Madhu {No. 168} – literally interpreted: Honey – more abstractly, as Shankarāchārya tells us, Giving joy, like honey.
Madhu maybe interpreted as Nectar, or Ambrosia, or Immortality itself.}
He writes {Sermon II}:
“And now let us turn to the honey.
Our bee {Jesus-Emmanuel} feeds among lilies, and dwells in the flowery country of the angels.
This bee flew to the city of Nazareth, which is, interpreted, a flower;
He came to the sweetsmelling flower of perpetual virginity {i.e. the Virgin Mary}; He settled upon it, He clove to it.
But bees, besides their sweet honey, have likewise their sharp sting.
The Prophet that sang of the mercy and judgment of the Lord, knew that this bee had a sting as well as honey.
Nevertheless, when He descended to us He brought honey only that is, mercy, not judgment so that to the disciples who wished to call down fire from heaven on the cities that would not receive Him, He answered “The Son of Man is not come to judge the world, but to save it”; Our bee had no sting in His mortal life ; amid the
extremity of insult He showed mercy, not judgment.
Christ, then, may be symbolized both as a bee and as the flower springing from the rod.
And, as we know, the rod is the Virgin Mother of God.”
This ecstatic poetic effusion, of course, doesn’t point to Mary being the Rose directly, but it’s a part of the same territory of imagination – the same domain of symbolism – and St. Bernard definitely calls her “the sweetsmelling flower of perpetual virginity”, just as {much later} Neuman calls her a “heavenly flower”.
One point to be noted is St. Bernard’s text clearly demonstrates the purely allegorical, symbolic, abstract nature of the Song of Solomon, which is otherwise, an intensely romantic – nay, intensely erotic – work of poetry.
He transforms what is an erotic, sensual ode – something more proper to the revelries of Pan or Dionysus – to a highly lyrical, effusive, rapturous expostion of chaste Christian ideas.
“The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills.” {2.8}
The ultimate interpretation has absolutely nothing to do with actual mountains & hills, and the leaping & skipping itself, nothing to with the galloping, gallivanting or gamboling of a specific person.
I hope that at least in the 21st century, people are more open to the idea that the Indian Vedas are allegoric & symbolic in the same sense, and when the Vedic seer asks for “go” – he doesn’t mean a literal cow, but intelligence, or the light of Vedic knowledge – or something in that vein.
In his Commentary on the 1,000 Names of Viṣṇu, Shankarachārya mentions at least 10 meanings of the word “go” – which has been translated as “cow” in modern translations.
The Ṛg Veda is not about quasi-primitive, “Nature-worshipping” tribes squabbling over cattle & sundry animal herds, just like the Song of Songs is not an erotic lyric about Solomon tripping & gamboling over hills & mountains.
The same symbolism penetrates every legend, every tale, every “myth”, every story of the Ancient & Medieval World – and all sacred literature.
In his book The Sufis, the author Idries Shah writes:
Exactly.
We’re impressed.
Who had thought that a mole would be the symbol of the mind, or human thought?
I apologize for the length of an apparently unrelated example from a Sufi Master, but this is of utmost importance.
THIS is how symbolism works, though it may get way more complicated, and Idries Shah Sayed knows it all to well.
It should be understood that the exact same methodology is to be applied to the Indian Vedas, Purāṇas, and Itihāsas.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the Brāhmaṇas of India, who held all keys to unlocking the mysteries of these texts, have either disappeared, or preserved a potent silence for the last 200 years – leaving the masses in utter confusion about what it all means.
One can get several hints from the texts that we do have with us, though.
The Viṣṇu Purāṇa opens with a stream of beautiful epithets of Viṣṇu, amongst which one is Puṇḍarīkākṣa.
This typically means “having eyes like a lotus”, or lotus-eyed, i.e. having eyes as large & expansive as lotus-petals.
But H.H. Wilson himself gives two other meanings of the same word:
1. heart-pervading: since the heart is symbolized as a lotus, in Hindu texts, and one of the names of the lotus is puṇḍarīka.
Since Viṣṇu is said to abide in the lotus-heart of Man {“Behold! The Kingdom of Heaven is within you” – Luke 17.21}, he is called Puṇḍarīkākṣa.
This theme pervades the whole of Indian literature, and is not so easily noticeable because of the dense symbolism.
Of the more obvious mentions,
· Viṣṇu is called hṛt-pati – the “Lord of the Heart” – in the Bhāgavat
Purāṇa {1.3.35} –
· “residing within all beings”, “antarhitaḥ bhūteṣu” {1.3.36} –
· “situated in the heart” — hṛdi-stham {1.9.10}.
2. “Puńd́aríka is explained supreme glory, and Aksha imperishable” – and Wilson just leaves it at that – probably he means to say that Puṇḍarīkākṣa means imperishable & supreme glory, i.e. the Lord is Imperishable & Supreme Glory Itself.
It should be evident that I’ve chosen this example because of the lotus-flower-rose symbolism that is the essential subject of the post.
Do note how words conceal meanings, and when broken down into component parts, reveal new & altogether different meanings.
“imperishable & supreme glory” per se has nothing to do with flowers or lotuses, but a word which generally means “lotus-eyed”, actually means something else.
Given that the Heart itself is often a symbol for the Intellect {Buddhi} or Mind {Manas}, the Lotus becomes a symbol of the Intellect or Mind.
Bernard of Clairveaux continues, in Sermon II of the same book:
“This flower, the Son of the Virgin, is “white and ruddy, chosen out of thousands”; It is the flower on which the angels desire to look,
the flower whose perfume shall revive the dead,
the flower, as He Himself declares, of the field, not of the garden.
This flower grew and flourished in the field independent of all human culture; unsown by the hand of man, untilled by the spade, or fattened by moisture.
So did the womb of Mary blossom.
As a rich pasture it brought forth the flower of eternal beauty, whose freshness shall never fade nor see corruption, whose glory is to everlasting.
O sublime virgin rod, that raisest thy holy head aloft, even to Him Who sitteth on the throne, even to the Lord of Majesty !
And this is not wonderful, for thou hast planted thy roots deeply in the soil of
humility.
O truly celestial plant, than which none more precious, none more holy !
O true tree of life, alone deemed worthy to bear the fruit of salvation !”
Here, the Mystical Rose Mary, is called the “celestial plant” and the “true tree of life”.
The sermon ties together the rod i.e. stump {of Jesse}, the flower, the plant, and the tree symbolisms woven around the figure of Mary.
Jesus is both bee & flower.
The town of Nazareth is also interpreted as Flower.
{Cf.
“He is the Cause.
He has no beginning, no end.
He is naturally pure, independent, and perfect.
The mobile & immobile beings are subservient to his will.
His body is not the creation of Prakṛti.
...
He has taken up residence above All.
He is the Repository of All.
He is the Knower of All.
...
He is the Being above all beings, one above the other.
There is no being above Him.
He is the bee imbibing the honey of endless bliss.”
– Eulogy to Shiva, 3.16-19, Chapter 3, Vāyavīya Saṃhitā, Shiva Purāṇa}
While I haven’t yet come across – or can’t remember – any explicit comparison of either Viṣṇu or Shiva to the lotus, or any specific flower – lotus symbolism, and plant-tree symbolism in general – permeates & envelopes all our sacred literature through & through.
One of the names of Viṣṇu in the Viṣṇu Sahasranāma is Vṛkṣa {No. 555}, i.e. The Tree.
As I understand, this is the Tree of the Evolution of the Universe itself.
The same concept is also indicated by the name Aśvattha {No. 824} – the Fig Tree.
This is also the Tree of the Universe, but not necessarily the manifest, visible universe which we live in.
In his Commentary on the name Vṛkṣa, Shankarāchārya refers to this passage from the Shvetāśvatara Upaniṣad {3.9.9}:
“This whole universe is filled by this Puruṣa,
to whom there is nothing superior,
from whom there is nothing different,
than whom there is nothing smaller or larger,
who exists alone in His own effulgent glory {“divi”},
unmoving like a tree {“vṛkṣa iva stabdha”}.”
Name No. 823 is Udumbara, which is a type of tree, but this word has several “mystical” {read “philosophical”} meanings, one of them being: He who transcends, or is higher than, Space {ambara}.
As you can see, the mere nomenclature of a tree doesn’t convey the deeper meaning which is actually intended.
The modern outlook is something like: The Udumbara tree was palmed off as a “manifestation” of Viṣṇu because priests wanted to fool people into worshipping a “mortal”, “created thing”, an immobile, despicable thing like a tree etc. etc. etc. & degrade their humanity – or that “primitive men” worshipped trees first, which were said to be habitations of irritable spirits that needed appeasement, and the crude tree-worship was carried on in later times with a different explanation – which is all gobbledygook – though the Udumbara tree is very special, in Ancient India, and was undoubtedly held in great reverence.
This is like saying people first worshipped the Rose as Mother-Goddess, and then superimposed the idea of Virgin Mary on the Rose.
Which is completely untrue.
While we’re at it, please permit me to note that in the very eulogy of Shiva quoted above, we are told: “He is the Lord who stands in Heaven like the lofty trunk of a tree” {3.5, Vāyavīya Saṃhitā, Shiva Purāṇa}.
There is no idea which you won’t find in Sanātana Dharma :)
Closer to the point, the Goddess in India is named Padmā, or Kamalā.
Viṣṇu’s consort is Shrī or Lakṣmī, who is also known as Padmā, and though this should be merely the feminine of padma, i.e. lotus, it has been defined as “the lotus-hued one” – while in the Lalitā Sahasranāma, the Great Goddess’s 460th Name is Nalinī, i.e. The Lotus.
Shrī or Lakṣmī {most commonly, the consort of Viṣṇu} are almost always associated with the lotus.
Needless to say, anybody who has seen even a few pictures of Indian art & temple-architecture, can see the Lotus everywhere.
Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain, most divinities stand or sit on a lotus – many have a lotus as a halo {conveying the idea of the lotus being symbolic of Light or Glory} – and many have a lotus above their heads {often in the shape of an umbrella, i.e. the umbrella is either a lotus, or shaped as a lotus-flower} many hold a lotus in their hands – Avalokiteśvara is known as Padmapāṇi – One who bears the lotus in his hands.
There is no end to its constant, repetitious usage: Indians were absolutely stunned & smitten by this most beautiful of flowers.
One would be hard-pressed to come across any mention of the rose, which is probably not an indigenous flower in most of India.
{Most references to the rose in India seem to refer to the “China rose” (from the dictionary, i.e.).}
The lotus has most often been used in Indian poetics & aesthetics, in relation to the eyes: i.e. almost all our “gods” or “demi-gods” or heroes, are “lotus-eyed”, i.e. their eyes are shaped like lotus petals – at times, we find references to the lotus-leaves.
That is, the eyes are large, & expansive, and sometimes, are said to stretch up until the ears.
{I often wonder if the whole thing wasn’t the other way round – the petals of the lotus bore such striking resemblance to the long-drawn, expansive human eyes so characteristic of Ancient Indian characters, that it was chosen because of this resemblance.
In other words, it’s not as if the lotus was chosen for some other reason first, and then, its petals were compared to human eyes; rather, the Indian poetic mind looked for a flower the petals of which could be like the human eyes, and then chose the lotus?
Most probably, it is a striking, fortuitous occurrence, that the flower serves so many purposes at once: it’s presence in water is one such attribute – the resemblance of its petals to expansive human eyes is another – there are many others.}
Similarly, the face itself, the mouth, and the feet, are compared to lotuses – in their beauty, softness, redolence, effulgence, color, or gracefulness.
Sometimes the navel, sometimes even the hands, are compared to lotuses.
Since I’ve quoted from the Vāyavīya Saṃhitā of the Shiva Purāṇa, I can’t resist quoting a passage from the same text, in which Satī goes to visit the house of her father, Dakṣa.
She’s accompanied by many attendants, and we’re given a glowing description of the procession {18.20-23}:
“Two Rudra maidens held auspicious chowries & fans beautiful in their handles set with diamonds, and fanned the goddess.
In the midst of the chowries, the face of the goddess shone like a lotus in the midst of two fighting swans.
Sumālinī held over her head a pearl-stringed umbrella as white as the moon.
The splendid umbrella shone above the face of the goddess as the moon’s orb above the vessel of ambrosia.”
We can see how beautifully all these poetic images have been employed, to glorify the loveliness & effulgence of the Goddess.
Well, there is a beautiful metaphor employed in the 2nd Chapter of the Lalita-Vistāra, comparing the Buddha to a lotus.
This is the one most clearcut, evident comparison of a central spiritual figure himself/herself to a Lotus/flower in a very explicit & elaborate way, in Indian literature, which I’ve come across, so far.
It would be interesting to make a comparative analysis, though I’d prefer there is no competition out here :)
Some of us are well-aware that the iconography of the Tree of Jesse has been taken almost verbatim from the iconography of Viṣṇu reclining on the serpent Śeṣa, with the lotus-carrying Brahmā
I’m not aware of any intermediate influences, such as those from Egypt, or Mesopotamia, or from within Greco-Roman cultures.
There might be.
The lotus was quite an important symbol in Egypt.
As in India, some Egyptian gods were depicted standing on lotuses.
The similarity of the Tree of Jesse iconography with that of Viṣṇu with the Brahmā-bearing lotus, is too striking, to outright denyany influence – and since the Asian concepts are older, they probably were the original source.
Calling the Virgin Mary a rose – or lily – & the same being applied to Jesus – one may rationally assume similar influences at work, though it’s not a great stretch of imagination to associate a God or deity or divine or celestial figure with a flower or tree.
If anything, it maybe one of the oldest & most common modes of symbolization.
The explicit comparison of Buddha {or rather, the Great Man, mahā-puruṣa} to a lotus, may or may not have influenced the iconography surrounding Mary-Jesus as the rose/lily.
I won’t be able to break down the words & allot them to their proper positions in the translation below.
I’m not totally sure about some of the words used {the first time I’ve seen vīrya translated as diligence – this is interesting}, and one must know what the specific terms & concepts mean, too, to understand the precise meaning of the description.
But it is a beautiful description, which illuminates the mind with its profundity, and uplifts it incomprehensibly with an ineffable joy.
The main point is that two great cultures in two parts of the world, came up with their own delightful, poetic, imaginative IMAGES, in which they wove the very stuff of their lives – images which seize the heart with their beauty & power, their uniqueness & virtues – taking concrete images from the nature the nature in which these cultures were born, in which they blossomed & reached full fruition – into the ideas of the beings they worshiped & loved.
“This great being was like a lotus (mahā-puruṣa-padma).
Having
· a stem of great compassion (mahā-karuṇā-daṇḍa
· deeply rooted in the mind of awakening (bodhi-citta-mūla),
· this lotus was born of superior intention.
It
· was sprinkled with the water of profound diligence (gambhīra-vīrya-
· had skillful means as its center (upāya-kauśala-karṇika)
· branches of awakening for its anthers (bodhyaṅga-dhyāna-keśa
· mental stability for its stamen (samādhi-kiñjalka).
This lotus arose from an immaculate ocean of a vast accumulation of virtues (guṇa-gaṇa-vimala-
Its blossoming petals, illuminated by moonlight free from the torment of pride and arrogance, were pristine (vigata-mada-māna-
(śīlaśrutāprasādadaśadigaprati
Emitting the scent of
· discipline (śīla),
· study (śruta), and
· conscientious speech (prasāda)
unhindered throughout the ten directions, this lotus was foremost throughout the world in terms of knowledge (jñāna-vṛddha), yet untainted by the eight worldly concerns.
· It radiated the sweet fragrance of the accumulation of merit & wisdom (puṇya-jñāna-saṃbhāra-
· the sunlight of
knowledge (jñāna) &
wisdom (prajña)
warmed it, causing the hundred petals of its pure vision to blossom (prajña-jñāna-
Fascinating.
Simply fascinating.
As I said, the lotus has been used in India extensively as a symbol, and can symbolize any number of things.
Thus, we find this beautiful statement in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (5.3.1-2):
“Thus eulogized by the gods, Devakī bore in her womb the lotus-eyed {puṇḍarīkākṣa} deity, the protector of the world.
The sun of Achyuta rose in the dawn of Devakī to cause the lotus petal of the universe to expand.
On the day of his birth the quarters of the horizon were irradiate with joy, as if moonlight was diffused over the whole earth.
The virtuous {santa} experienced new delight {saṁtośa}, the strong winds were hushed, and the rivers glided tranquilly, when Janārddana was about to be born.”
The original is slightly different, though not in essentials.
The Sanskrit original doesn’t say “lotus-eyed deity” – but simply “the lotus-eyed”.
It doesn’t say lotus-petal {of the universe} – it simply says lotus {padma}.
Devakī is purva-sandhyā – the first or former “twilight”, i.e. morning or dawn, and Acyuta {i.e. Viṣṇu} is Bhānu, the Sun.
H.H.Wilson also mysteriously forgets the word “mahātman” – thus, the Hindi translator does a better job when he says:
“Thereafter, in order to develop {or cause to evolve, or to unfold, or expand} the lotus of the whole universe, in the purva-sandhyā of Devakī, the Sun of mahātmā Acyuta was manifested, or arose”.
The important point is that the Universe – the whole universe – the akhila jagat –itself is compared to a Lotus, and in H.H.Wilson’s translation, to a lotus-petal.
This is important, and I’ll come back to this point later.
In Indian poetics, the Sun is associated with the “Day-Lotus” {I reckon, red lotuses}, which opens with the rising of the Sun, & closes with its setting – while the Moon is associated with the “Night-Lotus” {white lotuses}, which opens with the rising of the Moon {& hence, the setting of the Sun}, & closes with the setting of the Moon {i.e. at dawn}.
Since padma refers to the red Day-Lotus, the poetic idea is that the universe is the lotus which blossoms with the rising, i.e. birth, of the Sun of Kṛṣṇa in the Dawn, i.e. the womb/body, of Devakī.
This one sentence itself strings together many images & concepts, which form a deeper part of this subject.
As I’ve noted above, the Lotus is quite commonly used as a symbol for the Heart – and the Ātman, or Puruṣa, is said to reside in the Heart.
“O Guḍākeśha, I am the Ātman seated in the heart of all living entities {“sarva-bhūta-āśhaya-sthitaḥ”}
I am the beginning, middle, and end of all beings”.
So says Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gītā {10.20}.
Since the Heart is an indirect allusion to the Buddhi and the Manas, it should be understood that the Ātman-Puruṣa is a subtler, deeper principle which is hidden within, covered by, and embedded deep beneath, the principles of Buddhi-Manas.
The Buddhi is a higher principle or tattva than Manas, and the Ātman is a subtler & higher principle than Buddhi.
As noted earlier, the Lotus is also a symbol of the Buddhi, and Manas, or both together.
But the Lotus is not just a symbol of the Heart, in India.
It is used almost everywhere, in an astonishing number of ways, in an astonishing array of contexts.
It’s also used as a symbol of Space, for instance.
We have seen it being used to symbolize the whole universe.
Nor is the Heart always symbolized by the Lotus.
It’s also very important that Brahmā, the Creator of the Universe, is seated on a Lotus.
In Sanātana Dharma, there’s no mention of the Supreme Being Itself, of Parabrahm, or Nirguṇa Brahman Itself, fashioning the universe like a potter making a pot.
The universe evolves – develops – unfolds – expands – and does so gradually, in stages, in successive steps, in an orderly & regular manner.
The 4-Headed Creator, Brahmā, is strictly speaking, not different from Viṣṇu-Maheśa – and either taken alone, or all three taken together as one – is NOT the Supreme Being.
The Indian Trimūrti is not the original cause of the universe.
One can say it is through Brahmā that the universe is manifested – but Brahmā per se is NOT its source or origin or even prime “mover”.
He is, nevertheless, the “Grandsire” {“pitāmaha”} of every object or entity that exists – He comes first.
And yet indeed, He doesn’t, because the Lotus may be said to be anterior to Him – though it’s wiser not to think of the concepts chronologically.
Probably, they emerge simultaneously.
Brahmā is seated in the Lotus which springs from the navel of Viṣṇu.
It is His seat, his “yoni”, His source – in a sense, His Mother.
It is His throne.
The word Cathedral comes from Cathedra, which basically means Chair, Throne, or Seat.
The name of the Egyptian goddess, Isis, was actually Ast – which basically means Throne or Seat – and She was depicted with the Throne/Seat on her head.
In India, the Lotus is the Throne, Seat, or Rest.
Brahmā is called Padmayoni – i.e. one who has the padma {lotus} as his yoni {source of emergence} or Padmaja – i.e. born from the padma or lotus.
This makes the padma a symbol of the yoni {which doesn’t necessarily mean vagina; it can also mean Home or Abode} – the Source, or the Root of Origin, or the Womb, or even Cause.
Brahmā is also called Padmālaya – i.e. He who dwells in the Lotus, or Who Has the Lotus for His Dwelling.
All these terms contain a distinctively feminine significance.
They are all related to Motherhood, rather than Fatherhood.
The navel {in relation to Viṣṇu & the lotus emerging from his navel} also is more reminiscent of the Feminine Womb, than the Masculine Phallus {which the Indian mind allotted to Shiva}.
The Viṣṇu Purāṇa describes Viṣṇu as “He from the lotus of whose navel the world was developed” {5.5.14}.
This, then, is the first, most important image of the Lotus as Seat-Source-Origin-Womb – but, as I’ve noted, and as we all know, almost all Hindu-Buddhist-Jain gods & holy men, stand/are seated on the lotus – quite noticeably Shrī-Lakṣmī, who is the Lotus herself.
She is called Kamalālayā {Viṣṇu P. 1.8.27} – which basically is the same as Padmālaya – i.e. Lotus-Throned, or One who dwells in the Lotus.
At the churning of the ocean, Lakṣmī emerges
“seated on a full-blown lotus {“vikāsikamale sthitā”: abiding in a fully-developed or expanded lotus},
and holding a water-lily in her hand {“dhṛta-paṅkaja”}”
{Viṣṇu P. 1.9.100 – paṅkaja is simply lotus, probably a red one}
She, sarva-loka-jananī {1.9.117} – the Genetrix of all the worlds – is said to be
“the goddess who bears the lotus in her hands,
seated on her lotus throne,
with eyes like full-blown lotuses,
reclining on the breast of Vishńu...”
{Viṣṇu P. 1.9.118}
I doubt if H.H. Wilson’s translation is totally accurate, but it’ll do for now.
He translates sarva-loka-jananī as “the Mother of all Beings” – it is, strictly speaking, Mother of all Lokas, i.e. worlds, realms, planes of existence.
She’s called abja-sambhavā {1.9.117} – which means, generated from the lotus.
Abja-sambhava is a name for Brahmā too, according to the dictionary.
Point is, the Lotus symbolism permeates the image of Shrī-Laksmī completely, is inseparable from Her – and we see the Lotus as an image of the Feminine-Source-Receptacle-
It is precisely with this background in mind, that I’d like to make a comparison between the Lotus symbol in India, and that of the Mary-as-Rose symbol in the West.
Though, this post is already long enough, and the subject complex enough, to warrant another post – probably two more.
The fundamental idea is that of the Lotus-Rose as a Receptacle, a Seat, a sort of Shrine or Sanctuary, and the intimately associated concepts of the Womb, the Source, the Birthplace, and the Enclosure.
All these conceptually tie in with the ideas of Virgin Mary as the Womb, the Mother, the Source {of Jesus, the Logos}, and the Shrine {wherein was born “the Word made Flesh”}.
Take the epithet of Mary, i.e. Theotokos – “who gave birth to one who was God”, or “whose child was God”.
Theotokos is Theo + tokos.
This tokos is obviously related to the Sanskrit toka, which means “offspring, children, race, child”.
I think “whose child was God” is a more accurate rendition of the word Theotokos.
Fundamentally, Mary is the Mother-Goddess, and the Source, the Womb, the Genetrix of the Creator of the World {in the sense He’s one with His Father}, i.e. Jesus.
The use of the flower-rose-lily symbolism for her is perfectly concomitant with these ideas.
There are other associations, and I shall come to them too.
What have we seen, so far?
1. In Christian culture, Virgin Mary is compared to a Rose – and in the Litany of Loreto is specifically called the Mystical Rose.
2. She is called the “ever-blooming Rose” in the Catholic Church.
3. She is repeatedly called a Flower or the Rose, as by John Henry Neuman.
4. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, one of the greatest Catholic thinkers ever, likens the Virgin Mary to
· the Rod {Plant-stem} of Jesse,
· the flower of “perpetual virginity”,
· a “celestial plant”,
· the “the true tree of life”.
5. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, tends to associate Jesus with the flower, but there are no restrictions to symbolism, so Jesus can be both bee & flower, both flower & fruit – and Mary Herself may be a flower.
6. The Rose, thus, is associated with the Mother, the Mother of God, the Womb, the Feminine Source.
7. On the other side of the world, in India, we have a clear-cut case of Buddha being imaged as a Lotus, in the text Lalita-Vistāra.
Buddha as Lotus is comparable to Jesus as Flower.
8. The Lotus is the most beloved, used, and beautiful of all images in Hindu literature & art, and its significance goes way back to the Vedas.
It is the most beautiful flower in the Indian mind, as the Rose was, to the western {occasionally, the Lily}.
9. The Ātman, or Puruṣa, is said to abide in the Lotus of the Heart, and here itself we begin to see its significance as a Receptacle, a Seat, an Enclosure, an Abode – in other words, all concepts synonymous with the Womb, the Mother, the Feminine.
Almost all Indian Gods & Goddesses are shown sitting on, or standing on, a magnificent, expansive, full-blown Lotus.
On a more abstract plane, it is seen as a symbol for the Buddhi {Intellect, Reason, and Discriminating Faculty} and Manas {which gathers all impressions from the sensory-organs & doubts & questions}.
10. It is intimately associated with the Goddess Shrī-Lakṣmī {who are not necessarily the same, but invariably are, as the Consort of Viṣṇu}, who is also said to abide in, spring from, & rest in, a lotus – who has the lotus for Her throne – is said to hold a lotus, and who is as beautiful as a lotus – and who is sometimes called a Lotus.
Being the “Mother of all worlds”, She is almost exactly like Virgin Mary, who is compared to a Rose or Lily.
Being “Ātma-Vidyā” {VP 1.9.120} – the Knowledge of the Self – that grants Liberation {vimukti} – She, the Lotus-Goddess, is also directly comparable to Jesus the Flower, the “Word {who} was made Flesh” {John 1.14}, who grants Salvation to the Christian soul.
11. Similarly, the Indian Creator-God Brahmā is intimately associated with the Lotus, which springs from the navel of Viṣṇu.
The lotus-from-navel symbolism finds a direct reflection in the western Tree of Jesse symbolism.
The Creative Logos of India, Brahmā having the Lotus as his yoni, i.e. Source, Origin, Seat, or Home – is profoundly reminiscent of Jesus, the Creative Logos of the West, the “Word” taking birth in & from the Rose, Virgin Mary.
12. The words used for “Lotus” may reveal different philosophical meanings – i.e. we may read “lotus-eyed”, but it means “he who pervades the heart”.
There are layers beneath layers, in the use of words for images.
13. There are related symbolisms of the Plant, Tree etc. which can be found in both cultures, as in Viṣṇu or Shiva being called, or likened, to Trees.
14. To what extent Indian culture affected the Western will always remain subject to excitable debates & impatient dismissals – but the correspondences are very striking.
It would also be intriguing to look into the Rose and Rose-Garden symbolism of the Sufis.
Are they anterior to the Marian Rose symbolism?
It would be interesting to dig in that direction.
All in good time :)
