Guest guest Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Dear Mary Ann: You "appreciate my point of view regarding human history"!? Gack! Crikey, I feel like the extra-boring old professor who all the students try to avoid during Add/Drop week! *lol* As for persuasion, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be kind and don't accuse me of any such mischief! I find proselytizing repulsive! Anyway, you made clear at the outset that you were not interested in being persuaded, and we civilly agreed to disagree then and there. And even if we hadn't, I've been around the block enough times in this life (and as a professional mediator, you surely have as well) to recognize the difference between a genuine debate and a set of concurrent monologues. :-P My reason for continuing to post was simply that -- though there are many perfectly legitimate ways to approach any given topic -- I felt obliged to ensure that, on a Shakta discussion board, the Shakta viewpoint was included among them. Thanks again for an interesting thread! Now I'm off to gulp down some aspirin! *lol* DB , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > I appreciate your point of view regarding human history. If Devi > calls me to the KS in ways other than you have so far seen, no > persuasion from you or anyone else will be necessary. > > Here is a haiku I thought of last night: > > No need for the sword: > Allow, and ego dissolves > Of its own accord. > > Om Parashaktyai Namaha > > > , "Devi Bhakta" > <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Patriarchy may be spread over a large part of the globe. But at least I belong to a matriarchal lineage. Kochu Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: 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 / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.