To MAV Energy and Matter

[Guest guest]

Hm, I thought I posted here before about energy and matter being

Shakti and Shiva and got a resounding "By jove, you've got it!" from

some learned someone(s). I don't understand how consciousness isn't

energy rather than matter. Is the thought that there is no

consciousness without matter? Here I have been misunderstanding this

for so long, and now I can't help but think that typing

consciousness as Shiva or male is just more of the usual gender

hierarchy, women more in touch with the body due to giving birth,

men more in touch with the mind due to not giving birth.

 

As for the effective tool of personification idea, I think it's more

an effective tool for continuing to misunderstand, misalign, and

control people. If there was gender equality in Hindu culture, and

freedom of sexuality, I would question my feeling on this, but

there's not gender equality or freedom of sexuality in Hindu culture

or Christian culture or Buddhist culture or Jewish culture, etc.,

which is why regardless of any cultures' assertions of being the

first or the best, until those cultures begin to reflect their

wondrous spiritual claims in the way they conduct basic human

relations, I think it's time to question the claims rather than

defend tradition.

 

MAV

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> Hey Mary Ann:

>

> Just heard something about the Da Vinci code on NPR this morning;

> apparently some travel agents are now offering "Da Vinci Code"

tours

> of Rome and the Vatican. There actually was a lot of stuff hidden

in

> the religious art back when the Church had a virtual monopoly on

> commissions -- really just prototypical artistic rebellion against

> authority, not all the cloak-and-dagger intrigue and conspiracy

that

> makes a good novel. But as one tourist put it, "I know it's not

true,

> but it would be cool if it was."

>

> *** BTW what about my posts about matter and energy? Shakti means

> energy. Shakti can manifest as matter, but doesn't always. ***

>

> You quoted earlier a source that said, "Energy is not the same as

> matter, although the two are closely related and associated." I

think

> that statement is kind of meaningless unless you've first defined

all

> of your terms. The whole basis of relativity is that energy and

> matter ARE the same thing the bottom; energy equals mass times the

> speed of light squared. Newtonian physics, which still applies

fine

> in our everyday affairs, separates the two in energy, which acts,

and

> matter, which is acted upon.

>

> In other words, both Einstein's and Newton's theories work fine at

> the levels they were designed to address.

>

> *** Energy and Matter do not HAVE to be personified as male and

> female ***

>

> Actually, in the Hindu systems, Energy and Matter are *not* the

point

> of the Female/Male dichotomy. Shakti, comprising both Energy and

> Matter (i.e. the manifest, ever-changing Cosmos) is said to be

Devi,

> or Female if you please. Consciousness (or Chit, the unmanifest,

> unchanging substratum) is generally said to be Shiva or Male.

> Consciousness animates Energy; Energy activites Consciousness.

>

> You are correct that there is no need to personify these

principles.

> Most Hindu systems do, however; and there is a reason for it: It

is

> an effective tool for getting one's mind around some fairly huge

> concepts. However, Hindu systems also teach that one may also

> meditate upon the Divine without form -- a most elevated and

> effective sadhana indeed if you have the mental makeup for it.

>

> Having said that, I still do not believe that the Male/Female

> assignments are simply arbitrary labels tossed out there in

> case "people need it." The designations simply make to much sense

at

> too many levels. I would add that, in my own personal experience --

> which is modest indeed; I claim no particular skill or

accomplishment

> as a sadhak -- the distinction seems very much rooted in reality.

All

> may merge at the ultimate level, but at many lesser levels, the

> distinction is most useful and entirely accurate. My two cents,

for

> whatever it may be worth ...

>

> Aum MAtangyai NamaH