what is divine feminine ?

[Guest guest]

is divine feminie purely a female? no, not at all!

 

 

"what This interpretation is purely human, figurative and relative

and should not be taken literally. It is also wrong to believe that

Self is male and the energy is female. Purusha exists in males as

well as females and so does Prakriti exists in males also. They are

like the two sides of the same truth. It is also difficult to say who

is superior to whom. Without energy Self is practically immovable and

without Self energy does not have any field for its movements. The

Truth at the highest level: pure energy (PRAKRITI is undivided

consciousness (PURUSHA). "

 

pure energy and pure consciousness is the same- chit equals shakti.

 

i invite our respected member smt usha devi t elaborate on this

further so we can all have a better understanding of what 'divine

feminine' is all about! as usha devi points out beautifully in her

web article 'there is a divine female in every male' ... i will go

one step further and say there is a divine male in every female as

well... the ardha-nareeshwera just means that! nothing more nothing

less- the shakti and the shaktiman!

 

love

[Guest guest]

well lets put it this way, quantum physics and hindu metaphysics go hand in

hand, let me explain the male/purusha is the proton, the female the electron and

the ardhinareshwari being the neutron.

 

The sub atomic particles have also a similiar label, as we place things like the

deva asur sangraam it would be the epic fight of matter and anti matter.

Hinduism is not about offering milk and offerings infront of an idol that is

just there for inspiration, sure the divine spirit responds but then again that

is personifying it greating boudries.

 

If you are to look at dakshina kali or instance, in her worship the virgina is a

must to be invoked that dosent mean you go actually do stuff like that, all the

tantras are encrypted to take them literally is stupidity that is why one needs

a guru. For instance, the creative conciousness is personyfied as dakshina

kalika, the epicentre of her power where the origin is, is what we personify as

the virgina.

 

When one meditates upon this creative energy, you body starts emitting a

harmoious signal attracting this,later on you attian the coniousness of this

energy what is known as samadhi.

 

In Hinduism we see atomic molecules as having personalities, energies as

personalities and so on. I am not condeming ritualistic worship, I am saying

that one should brodern their mind and try to grasp an understanding, the

significance of all these rituals and beliefs. Having knowledge and realisation

are two different things. It differinciaties between an idiot and a saint.

 

The conciousness of these things have currently not been proven but it will be

sooner or later that it will, nature has though and I would presume this is the

conciousness. Remember the saying see god in all well this takes to another

level but then again does it?

 

 

 

 

Messenger for SMS- Now send & receive IMs on your mobile via SMS

 

 

[Guest guest]

As always, I find adi_shakti16's post interesting not for what she

says -- which is essentially just a recitation of some basic Hindu

tenets -- but rather out of fascination over *why* she may have

chosen to say it. In any event, a brief reply:

 

*** is the divine feminine purely a female? no, not at all! this

interpretation is purely human, figurative and relative and should

not be taken literally. ***

 

This is all fine, of course; basically a statement that Divine

symbolism ought not be confused with human physiology. Most everyone

would agree on that, I imagine.

 

*** It is also wrong to believe that Self is male and the energy is

female. Purusha exists in males as well as females and so does

Prakriti exists in males also. They are like the two sides of the

same truth. ***

 

This too is basic. It is the fundamental truth expressed by symbols

such as Yin/Yang and Shakti/Shiva. Again, any Hindu or Buddhist or

Taoist or Pagan would agree.

 

*** It is also difficult to say who is superior to whom. ***

 

No it's not. Neither is superior. The symbols convey total balance.

Any imbalance on either side expresses human construct and limitation.

 

*** there is a divine male in every female as well... the ardha-

nareeshwera just means that! nothing more nothing less - the shakti

and the shaktiman! ***

 

Actually, "Ardhanarishwara" means quite a lot more than that. Ardha =

half; nari = woman, or female; ishwara = Lord, Male God. The term

therefore means "The God Who is Half Woman." Not the God who is half

Goddess; Shiva is favored. Ardhanarishwara is, despite its apparent

equality of gender, primarily a Shaiva not Shakta symbol. This has

been extensively commented upon by wiser authorities than I --

scholars and gurus alike -- and I will gladly refer any interested

members to these sources.

 

Now, just because the Ardhanarishwara is a Shaiva symbol, does that

make it "wrong"? No. Shaivas are called Shaivas because their primary

worship is directed primarily to the right, male, Shiva side of the

divine androgyne. Shaktas are called Shaktas because their worship is

directly primarily to the left, female, Shakti side.

 

Neither approach denies the other. However, they are different. And

these differences are important until we approach the very final

stages of sadhana. Whether we choose to approach the Divine through

Shakti, Shiva, Allah, Christ, the Buddha, or by some other path, we

as devotees must choose the path we will follow, and -- until we

begin to experientially know the Unity ourselves -- it simply muddies

the waters to indiscriminately blend traditions, on the premise that

they're all ultimately the same anyway. After all, on a metaphysical

level, you and the Sun are the same thing too. But merely "knowing"

and believing that does not mean you are ready to walk into the Sun.

 

Any religion expresses Ultimate Truth through its own given form or

concept. The Shaiva paradigm is Shiva; the Shakta paradigm is Shakti.

Again, neither approach makes the other "wrong"; however, the paths

are different, and those differences must be respected. To quote the

words of the Vishnu Samhita (representing yet a third Hindu path):

 

"Without a form, how can God be meditated upon? If [the Divine is]

without form, then where will the mind fix itself? When there is

nothing for the mind to attach itself to, it will slip away from

meditation or will glide into a state of slumber. Therefore the wise

will meditate on some form, remembering, however, that the form is a

superimposition and not a reality."

 

As Shaktas, the form we choose to meditate upon is the Goddess.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

<<

"Without a form, how can God be meditated upon? If [the Divine is]

without form, then where will the mind fix itself? When there is

nothing for the mind to attach itself to, it will slip away from

meditation or will glide into a state of slumber. Therefore the wise

will meditate on some form, remembering, however, that the form is a

superimposition and not a reality."

>>

God can be meditated upon even without a form. Try concentrating on the OM and

just hear it and think of it only as an Om a sound. That will start stilling the

mind. A form is necessary for people who are yet to hold on to something, once

that is met, its not always necessary. For that person, a form and a sound is

one and the same. Like a linga(bindu) and the shiva rupa. Its the same. While

one is a symbol and also sometimes know as the geometric form of the lord- and

also very rightly so. Try defining a point and you will see what I mean and what

linga also mean.

 

Initially people look up to human form and as maturity grows, they turn symbolic

while understanding that the human form is representative of the symbol and also

real. and a little later they start sensing the reality and understand that

the symbol is to get them there while still understand that the humman and the

symbol are the same .

 

Another way to see what I am talking is to close your eyes and star observing

yourself and your thoughts and everything taking a third party status. You are

not anything in your mind and you only observe - just observe. You can learn a

lot of that too.

Ramana maharishi and his followers do it only by self enquiry. Form is not

required even for them to start although they will use it if it helps. :-)

 

Not contradicting, just thought I will share a little input.

 

Regards,

Seshadri.

 

 

-

devi_bhakta

Monday, September 02, 2002 5:57 PM

Re: what is divine feminine ?

 

 

As always, I find adi_shakti16's post interesting not for what she

says -- which is essentially just a recitation of some basic Hindu

tenets -- but rather out of fascination over *why* she may have

chosen to say it. In any event, a brief reply:

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

thank you kalika putra ! a very interesting response from you, dear

one...

 

you write ;

 

wrote:

 

well lets put it this way, quantum physics and hindu metaphysics go

hand in hand, let me explain the male/purusha is the proton, the

female the electron and the ardhinareshwari being the neutron.

again that is personifying it greating boudries.

 

KALIKA PUTRA! YES! YES!

 

it was Fritzofcapra in his 'tao of physics' who showed beautifully

the fusion (or shall we say marriage or union of ) eastern mysticism

with modern physics-

 

CAPRA SAYS...

 

" the whole universe is thus engaged in endless motion and activity,

in a continual cosmic dance of energy."

 

AND , KALIKA PUTRA, WHO IS THE GREATEST DANCER OF THEM ALL? lord

nataraja- as a dancer, he is always dancing in my heart! the tandava-

nritya- the eternal dance of sat-chit-ananda ! and who is giving me

the 'energy even at age 59 to dance like a 'deer' - our divine mother

shakti! the creative one!

 

 

Capra describes an experience thus...

 

on a late summer afternoon, on the shores of an ocean, he writes: "As

I sat on that beach, my former experiences came to life; I 'saw' that

atoms of the elements and those of my body participating in this

cosmic dance of energy; I felt its rhythm and I 'heard' its sound,

and at that moment I knew that this was the Dance of Siva, the Lord

of Dancers worshipped by the Hindus."

 

so, you have made a very good point. and i appreciate it very much...

 

and my mother Dacing kali, SHE DANCES WITH ME ALL THE TIME! i cling

to her feet so she can teach me how to 'dance , dance and dane' wnd

whirl like a derwish!!

 

thank you , dear!

 

love

[Guest guest]

Thank you db! i find all your posts interesting, fascinating and

above all intriguing! And i always want to thank you for introducing me to

COBURN, DANIELOU, KINSLEY AND OF COURSE , AVALOB OR WODDROFFE!

 

Now, i do agree with you 1005 that "ardhanarishwera" is another name

for lord shiva. But when i look at the 'icon' of ardhanishwera , this is what i

feel a feeling of 'oneness' - 'oneness of both male and female aspects' -

i do not feel it is 'halfman-halfwoman' - i feel it is one cosmic

whole- the union of 'manifest and 'unmanifest divinity. '

 

apparently, in this one figure of ardhanariswera, there are two - the

right half is male, the left half is female - but there are just two

haves making up the cosmic 'whole' IN THIS DUALITY , i see *unity* -

oneness --the lnar and the solar side in perfect balance and in

harmony ! ha-tha yoga!

 

the vedas declare :

 

"He created this half of himself as the world.

Where is the indication of his other half ? "

 

the other half is the better half- shakti!

 

om shanti!

[Guest guest]

Pranam,Gita_anjaliji,

*the other half is the better half- shakti! *

 

I couldn't agree with you more!! ;-))

 

With Love

 

Shankaree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

there is not difference, it is only in our perception. They are all one. To

differintiate is a big sin according to teh yogini tantram

 

 

 

 

Messenger for SMS- Now send & receive IMs on your mobile via SMS