Surfaces [was Patriarchal Power Imagery?]

[Guest guest]

But patriarchy itself is also a surface.

 

The modern human species has walked the earth for around 100,000

years. Geneticists and psychologists agree that every modern human

carries the psychological evolution of the species (and all that

preceded it) in their very DNA. "Patriarchy," as you have defined it

in previous posts, dates back 2,000 or 3,000 years. So, to grossly

oversimplify, at most 2 or 3 percent of our psychological

inheritance is patriarchal in nature. It has affected our social

institutions to be certain. But I doubt it has affected our

psychology as much as you give it credit for.

 

An example: For probably 10,000 years of human history, the serpent

was not a negative symbol -- for untold millennia it was a positive,

life-affirming symbol of the ancient Goddess cults. Then the Old

Testament -- in its (patriarchal) zeal to wipe out these cults in

Canaan -- essentially flipped the old symbolism on its head. Ancient

symbols were given new interpretations -- now the serpent was a

symbol of evil. But humankind's genetic memory (i.e.,

Jung's "Collective Unconscious") is strong: Intellectual

redefinitions of a symbol as old as humanity cannot that easily

change our instinctive reactions to it.

 

As Joseph Campbell observed: "There is an ambivalence inherent in

many of the basic symbols of the Bible that no amount of rhetorical

stress on the patriarchal interpretation can suppress. They address

a pictorial message to the heart that exactly reverses the verbal

message addressed to the brain -- and this nervous discord inhabits

both Christianity and Islam as well as Judaism, since they too share

the legacy of the Old Testament."

 

Shaktism, by contrast, does not share that legacy. The serpent -- to

keep to a single example -- remains identified with Goddess (Devi),

and never became associated with evil in any form. That is true

across the spectrum of Hindu religious systems, I believe.

 

Has Indian society been tainted by patriarchy? Sure -- and in some

ways, India remains behind the modern West in shedding that legacy.

But its symbolic depth is extremely shallow -- thus the survival of

Shaktism; thus the survival of Devi in even the most "patriarchal"

schools of Hinduism; thus the survival of martriarchal systems in

the South and East of modern India.

 

My point remains the same: You must trust these systems rather than

prejudging them. Once you are inside, the symbolism -- to the extent

that it remains such -- will be revealed, and the experience will be

unmistakeable. You will have broken the surface.

 

There is no need to take my word for it; in fact I would encourage

you not to take my word for it. Take your own word. Try it.

 

*** I am seeking other ways and means of power with and within,

that's all. ***

 

It may be closer than you ever imagined.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe