To MAV Energy and Matter

[Guest guest]

Hey Mary Ann:

 

Just heard something about the Da Vinci code on NPR this morning;

apparently some travel agents are now offering "Da Vinci Code" tours

of Rome and the Vatican. There actually was a lot of stuff hidden in

the religious art back when the Church had a virtual monopoly on

commissions -- really just prototypical artistic rebellion against

authority, not all the cloak-and-dagger intrigue and conspiracy that

makes a good novel. But as one tourist put it, "I know it's not true,

but it would be cool if it was."

 

*** BTW what about my posts about matter and energy? Shakti means

energy. Shakti can manifest as matter, but doesn't always. ***

 

You quoted earlier a source that said, "Energy is not the same as

matter, although the two are closely related and associated." I think

that statement is kind of meaningless unless you've first defined all

of your terms. The whole basis of relativity is that energy and

matter ARE the same thing the bottom; energy equals mass times the

speed of light squared. Newtonian physics, which still applies fine

in our everyday affairs, separates the two in energy, which acts, and

matter, which is acted upon.

 

In other words, both Einstein's and Newton's theories work fine at

the levels they were designed to address.

 

*** Energy and Matter do not HAVE to be personified as male and

female ***

 

Actually, in the Hindu systems, Energy and Matter are *not* the point

of the Female/Male dichotomy. Shakti, comprising both Energy and

Matter (i.e. the manifest, ever-changing Cosmos) is said to be Devi,

or Female if you please. Consciousness (or Chit, the unmanifest,

unchanging substratum) is generally said to be Shiva or Male.

Consciousness animates Energy; Energy activites Consciousness.

 

You are correct that there is no need to personify these principles.

Most Hindu systems do, however; and there is a reason for it: It is

an effective tool for getting one's mind around some fairly huge

concepts. However, Hindu systems also teach that one may also

meditate upon the Divine without form -- a most elevated and

effective sadhana indeed if you have the mental makeup for it.

 

Having said that, I still do not believe that the Male/Female

assignments are simply arbitrary labels tossed out there in

case "people need it." The designations simply make to much sense at

too many levels. I would add that, in my own personal experience --

which is modest indeed; I claim no particular skill or accomplishment

as a sadhak -- the distinction seems very much rooted in reality. All

may merge at the ultimate level, but at many lesser levels, the

distinction is most useful and entirely accurate. My two cents, for

whatever it may be worth ...

 

Aum MAtangyai NamaH