Symbolism of Khadgamala Stotram?

June 16, 2004

In a message dated 6/16/2004 4:37:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

devi_bhakta writes:

> In Hinduism, the SWORD virtually always symbolizes the power (Energy)

> that enables us to transcend attachment, enabling Self-Realization.

> The Deity holds the SWORD

I lived in Bengal for a year and watched at least 40 sacrifices of goats take

place at various temples.

Its a habit to transform everything into metaphor, but the sword seen in the

hand of Kali and other Goddess, Tara, Chinnamasta etc. etc. is without a doubt

the same Khorgo used to behead goats and in earlier times even the occasional

human! Considering that it is a staple attribute of Ma Kali I would not say

that it is a patriarchal symbol at all.

Whenever I talked to Tantriks who knew some English they translated Shakti as

power, but I agree to the undiscerning mind it is easily taken the wrong way

in it's over aggresive sense, but....

Isn't this Universe a very aggresive harsh place??? Surely it is! You always

find Tantriks in cremation gorunds i.e. places of death.

I can see how this is off-putting to very sensitive people, therefore I would

say Shakti worship certainly isn't for everyone!

It seems that accepting Kali means accepting life in all it's harshness,

denying nothing.......this wouldn't be for everyone.

Where can I find a copy of the Khadgamala stotram?? It sounds like a

facinating read.

Symbolically, sure the severing of your head represents detachment and also

acceptance of the truth. I placed my head inside the vices used to hold the

goat necks at various temples. I observed many people doing this as an act of

piety, symbolically offering/sacrificing yourself to Ma like this.

June 16, 2004

A member of the group yesterday sent me an interesting comment on

the Khadgamala Stotram: basically, she found its core symbolism to

be off-putting -- and as a result is reluctant to try it. Maybe

others among you have have reacted similarly, I don't know. In any

event, I felt it was merely a misunderstanding -- but I thought I'd

share my response, and invite other members to comment:

The member told me she felt conceptually alienated from the

Khadgamala Stotram because, "For me, the symbolism of the SWORD and

the mention of COITUS was enough to send me away. The SWORD is a

power symbol." Specifically, she said, one denoting patriarchal

domination, as argued in Eisler's "The Chalice and the Blade." The

COITUS of Shakti and Shiva, for its part, was objectionable because

it relied on rigidly enforced social codes and sexual roles. She

added an Indian correspondent had once told her that "he sees Shakti

as power. Hence, a sword. But I see Shakti as energy, limitless

possibilities, including for conscious peace and prosperity - not as

a SWORD."

My reply:

I agree with your definition of power to a large extent, but not

with your interpretation of the symbolism in this particular case.

Remember, the Sanskrit word 'SHAKTI' does in fact mean power, or

energy. The term 'Shakti Sadhana,' believe it or not, is often

translated into English as 'The Cult of Power.' Sir John Woodroffe's

six-volume survey of Shakta theology and practice is entitled 'The

World as Power.' But Woodroffe, like most commentators, goes out of

his way to clarify that POWER does not imply any kind of earthly

coercive force. It simply means POWER as a universal force -- a mere

synonym for ENERGY, really, which does in fact seem to be a much

less loaded, much more neutral term.

So let's stick with ENERGY as the definition of SHAKTI. However,

let's first acknowledge that in fact POWER is the default

translation of the term by most English-speaking Indians. Thus, I

would assume, [your correspondent's] use of the term was quite

innocent.

Whether you call it POWER or ENERGY, the meaning conveyed does

indeed encompass yours: 'energy, limitless possibilities, including

for conscious peace and prosperity.' It is *all* Energy, whether

perceived (from our perspective) as positive or negative in effect.

Einstein said all matter is energy. Shaktism says everything that

is, is energy -- that it constitutes the three worlds, and that it

is all DEVI. SHIVA is the term for Consciousness. Consciousness

energized by Power = the UNIVERSE. Energy animated by CONSCIOUSNESS

= the UNIVERSE. Love -- the desire of SHAKTI and SHIVA to Unite --

is the essence of all Creation.

That is where the term 'IN COITUS' comes in. That note in the

Khadgamala was mine; the Khadgamala itself says 'on the lap of' --

but Shaktas are very suspicious of this term, which is often

manipulated in mainstream Hinduism into a mini consort goddess on

the lap of a gigantic Supreme God. The actual historical-religious

meaning of the term is much more direct: They are having sex. As the

final verses of the Khadgamala clarify, the configuration is Shakti

sitting atop the supine Shiva -- just as you so often see in Shakta

(and even Shaiva) art.

The meaning is that SHAKTI is here fully animated by Consciousness --

as noted elsewhere in the Stotram, She is in an eternal state of

orgasm. The human sexual impulse is merely a metaphor for the Cosmic

Creative Impulse that created that all we see and do not see. Her

Energy (or Power, if you will) is fully animated and in a state of

active unfolding of Creation. The Stotram is inviting us to ride

that wave with Her; in essence, to become Her.

As for the SWORD, I am aware of Eisler's "Chalice and the Blade"

analysis, and in general I find her argument to be convincing. To be

fair, however, Shaktism -- and in fact, Hinduism as a whole -- has a

very different, very ancient saet of interpretations for SWORD

iconography. Eisler's analysis, I think, applies to Persia and

points West -- not to the very different iconographical/religious

histories of India, China, Japan, etc.

In Hinduism, the SWORD virtually always symbolizes the power (Energy)

that enables us to transcend attachment, enabling Self-Realization.

The Deity holds the SWORD (be the Deity female or male) as a promise

to her or his devotee that the Deity will be the portal through

which this desireable goal can be achieved.

That is the Sword referred to by the Khadgamala. As Amritaji wrote,

specifically describing the Khadgamala's symbolism: "Khadga means a

sword and mala means a garland. The Sword [metaphorically] severs

the head, separating body from mind. It can be interpreted also as

Wisdom -- that which separates, categorizes, and classifies. So

it is a symbol of Knowledge. Khadgamala is about imagining a garland

of synergistic ideas, nourishing and protecting them and putting

life into them."

To me, it sounds like you and he are talking about the same thing!

[so ... any comments, corrections or other viewpoints? I'd welcome

your input. ]

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

June 16, 2004

Thanks for sharing this DB. Some thoughts I have had on this:

I can see the heterosexual imagery as inseparably linked to society's

depiction of the genders as in a power relation or struggle, which

struggle is often shown between Shiva and Shakti. Even in Buddhist

iconography where coitus represents the union of Wisdom and

Compassion, one quality is still depicted as male and the other

female. Why gender the qualities? Same with consciousness and energy -

these elements or energies don't need heterosexual coitus to come

together (in any sense:) And again, the scripture writers have all

been men (or in Buddhism, women who were called "patriarchs"). Not

separating sexual desire from the human/societally created power

dynamic may even be responsible for the fact that men's left and

right brain hemispheres do not communicate as much as women's (which

science has shown).

For too long, each gender has been carrying a burden due to this

proscribed power relation and the struggles and limitations caused by

it. I think this is why we have so much violence in the world. Of

course, this is all IMHO!!!! But thanks for the opportunity to share

it, though. As usual, you are a thoughtful and thought-provoking

inspiration.

This is why I appreciate the Ardhanarishwari so much, I'll say yet

again (even though you say in the home page notes on this deity that

it may have been a Goddess onto which Shiva was superimposed - i.e.

power struggle...). I like to see this deity as representing one

being that contains all human qualities, rather than as a depiction

of marriage between Shiva and Shakti.

I am interested in other group members' feedback on these ideas.

Om Parashaktyai Namah

Mary Ann

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> A member of the group yesterday sent me an interesting comment on

> the Khadgamala Stotram: basically, she found its core symbolism to

> be off-putting -- and as a result is reluctant to try it. Maybe

> others among you have have reacted similarly, I don't know. In any

> event, I felt it was merely a misunderstanding -- but I thought I'd

> share my response, and invite other members to comment:

>

> The member told me she felt conceptually alienated from the

> Khadgamala Stotram because, "For me, the symbolism of the SWORD and

> the mention of COITUS was enough to send me away. The SWORD is a

> power symbol." Specifically, she said, one denoting patriarchal

> domination, as argued in Eisler's "The Chalice and the Blade." The

> COITUS of Shakti and Shiva, for its part, was objectionable because

> it relied on rigidly enforced social codes and sexual roles. She

> added an Indian correspondent had once told her that "he sees

Shakti

> as power. Hence, a sword. But I see Shakti as energy, limitless

> possibilities, including for conscious peace and prosperity - not

as

> a SWORD."

>

> My reply:

>

> I agree with your definition of power to a large extent, but not

> with your interpretation of the symbolism in this particular case.

>

> Remember, the Sanskrit word 'SHAKTI' does in fact mean power, or

> energy. The term 'Shakti Sadhana,' believe it or not, is often

> translated into English as 'The Cult of Power.' Sir John

Woodroffe's

> six-volume survey of Shakta theology and practice is entitled 'The

> World as Power.' But Woodroffe, like most commentators, goes out of

> his way to clarify that POWER does not imply any kind of earthly

> coercive force. It simply means POWER as a universal force -- a

mere

> synonym for ENERGY, really, which does in fact seem to be a much

> less loaded, much more neutral term.

>

> So let's stick with ENERGY as the definition of SHAKTI. However,

> let's first acknowledge that in fact POWER is the default

> translation of the term by most English-speaking Indians. Thus, I

> would assume, [your correspondent's] use of the term was quite

> innocent.

>

> Whether you call it POWER or ENERGY, the meaning conveyed does

> indeed encompass yours: 'energy, limitless possibilities, including

> for conscious peace and prosperity.' It is *all* Energy, whether

> perceived (from our perspective) as positive or negative in effect.

> Einstein said all matter is energy. Shaktism says everything that

> is, is energy -- that it constitutes the three worlds, and that it

> is all DEVI. SHIVA is the term for Consciousness. Consciousness

> energized by Power = the UNIVERSE. Energy animated by CONSCIOUSNESS

> = the UNIVERSE. Love -- the desire of SHAKTI and SHIVA to Unite --

> is the essence of all Creation.

>

> That is where the term 'IN COITUS' comes in. That note in the

> Khadgamala was mine; the Khadgamala itself says 'on the lap of' --

> but Shaktas are very suspicious of this term, which is often

> manipulated in mainstream Hinduism into a mini consort goddess on

> the lap of a gigantic Supreme God. The actual historical-religious

> meaning of the term is much more direct: They are having sex. As

the

> final verses of the Khadgamala clarify, the configuration is Shakti

> sitting atop the supine Shiva -- just as you so often see in Shakta

> (and even Shaiva) art.

>

> The meaning is that SHAKTI is here fully animated by Consciousness -

-

> as noted elsewhere in the Stotram, She is in an eternal state of

> orgasm. The human sexual impulse is merely a metaphor for the

Cosmic

> Creative Impulse that created that all we see and do not see. Her

> Energy (or Power, if you will) is fully animated and in a state of

> active unfolding of Creation. The Stotram is inviting us to ride

> that wave with Her; in essence, to become Her.

>

> As for the SWORD, I am aware of Eisler's "Chalice and the Blade"

> analysis, and in general I find her argument to be convincing. To

be

> fair, however, Shaktism -- and in fact, Hinduism as a whole -- has

a

> very different, very ancient saet of interpretations for SWORD

> iconography. Eisler's analysis, I think, applies to Persia and

> points West -- not to the very different iconographical/religious

> histories of India, China, Japan, etc.

>

> In Hinduism, the SWORD virtually always symbolizes the power

(Energy)

> that enables us to transcend attachment, enabling Self-Realization.

> The Deity holds the SWORD (be the Deity female or male) as a

promise

> to her or his devotee that the Deity will be the portal through

> which this desireable goal can be achieved.

>

> That is the Sword referred to by the Khadgamala. As Amritaji wrote,

> specifically describing the Khadgamala's symbolism: "Khadga means a

> sword and mala means a garland. The Sword [metaphorically] severs

> the head, separating body from mind. It can be interpreted also as

> Wisdom -- that which separates, categorizes, and classifies. So

> it is a symbol of Knowledge. Khadgamala is about imagining a

garland

> of synergistic ideas, nourishing and protecting them and putting

> life into them."

>

> To me, it sounds like you and he are talking about the same thing!

>

> [so ... any comments, corrections or other viewpoints? I'd welcome

> your input. ]

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

June 16, 2004

Addendum to my earlier post: I wanted to clarify that, while it takes

sperm and a uterus (or sperm and a test-tube? or one day, something

else and a test-tube??!) to make a baby, there is no need for the

power struggle. THAT is created by humanity, not Divinity.

, "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...>

wrote:

Why gender the qualities? Same with consciousness and energy -

> these elements or energies don't need heterosexual coitus to come

> together (in any sense:) And again, the scripture writers have all

> been men (or in Buddhism, women who were called "patriarchs"). Not

> separating sexual desire from the human/societally created power

> dynamic may even be responsible for the fact that men's left and

> right brain hemispheres do not communicate as much as women's

(which

> science has shown).

>

> For too long, each gender has been carrying a burden due to this

> proscribed power relation and the struggles and limitations caused

by

> it. I think this is why we have so much violence in the world. Of

> course, this is all IMHO!!!! But thanks for the opportunity to

share

> it, though. As usual, you are a thoughtful and thought-provoking

> inspiration.

>

> This is why I appreciate the Ardhanarishwari so much, I'll say yet

> again (even though you say in the home page notes on this deity

that

> it may have been a Goddess onto which Shiva was superimposed - i.e.

> power struggle...). I like to see this deity as representing one

> being that contains all human qualities, rather than as a depiction

> of marriage between Shiva and Shakti.

>

> I am interested in other group members' feedback on these ideas.

>

> Om Parashaktyai Namah

>

> Mary Ann

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> > A member of the group yesterday sent me an interesting comment on

> > the Khadgamala Stotram: basically, she found its core symbolism

to

> > be off-putting -- and as a result is reluctant to try it. Maybe

> > others among you have have reacted similarly, I don't know. In

any

> > event, I felt it was merely a misunderstanding -- but I thought

I'd

> > share my response, and invite other members to comment:

> >

> > The member told me she felt conceptually alienated from the

> > Khadgamala Stotram because, "For me, the symbolism of the SWORD

and

> > the mention of COITUS was enough to send me away. The SWORD is a

> > power symbol." Specifically, she said, one denoting patriarchal

> > domination, as argued in Eisler's "The Chalice and the Blade."

The

> > COITUS of Shakti and Shiva, for its part, was objectionable

because

> > it relied on rigidly enforced social codes and sexual roles. She

> > added an Indian correspondent had once told her that "he sees

> Shakti

> > as power. Hence, a sword. But I see Shakti as energy, limitless

> > possibilities, including for conscious peace and prosperity - not

> as

> > a SWORD."

> >

> > My reply:

> >

> > I agree with your definition of power to a large extent, but not

> > with your interpretation of the symbolism in this particular case.

> >

> > Remember, the Sanskrit word 'SHAKTI' does in fact mean power, or

> > energy. The term 'Shakti Sadhana,' believe it or not, is often

> > translated into English as 'The Cult of Power.' Sir John

> Woodroffe's

> > six-volume survey of Shakta theology and practice is

entitled 'The

> > World as Power.' But Woodroffe, like most commentators, goes out

of

> > his way to clarify that POWER does not imply any kind of earthly

> > coercive force. It simply means POWER as a universal force -- a

> mere

> > synonym for ENERGY, really, which does in fact seem to be a much

> > less loaded, much more neutral term.

> >

> > So let's stick with ENERGY as the definition of SHAKTI. However,

> > let's first acknowledge that in fact POWER is the default

> > translation of the term by most English-speaking Indians. Thus, I

> > would assume, [your correspondent's] use of the term was quite

> > innocent.

> >

> > Whether you call it POWER or ENERGY, the meaning conveyed does

> > indeed encompass yours: 'energy, limitless possibilities,

including

> > for conscious peace and prosperity.' It is *all* Energy, whether

> > perceived (from our perspective) as positive or negative in

effect.

> > Einstein said all matter is energy. Shaktism says everything that

> > is, is energy -- that it constitutes the three worlds, and that

it

> > is all DEVI. SHIVA is the term for Consciousness. Consciousness

> > energized by Power = the UNIVERSE. Energy animated by

CONSCIOUSNESS

> > = the UNIVERSE. Love -- the desire of SHAKTI and SHIVA to Unite --

> > is the essence of all Creation.

> >

> > That is where the term 'IN COITUS' comes in. That note in the

> > Khadgamala was mine; the Khadgamala itself says 'on the lap of' --

> > but Shaktas are very suspicious of this term, which is often

> > manipulated in mainstream Hinduism into a mini consort goddess on

> > the lap of a gigantic Supreme God. The actual historical-

religious

> > meaning of the term is much more direct: They are having sex. As

> the

> > final verses of the Khadgamala clarify, the configuration is

Shakti

> > sitting atop the supine Shiva -- just as you so often see in

Shakta

> > (and even Shaiva) art.

> >

> > The meaning is that SHAKTI is here fully animated by

Consciousness -

> -

> > as noted elsewhere in the Stotram, She is in an eternal state of

> > orgasm. The human sexual impulse is merely a metaphor for the

> Cosmic

> > Creative Impulse that created that all we see and do not see. Her

> > Energy (or Power, if you will) is fully animated and in a state

of

> > active unfolding of Creation. The Stotram is inviting us to ride

> > that wave with Her; in essence, to become Her.

> >

> > As for the SWORD, I am aware of Eisler's "Chalice and the Blade"

> > analysis, and in general I find her argument to be convincing. To

> be

> > fair, however, Shaktism -- and in fact, Hinduism as a whole --

has

> a

> > very different, very ancient saet of interpretations for SWORD

> > iconography. Eisler's analysis, I think, applies to Persia and

> > points West -- not to the very different iconographical/religious

> > histories of India, China, Japan, etc.

> >

> > In Hinduism, the SWORD virtually always symbolizes the power

> (Energy)

> > that enables us to transcend attachment, enabling Self-

Realization.

> > The Deity holds the SWORD (be the Deity female or male) as a

> promise

> > to her or his devotee that the Deity will be the portal through

> > which this desireable goal can be achieved.

> >

> > That is the Sword referred to by the Khadgamala. As Amritaji

wrote,

> > specifically describing the Khadgamala's symbolism: "Khadga means

a

> > sword and mala means a garland. The Sword [metaphorically] severs

> > the head, separating body from mind. It can be interpreted also

as

> > Wisdom -- that which separates, categorizes, and classifies. So

> > it is a symbol of Knowledge. Khadgamala is about imagining a

> garland

> > of synergistic ideas, nourishing and protecting them and putting

> > life into them."

> >

> > To me, it sounds like you and he are talking about the same thing!

> >

> > [so ... any comments, corrections or other viewpoints? I'd

welcome

> > your input. ]

> >

> > Aum Maatangyai Namahe

June 16, 2004

So is it ardhanarishwari or ardhanarishwaran you are talking about :-

))

There are qualities of masculinity and feminity and usually

statistically the biological males display more masculine qualities

and biological females display more feminine qualities.

It is masculine quality to give, feminine to enjoy recieving.

Sensulaity and being a slave to the senses is feminine nature.

The ability to transcend the sensual nature is a masculine nature.

The coitus represents the ability to master the sensuality and

transcending it.

to be cont..

, "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...>

wrote:

> Thanks for sharing this DB. Some thoughts I have had on this:

>

> I can see the heterosexual imagery as inseparably linked to

society's

> depiction of the genders as in a power relation or struggle, which

> struggle is often shown between Shiva and Shakti. Even in Buddhist

> iconography where coitus represents the union of Wisdom and

> Compassion, one quality is still depicted as male and the other

> female. Why gender the qualities? Same with consciousness and

energy -

> these elements or energies don't need heterosexual coitus to come

> together (in any sense:) And again, the scripture writers have all

> been men (or in Buddhism, women who were called "patriarchs"). Not

> separating sexual desire from the human/societally created power

> dynamic may even be responsible for the fact that men's left and

> right brain hemispheres do not communicate as much as women's

(which

> science has shown).

>

> For too long, each gender has been carrying a burden due to this

> proscribed power relation and the struggles and limitations caused

by

> it. I think this is why we have so much violence in the world. Of

> course, this is all IMHO!!!! But thanks for the opportunity to

share

> it, though. As usual, you are a thoughtful and thought-provoking

> inspiration.

>

> This is why I appreciate the Ardhanarishwari so much, I'll say yet

> again (even though you say in the home page notes on this deity

that

> it may have been a Goddess onto which Shiva was superimposed -

i.e.

> power struggle...). I like to see this deity as representing one

> being that contains all human qualities, rather than as a

depiction

> of marriage between Shiva and Shakti.

>

> I am interested in other group members' feedback on these ideas.

>

> Om Parashaktyai Namah

>

> Mary Ann

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> > A member of the group yesterday sent me an interesting comment

on

> > the Khadgamala Stotram: basically, she found its core symbolism

to

> > be off-putting -- and as a result is reluctant to try it. Maybe

> > others among you have have reacted similarly, I don't know. In

any

> > event, I felt it was merely a misunderstanding -- but I thought

I'd

> > share my response, and invite other members to comment:

> >

> > The member told me she felt conceptually alienated from the

> > Khadgamala Stotram because, "For me, the symbolism of the SWORD

and

> > the mention of COITUS was enough to send me away. The SWORD is a

> > power symbol." Specifically, she said, one denoting patriarchal

> > domination, as argued in Eisler's "The Chalice and the Blade."

The

> > COITUS of Shakti and Shiva, for its part, was objectionable

because

> > it relied on rigidly enforced social codes and sexual roles. She

> > added an Indian correspondent had once told her that "he sees

> Shakti

> > as power. Hence, a sword. But I see Shakti as energy, limitless

> > possibilities, including for conscious peace and prosperity -

not

> as

> > a SWORD."

> >

> > My reply:

> >

> > I agree with your definition of power to a large extent, but not

> > with your interpretation of the symbolism in this particular

case.

> >

> > Remember, the Sanskrit word 'SHAKTI' does in fact mean power, or

> > energy. The term 'Shakti Sadhana,' believe it or not, is often

> > translated into English as 'The Cult of Power.' Sir John

> Woodroffe's

> > six-volume survey of Shakta theology and practice is

entitled 'The

> > World as Power.' But Woodroffe, like most commentators, goes out

of

> > his way to clarify that POWER does not imply any kind of earthly

> > coercive force. It simply means POWER as a universal force -- a

> mere

> > synonym for ENERGY, really, which does in fact seem to be a much

> > less loaded, much more neutral term.

> >

> > So let's stick with ENERGY as the definition of SHAKTI. However,

> > let's first acknowledge that in fact POWER is the default

> > translation of the term by most English-speaking Indians. Thus,

I

> > would assume, [your correspondent's] use of the term was quite

> > innocent.

> >

> > Whether you call it POWER or ENERGY, the meaning conveyed does

> > indeed encompass yours: 'energy, limitless possibilities,

including

> > for conscious peace and prosperity.' It is *all* Energy, whether

> > perceived (from our perspective) as positive or negative in

effect.

> > Einstein said all matter is energy. Shaktism says everything

that

> > is, is energy -- that it constitutes the three worlds, and that

it

> > is all DEVI. SHIVA is the term for Consciousness. Consciousness

> > energized by Power = the UNIVERSE. Energy animated by

CONSCIOUSNESS

> > = the UNIVERSE. Love -- the desire of SHAKTI and SHIVA to Unite -

-

> > is the essence of all Creation.

> >

> > That is where the term 'IN COITUS' comes in. That note in the

> > Khadgamala was mine; the Khadgamala itself says 'on the lap of' -

-

> > but Shaktas are very suspicious of this term, which is often

> > manipulated in mainstream Hinduism into a mini consort goddess

on

> > the lap of a gigantic Supreme God. The actual historical-

religious

> > meaning of the term is much more direct: They are having sex. As

> the

> > final verses of the Khadgamala clarify, the configuration is

Shakti

> > sitting atop the supine Shiva -- just as you so often see in

Shakta

> > (and even Shaiva) art.

> >

> > The meaning is that SHAKTI is here fully animated by

Consciousness -

> -

> > as noted elsewhere in the Stotram, She is in an eternal state

of

> > orgasm. The human sexual impulse is merely a metaphor for the

> Cosmic

> > Creative Impulse that created that all we see and do not see.

Her

> > Energy (or Power, if you will) is fully animated and in a state

of

> > active unfolding of Creation. The Stotram is inviting us to ride

> > that wave with Her; in essence, to become Her.

> >

> > As for the SWORD, I am aware of Eisler's "Chalice and the Blade"

> > analysis, and in general I find her argument to be convincing.

To

> be

> > fair, however, Shaktism -- and in fact, Hinduism as a whole --

has

> a

> > very different, very ancient saet of interpretations for SWORD

> > iconography. Eisler's analysis, I think, applies to Persia and

> > points West -- not to the very different

iconographical/religious

> > histories of India, China, Japan, etc.

> >

> > In Hinduism, the SWORD virtually always symbolizes the power

> (Energy)

> > that enables us to transcend attachment, enabling Self-

Realization.

> > The Deity holds the SWORD (be the Deity female or male) as a

> promise

> > to her or his devotee that the Deity will be the portal through

> > which this desireable goal can be achieved.

> >

> > That is the Sword referred to by the Khadgamala. As Amritaji

wrote,

> > specifically describing the Khadgamala's symbolism: "Khadga

means a

> > sword and mala means a garland. The Sword [metaphorically]

severs

> > the head, separating body from mind. It can be interpreted also

as

> > Wisdom -- that which separates, categorizes, and classifies. So

> > it is a symbol of Knowledge. Khadgamala is about imagining a

> garland

> > of synergistic ideas, nourishing and protecting them and putting

> > life into them."

> >

> > To me, it sounds like you and he are talking about the same

thing!

> >

> > [so ... any comments, corrections or other viewpoints? I'd

welcome

> > your input. ]

> >

> > Aum Maatangyai Namahe

June 16, 2004

The thing about a ubiquitous dichotomy of male/female is pretty obvious. Sure

when we talk about things like Shakti, Shiva, Kali etc. etc. we are

discussing impersonal universal forces, BUT being mere human beings it can be

hard to

interpet them in abstracted terms.

If someone were to try and worship time they might have trouble if their mind

can't think on such a level, worshipping an icon of Kali makes things easier

for them, because it is the power represented in human form.

People need something to identify with. Surely the Gods are not humans! I

just think it is a human tendency to worship the forms. Also, the universe being

consciousness communicates to us through those forms.

As to it being a patriarchal concept to have male and female dieties

represented, I would disagree. I think it's more a simple issue of human

conveniece

and analogy regarding the sexual organs.

A phallus and a vagina are opposites of eachother. The universe is made of

seemingly opposing forces, so naturally us little people would associate the

two. It doesn't seem complicated, or overly constructed rather it emerges quite

naturally as a result of observing nature at work.

June 16, 2004

I think it's interesting to note that the process of fertilization reflects

and is an extension of the actual physical act. Meaning: the male phallus is

postive/penetrating, the female vagina is receptive as is the sperm and egg

also......

So yes physically and on a simple level the partnership may seem opposing,

but I think spiritually everything is divine and the female and male both get

equal results in giving recieving love equally..... I wouldn't concretize so

much

June 16, 2004

malyavan_tibet wrote:There are qualities of masculinity and feminity

and usually statistically the biological males display more masculine

qualities and biological females display more feminine qualities. It

is masculine quality to give, feminine to enjoy recieving. Sensuality

and being a slave to the senses is feminine nature.The ability to

transcend the sensual nature is a masculine nature. The coitus

represents the ability to master the sensuality and transcending it.

YOu cant be serious !!!!!!!

"It is masculine quality to give, feminine to enjoy receiving"

hahahahahaaaa. I thought its the masculine who always says : give it

to me baby! They are the one who enjoy receiving.

What I think is that : its both [ masculine and feminity ]to give and

to receive equally.

June 16, 2004

I had drafted a message almost exactly like Nora's but I was at

work and was interrupted so didn't post it! I agree: both have

equal capacity to give and receive.

, "N. Madasamy"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> malyavan_tibet wrote:There are qualities of masculinity and

feminity

> and usually statistically the biological males display more

masculine

> qualities and biological females display more feminine

qualities. It

> is masculine quality to give, feminine to enjoy recieving.

Sensuality

> and being a slave to the senses is feminine nature.The ability

to

> transcend the sensual nature is a masculine nature. The

coitus

> represents the ability to master the sensuality and

transcending it.

>

> YOu cant be serious !!!!!!!

>

> "It is masculine quality to give, feminine to enjoy receiving"

> hahahahahaaaa. I thought its the masculine who always says :

give it

> to me baby! They are the one who enjoy receiving.

>

> What I think is that : its both [ masculine and feminity ]to give

and

> to receive equally.

June 16, 2004

It looks to me you are a female, r u?

June 16, 2004

, "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...>

wrote:

> I can see the heterosexual imagery as inseparably linked to

>society's

> depiction of the genders as in a power relation or struggle, which

> struggle is often shown between Shiva and Shakti.

Struggle between Shiva and Shakti? What are you talking about?

There is no difference between them. There are like the moon and

moon-light. Fire and its power to burn.

June 16, 2004

malyavan_tibet wrote: It looks to me you are a female, r u?

HAHHAAAAAAAAAAAA Just as I've expected. You will come back and ask me

this question. Does it matter weather I am a male or female.

Occasionally I would go to the chat room and somebody will say : NOO!

you are not a Woman. You dont think like one. Another will say : You

are a Woman because you behave like one. Sula bula ! LOL.

June 16, 2004

It does not really matter.

The woman is able to receive the intense love, and opens her heart

chakra and able to receive a spirit into her womb. It is this

capacity of her to receive which opens her up and which blossoms

into the ever giving motherhood.

It is usually a male who is instrumental in opening up a woman by

giving love.

Any arguments on this one?.

June 16, 2004

malyavan_tibet wrote:It is usually a male who is instrumental in

opening up a woman by giving love. Any arguments on this one?.

DISAGREE!!!!!

It is my personal believe that both are instruments to each other in

opening each other heart.

Look! I love to participate in this discussion but I must take leave

now and really concentrate on the homepage.

Somebody just send me message and call me a liar because I say I am

busy and not wanting to chat, but can find the time to post message

in the group. LOL. Maybe that is DEVI warning too. LOL.

Geez!!!!!!!! Ill come back later on. Have Fun people. Now be nice to

each other ! Okay.

June 17, 2004

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:28:44 -0000 "malyavan_tibet"

<malyavan_tibet writes:

> So is it ardhanarishwari or ardhanarishwaran you are talking about :-))

ardhanarishwari = "the Lady who is Half Woman"

ardhanarishwaran = "the Lord who is Half Woman"

How about using <ardhanarEshwari>? The vowel change makes the word mean

"the Lady who is half Male," and maintains the androgeny.

I chose to envision BOTH the Goddess and the God in my heart, be they

engaged in coitus, caring for their Divine Child (who, on one level, is

ME), or playing chess!

Every human being contains the potential to express either male or female

characteristics. Which is why it seems important to me to portray the

Goddess and the God together, even if the devotee prefers same-gender

coitus.

The sword IS a death-dealing weapon. But one should be mindful of death,

even in the midst of life. The sword is also symbolic of analysis. As a

writer, I find that the powers the Chalice: of birth and production of

words, are necessary -- but so is the blue pencil, the skill to edit, to

prune the overly-wordy, to set limits and chose the most exact phrase...

and these are necessary powers of the Blade.

-- Len/ Kalipadma

> There are qualities of masculinity and feminity and usually

> statistically the biological males display more masculine qualities

> and biological females display more feminine qualities.

>

> It is masculine quality to give, feminine to enjoy recieving.

>

> Sensulaity and being a slave to the senses is feminine nature.

> The ability to transcend the sensual nature is a masculine nature.

>

> The coitus represents the ability to master the sensuality and

> transcending it.

>

> to be cont..

>

> , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...>

> wrote:

> > Thanks for sharing this DB. Some thoughts I have had on this:

> >

> > I can see the heterosexual imagery as inseparably linked to

> society's

> > depiction of the genders as in a power relation or struggle, which

>

> > struggle is often shown between Shiva and Shakti. Even in Buddhist

>

> > iconography where coitus represents the union of Wisdom and

> > Compassion, one quality is still depicted as male and the other

______________

The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

June 17, 2004

I have heard about struggles between them, one of them

involving Ganesh, and who was the more powerful, Shiva or

Shakti. Also, of married men and women, the idea is that they

are one - and the law in England and America said that the one

they formed was the man.

, "Satish Arigela"

<satisharigela> wrote:

> , "Mary Ann"

<maryann@m...>

> wrote:

> > I can see the heterosexual imagery as inseparably linked to

> >society's

> > depiction of the genders as in a power relation or struggle,

which

> > struggle is often shown between Shiva and Shakti.

>

> Struggle between Shiva and Shakti? What are you talking

about?

>

> There is no difference between them. There are like the moon

and

> moon-light. Fire and its power to burn.

June 17, 2004

hahahahahaaaa. I thought its the masculine who always says : give it

to me baby! They are the one who enjoy receiving.

[Mouse] They receive permission to give.

What I think is that : its both [ masculine and feminity ]to give and

to receive equally.

[Mouse] No. But each one of us comprises of both masculine and feminine

(though only Krishna is believeed to have perfect balance between the two).

<http://us.ard./SIG=1295ipbbb/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=gr

oups/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1087520139/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://comp

anion.> click here

<http://us.adserver./l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=

:HM/A=2128215/rand=748209506>

_____

*

/

*

<?subject=Un>

* Terms of Service

<> .

June 17, 2004

First, it's a penis, not a phallus - talk about a power symbol!!!

The phallus is a glorified image of the penis created by religion

in honor of the fact that sperm makes babies. When I first read

that you were saying the genitals of females and males are

opposite, I thought that was ridiculous. I guess what is opposite

about them is that one is more on the outside, one is more on

the inside. But they certainly aren't opposite in their reproductive

functions. That would mean "opposing" and they are not

opposing in function.

Unfortunately, somehow "observing nature at work" created

systems that oppress. I think the observing was inaccurate,

distorted. Time to clarify and develop full, whole beings in place

of those distortions.

, swastik108@a...

wrote:

>

> The thing about a ubiquitous dichotomy of male/female is

pretty obvious. Sure

> when we talk about things like Shakti, Shiva, Kali etc. etc. we

are

> discussing impersonal universal forces, BUT being mere

human beings it can be hard to

> interpet them in abstracted terms.

>

> If someone were to try and worship time they might have

trouble if their mind

> can't think on such a level, worshipping an icon of Kali makes

things easier

> for them, because it is the power represented in human form.

>

> People need something to identify with. Surely the Gods are

not humans! I

> just think it is a human tendency to worship the forms. Also, the

universe being

> consciousness communicates to us through those forms.

>

> As to it being a patriarchal concept to have male and female

dieties

> represented, I would disagree. I think it's more a simple issue

of human conveniece

> and analogy regarding the sexual organs.

>

> A phallus and a vagina are opposites of eachother. The

universe is made of

> seemingly opposing forces, so naturally us little people would

associate the

> two. It doesn't seem complicated, or overly constructed rather it

emerges quite

> naturally as a result of observing nature at work.

>

June 17, 2004

I like Ardhanareshwari, and usually use it. But I have also been

told that just saying Ardhanari is accurate.

, kalipadma@j...

wrote:

>

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:28:44 -0000 "malyavan_tibet"

> <malyavan_tibet> writes:

> > So is it ardhanarishwari or ardhanarishwaran you are talking

about :-))

>

> ardhanarishwari = "the Lady who is Half Woman"

>

> ardhanarishwaran = "the Lord who is Half Woman"

>

> How about using <ardhanarEshwari>? The vowel change

makes the word mean

> "the Lady who is half Male," and maintains the androgeny.

>

> I chose to envision BOTH the Goddess and the God in my

heart, be they

> engaged in coitus, caring for their Divine Child (who, on one

level, is

> ME), or playing chess!

>

> Every human being contains the potential to express either

male or female

> characteristics. Which is why it seems important to me to

portray the

> Goddess and the God together, even if the devotee prefers

same-gender

> coitus.

>

> The sword IS a death-dealing weapon. But one should be

mindful of death,

> even in the midst of life. The sword is also symbolic of

analysis. As a

> writer, I find that the powers the Chalice: of birth and

production of

> words, are necessary -- but so is the blue pencil, the skill to

edit, to

> prune the overly-wordy, to set limits and chose the most exact

phrase...

> and these are necessary powers of the Blade.

>

> -- Len/ Kalipadma

>

> > There are qualities of masculinity and feminity and usually

> > statistically the biological males display more masculine

qualities

> > and biological females display more feminine qualities.

> >

> > It is masculine quality to give, feminine to enjoy recieving.

> >

> > Sensulaity and being a slave to the senses is feminine

nature.

> > The ability to transcend the sensual nature is a masculine

nature.

> >

> > The coitus represents the ability to master the sensuality and

> > transcending it.

> >

> > to be cont..

> >

> > , "Mary Ann"

<maryann@m...>

> > wrote:

> > > Thanks for sharing this DB. Some thoughts I have had on

this:

> > >

> > > I can see the heterosexual imagery as inseparably linked

to

> > society's

> > > depiction of the genders as in a power relation or struggle,

which

> >

> > > struggle is often shown between Shiva and Shakti. Even in

Buddhist

> >

> > > iconography where coitus represents the union of Wisdom

and

> > > Compassion, one quality is still depicted as male and the

other

>

______________

> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

June 17, 2004

What do you mean, Mouse, with our answers of "No" - ?? You

said this to something I posted recently, too. Are you referring

here to tantric tradition? Because I think Nora was referring to the

innate capacities of both genders. Like Amma says, Universal

Motherhood is something men can also practice, and must, for

the world to improve.

, Mouse <uri@o...>

wrote:

> hahahahahaaaa. I thought its the masculine who always says :

give it

> to me baby! They are the one who enjoy receiving.

> [Mouse] They receive permission to give.

>

> What I think is that : its both [ masculine and feminity ]to give

and

> to receive equally.

> [Mouse] No. But each one of us comprises of both masculine

and feminine

> (though only Krishna is believeed to have perfect balance

between the two).

>

> Sponsor

>

<http://us.ard./SIG=1295ipbbb/M=295196.4901138.60

71305.3001176/D=gr

>

oups/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1087520139/A=2128215/R=0/SI

G=10se96mf6/*http://comp

> anion.> click here

>

<http://us.adserver./l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3

001176/D=groups/S=

> :HM/A=2128215/rand=748209506>

>

> _____

>

> Links

>

> *

> /

>

> *

>

<?subj

ect=Un>

>

> * Terms of

Service

> <> .

>

June 17, 2004

, "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...>

wrote:

> I have heard about struggles between them, one of them

> involving Ganesh, and who was the more powerful, Shiva or

> Shakti.

Some stories are made up. Some are meant for fun, and need not be

taken seriously. A few of them are a part of a plan-lila for one of

them to incarnate at some place or they are there only to illustrate

the greatness or importance of something(like a person or a place

etc).

There are five kinds of equalities between Shiva and Shakti. They

can be known from appropriate scriptures which speak about them.

They are one and the same and inseperable.

The Suta-Samhita says that Shakti can be meditated upon as a male or

as a female or as having no form.

Vishnu is a Shakti. Brahma is a Shakti.

It is better not to bring in politics, human relationships and other

stuff when trying to understand Shiva-Shakti.

Regards

>

> , "Satish Arigela"

> <satisharigela> wrote:

> > , "Mary Ann"

> <maryann@m...>

> > wrote:

> > > I can see the heterosexual imagery as inseparably linked to

> > >society's

> > > depiction of the genders as in a power relation or struggle,

> which

> > > struggle is often shown between Shiva and Shakti.

> >

> > Struggle between Shiva and Shakti? What are you talking

> about?

> >

> > There is no difference between them. There are like the moon

> and

> > moon-light. Fire and its power to burn.

June 17, 2004

swastik108 wrote:I think it's interesting to note that the process of

fertilization reflects and is an extension of the actual physical

act. Meaning: the male phallus is postive/penetrating, the female

vagina is receptive as is the sperm and egg

In a process of fertilisation there are various factors that must be

met before the actual fertilisation to take place. Otherwise no

matter how many sperm or egg there is, no fertilisation will take

place. Soo in my opinion it is not an extension of the acutaly

physical act. You can have sex all the time and still not get

pregnant. Some only once and presto! The emergence of new Project.

LOL.

Looks like we are going into Anatomy and Physiology lesson here.

hahahhaaaa

June 17, 2004

What do you mean, Mouse, with our answers of "No" - ?? You

said this to something I posted recently, too.

[Mouse] "Equal" means ideal balance, that we do not observe.

June 17, 2004

Namaste DB & Pranams,

I read your recent post regarding the Khadgamala Stotram. A couple of

things come to mind. The real meaning and import of Tantrik symbolism

can only be grasped through Sadhana and explanation from a Guru. No

intellectualizing, no matter how erudite, well footnoted and backed

by scholars can ever take the place of the expereince that comes from

Sadhana.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to imply that Srividya is a cult

of anti-intellectualism or a celebration of "know nothingness" but

intellectual understanding is *at best* only auxillary to

*experiencing* what the symbols are pointing to. Too much

intellectualizing about these things without Sadhana is playing with

the surfaces of Srividya. It may be entertaining and even

illuminating but it is still surfaces.

My 2 cents on Siva/Sakti & the Khadgamala Stotram?

Put down the book on gender studies, pick up the Stotram and chant

daily *over a long period of time* relax and observe the changes

within and without. Pray that Devi send you someone to clarify your

mind and best explain that which you need to know. (winks at Kochu)

Somewhere in San Francisco having fun

~SE101

"One may be like a child, a madman, a king,

independent minded, like a lord hero....

Effulgent One, the way to be is to act

howsoever one wills, knowing both Akula and Devi's Kula."

(Kaula Jnana Nirnaya, XII. 3-6.)