Guest guest Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 With all due respect to all members and all of their respective opinions, I can only note that -- when we focus on all of this talk of symbolism, and what imagery might mean what to whom -- we are condemning ourselves to remain on the surface of the KS (or whatever document), at the expense of exploring the interior ... where all dualities fall away. The truths and meanings we are seeking will NEVER be arrived at through the mind, or through logic or reason or historical analysis. At best, it makes for a lively argument and diverting social commentary -- it might even make a good academic article. But by confining ourselves to such literalism, we are also limiting our ability to make our arguments and social commentary count for anything. Because we are cutting ourselves off from the eternal flow that turns ideas and vision into objective reality. What happens when you get stuck on symbolism is that you are literally judging a book by its cover. It reminds me of the neo-con American radio ranter, Rush Limbaugh, who today is merrily savaging former U.S. President Clinton's not-yet-published memoir. Limbaugh, however, feels totally self-confident about attacking a book he hasn't read, because he already "knows" that it's all trash and lies. How does he know that? 'Cause it's Clinton! That's all he needs to know! The surface is enough! When we judge by surfaces, we close our minds. Saying that this symbol stands for this idea, and that symbol stands for that idea grieveously oversimplifies and underestimates the very real power of symbolism and the unfathomable complexity of the process by which the human mind understands and interprets it. Is the KS a tainted human artifact of patriarchal domination? Is it a mystical doorway to Devi's feet? Could it somehow be both? Or is it something more beautifully, divinely contradictory than any of these categories? It is certainly not my place to say -- each person must discover that for her- or himself. But I will tell you one thing: You will never discover anything of enduring significance or meaning on the surface. That much I absolutely promise. Aum Maatangyai Namahe , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > Me Me Me is a play on the egoism of the entertainment industry, > as well as solfege Mi Mi Mi, the musical (major) scale. It is also a > trinity of Mes, each equal to the other. Imagine a comma, and etc. > after the Mes, and the name symbolizes the entire world. > > Swords are swords. We have tools to cut, but swords are > weapons. Yes, you can use a sword for protection, but it means > might, the power to inflict death by physical force. It causes fear. > Your comments about Kali remind me of the book Is the > Goddess a Feminist? It's a book full of essays exploring the > imagery of the East's many Goddesses and how they fit with > feminist principles, which they don't, because they come from > patriarchal traditions. Buddhism is not free of patriarchal power > imagery, either. Such power symbols and their meanings are in > all of us, and will continue to be there until we no longer feel they > serve us, or our purposes. > > Sacrificing any animals causes the animals to suffer, regardless > of their gender. > > As for coitus, if you keep visualizing spiritual unity as penis in > vagina or penis in other orifice, how do you bring about this unity > within yourself, as one being? I think such imagery plays more > into notions of relations between the sexes, even when the > image is used for spiritual purposes. Just look at the popular > notions of relations between the sexes (even in > non-heterosexual relations there is role-playing) - it's power > dynamics, more than compassionate love between whole, > authentic beings. And I see the Tantric rules you are referring to > as just more of the same - notions regarding power and relating, > rules to follow, which is a hierachical and patriarchal approach, > more than about authentic deep inner being realization that > occurs when each individual pays attention within. That's just my > opinion. > > > > , kalipadma@j... > wrote: > > > > The "khadga" is not just a sword, it is a curved blade used for > beheading > > a sacrifice. (I have a lapel pin shaped like a khadga, which I > sometimes > > wear on my jacket, to remind me to "cut the ego.") Any Indian, > any > > person familiar with Hindu iconography, would look at a > khadga and think: > > Mother Kali. It is the tool invariably associated with the Dark > Mother, > > who sacrifices the Ego. > > > > It should be noted that in mundane useage, the khadga is only > used by > > temple sacrificers to behead MALE animals. Female > creatures are not > > supposed to be offered to any deity. > > > > In Buddhism (since you appear to be more familiar with > Buddhist than with > > Hindu iconography), the deity usually associated with a sword > (it is not > > a head-chopping sword) is Manjushri, the Bodhisattva of > Wisdom. He holds > > the flaming sword in his right hand, and a lotus in his left hand; > on the > > lotus is a palm-leaf book, symbol of the written texts of > Buddhism. > > > > My Wiccan teacher was offended by Manjushri. She said, > "Ugh! Doesn't he > > symbolize conversion by the sword? Follow my Buddhist > precepts (the > > book), or be killed (the sword)." But she was again > superimposing > > Western notions onto Oriental imagery. Although Buddhists do > > proselytize, they have never (to my knowledge) forced anyone > to become > > Buddhist by the sword. It violates the notion of <ahimsa> > > (non-violence). > > > > Manjurshi's sword symbolizes the analytical mind, which cuts > through > > confusion and convoluted notions to attain clear and > uncomplicated truth. > > And Wisdom, in Buddhism, is considered a feminine trait, > typified by > > Manjushri's consort, Sarasvati. > > > > My point is that the Khadga is in no way patriarchal -- it is an > integral > > symbol of the Mother in Hinduism, and of a feminine trait in > Buddhism. > > > > When "coitus" is mentioned in Hindu iconography (I assume > this is the > > translation of <maithuna>, which more accurately may be > translated as > > "coupling"), the images of heterosexual deities so engaged > invariably > > show the woman "on top" -- she is determining the speed, > depth, and > > direction of engulfment/ penetration. Tantric "coitus" has as its > object > > the pleasure and orgasm of the female. The Tantric male > participant is > > supposed to delay orgasm, and to sublimate (if not totally > eliminate) > > ejaculation. This does not sound like patriarchal abuse of > women to me. > > > > Also, in many Tantric traditions, the "coitus" is purely > > representational, like the bringing together of a phallic-shaped > flower > > with a vulva-shaped flower, or the entrance of a wand or blade > into the > > opening of a cup of wine. > > > > It is perhaps understandable, Mary Ann, that someone whose > E-mail > > provider is named "Me-me-me Productions" might have > difficulty grasping > > the concept of "cutting the Ego." > > > > -- Len/ Kalipadma > > > > > > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 04:21:24 -0000 "Mary Ann" > > <maryann@m...> writes: > > > Jose, > > > > > > That phrase came from Kochu (sankara menon) in an earlier > > > post to me. I think he felt that my considering the sword, the > > > mention of coitus, and the phrase "lord of the Cosmos" in the > > > Khadgamala Stotram as typical patriarchal power imagery > > > (meaning male-dominant) was superimposing Western > ideas > > > onto Eastern ones. So, I was acknowledging that, being from > the > > > West, I cannot know what it would feel like if I was from the > East > > > and felt that my sacred imagery was being misconstrued. > From > > > some feedback I got to my comments, I know they were > found > > > offensive by some. > > > > > > I was (and am) trying to be respectful of others' views, while > at > > > the same time, acknowledging that my understanding of > those > > > symbols - that weapon, the use of that act, and that phrase - > > > remains the same. > > > > > > Mary Ann > > > > > > > > > ______________ > > 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! 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.