Shiva and Shakti = Father and Holy Spirit ... NO NO NO! *lol*

[Guest guest]

It is misleading to posit any "direct parallel" between the

Christian Holy Trinity and Hinduism's Shiva and Shakti, simply

because -- as Swastik108 pointed out -- the vast majority of

humanity does not think effectively at that level of abstraction.

 

The problem with casual discussion of these sorts of theological

nuances is that one needs a certain level of background context

before it makes sense in any accurate way. The use of a sign

like "=" is a warning flag. To say Christian Father = Brahman, or

Shekhinah = Shakti is both theologically unsound, sociologically

misleading, and fundamentally useless in any practical sense.

 

Understand that the Supreme Divine simply *is*. Different times,

places and cultures around the world and across the millenia have

devised their own systems for understanding, accessing and

experiencing that One reality. There are massive differences of

detail as well as the inevitable (and quite beautiful) similarities

at the higher levels of theological speculation.

 

My feeling is that unqualified comparisons of THIS = THAT and so on

are not useful in understanding these concepts except at the highest

levels of abstraction. The vast run of humanity prefers to focus on

their differences (color, creed, wealth, gender, national and group

affiliations, etc) rather than their big-picture similarities (DNA,

mortality, unified field theories, etc).

 

That US/THEM thinking applies to religious matters too. Once you

say, Yahweh is like Shiva, Shekinah is like Shakti, Jesus is like

Skanda -- or whatever -- you are engaged in the spiritual equivalent

of a parlour game. Which is fine, I guess, if you are writing a

quickie paper for some class; or trying to impress friends over

coffee at Starbucks. But if you are interested in Shaktism as a

practical and effective religious system and not merely as an exotic

diversion, it is a dead end.

 

As a final note, please know that I *do* understand and acknowledge

that such parallels exist. For just a single excellent example, I'd

refer you to "The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image," by

Anne Baring and Jules Cashford. While their subject is not Shaktism

per se, they do compellingly trace the strands of prehistoric

Goddess cults, through the theology of early Middle Eastern and

Mediterranian civilizations and European paganism, deftly

identifying all of the "pieces" from which modern Christian theology

and mythology was eventually pieced together. It is indeed a

fascinating journey -- but it takes them 800 pages to present their

argument, even though it is just a tightly written survey. But quite

frankly, that's the kind of context you need before any of this

discussion begins to be useful.

 

My 2 cents

 

DB

 

 

, swastik108@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 12/9/2004 5:36:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> bhagatirtha@m... writes:

> 93

>

> , swastik108@a... wrote:

> When you are looking at Shiva and Shakti as

> > a divine pairing where Shiva is unmanifest and Shakti manifest,

I

> would argue that for the most part Christianity offers no direct

> parallel.

>

> There is a direct parallel. Father is unmanifest and

transcendental,

> Absolute Godhead, YHVH. And Holy Spirit is His manifested power,

> grace and glory, Shekhinah (God's presence).

>

> Father is Shiva, Holy Spirit is Shakti and Son is Nara.

>

> A.

> I can see how you are getting this, but I still believe that to

declare it as

> an absolute is a falsehood because this type of thinking is beyond

most

> people calling themselves Christians.

>

> I have repeatedly asked Christians what the holy spirit is and

gotten only

> confused answers.

>

> The creator god in the bible often appears in forms and through

miracles

> which causes me to doubt his transcendence.

>

> If you want to elevate "his" status then fine have at it! In the

old

> testament he instructs the Israelites people to destroy the divine

images built by

> other peoples along with their temples. He obviously was trying to

wipe out the

> competition!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

If the vast majority of humanity is incapable of abstraction, then I

would suggest that the vast majority of humanity are far from any

true knowledge of God (or Goddess) by what ever name He/She might be

known.

Background context should not be necessary for true Hindus (Shaiva,

Shakta, or whatever) or true Christians, since in each case, whether

it is Trinity or Trimurti or Tripura or Trishula, it is the

abstraction of all Truth, all Reality, the Universe, the One unnamed

and unnamable God, revealed as His/Her/Its 3 fundamental principles

or qualities, that is being discussed.

How can a comparison of the 3 primary Gunas (Qualities or

Distinctions) under their various pseudonyms be considered misleading

to anyone who grasps the basis of his/her Faith's understanding of

the nature of Reality.

My comments and discussion are quite serious, and certainly not

intended to be taken casually. And I hope that members here are

capable of serious discussion of serious topics that have direct

bearing on Shaktism, Hinduism, and general human understanding of the

implicit identity of their apparently divergent Philosophies.

It should be patently obvious that not every characteristic appended

to these Divine Conceptions in the various Theologies is absolutely

identical, and that is the nature of different Religions who are all

talking about exactly the same thing, but only from their own

cultural perspective and in their own tongue. And it should not be

denied that, despite the (comparatively superficial) differences in

elaboration, the basic theme of Triunity is more or less equivalent

in every case.

It is ignorance of such fundamental similarities shared by the great

Religions that has caused much pointless argument and conflict

between otherwise "spiritual" individuals and groups.

How can common understanding be "fundamentally useless in any

practical sense".

 

1, 2, 3; I, II, III; a, b, c; A, B, C

 

1 = I = a = A

2 = II = b = B

3 = III = c = C

 

Despite the different terms and their different cultural applications

and origins, I see no problem with such equations in an esoteric

forum such as this.

If the vast run of humanity prefers to focus on differences such as

color, creed, wealth, gender, sect, etc., it is only a sign of how

far humanity has strayed from any semblance of Dharma.

This is not a parlour game!

Nor is it a bit of casual speculation.

This has nothing to do with trying to impress.

If you are interested in Shaktism, then true Knowledge of Tripura is

your implied goal.

If you are only interested in exotic diversion, then it is best to

keep similarities hidden and dwell on differences and divergence!

Abstraction is required for both Jnana and Yoga, and it is only these

Paths that can bring Liberation in Life.

Those who are yet unable to see the wood for the trees are condemned

to the Pravrtti-Marga, and perhaps in their next life they will

attain true understanding and thus release from the endless round of

mortal incarnation.