To MAV Energy and Matter

[Guest guest]

Dear DB:

 

Well, I feel you have not understood my posts, but thanks for

trying. I have not rejected anything positive that Hinduism or any

other religion, whether named by the west or otherwise, has to

offer. Also, I am not typing consciousness as male - you said that

was the Hindu teaching. I simply encourage people to become aware of

the symbols or rituals they choose or gravitate toward, to

recognize, if applicable, when social conditioning plays a part

in "free will," and when that can or does limit human potential.

 

MAV

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> Dear Mary Ann:

>

> You've made some excellent points, but I think you're

extrapolating

> a little too much. "Hinduism" -- as someone or other is always

> pointing out -- is a Western blanket term (supposedly coined in

> Alexander's time to designate the unfamiliar spiritual practices

of

> the civilizations encountered by the Greeks on the far side of the

> Indus River).

>

> In fact, Hinduism is a vast network of related but differing

> religions springing from a couple of common sources; in fact,

while

> four distinct schools within that network have been identified

> (Vaishnava [the most numerically popular, encompassing Krishna and

> Rama worship], Shaiva, Shakta and Smarta), it has been said that

> there are as many forms of Hinduism as there are Hindus.

>

> So, having said that, your blanket reference to the problems

> of "Hindu culture" is really too vague to be of real use in

> accurately criticizing that culture, if criticizing it is what you

> wish to do.

>

> You write: *** now I can't help but think that typing

consciousness

> as Shiva or male is just more of the usual gender hierarchy ***

>

> Then don't type it that way! ;-)

>

> I was simply explaining to you the broadest, most mainstream use

and

> understanding of the terminology in the various Hindu systems. But

> very little in those systems applies universally. One of the texts

I

> use most is Tripura Rahasya, which very clearly posits Devi as

both

> Consciousness and the manifestation of that Consciousness. I

quoted

> another, similar line from the Yoginihridaya Tantra just

yesterday.

> That is pure Shaktism; welcome aboard.

>

> And realize this: The whole Shakti or Shiva thing is, at bottom,

> little more than an elaborate chicken-and-egg debate, i.e. "Okay,

> they're one and the same, but who came first? Who produced the

> other?" Shaivas say Shiva. Shaktas say Shakti. I'm enough of a

geek,

> as you have no doubt noticed, to enjoy jumping into the fray every

> now and then just for the intellectual sport of it, trying to take

> the piss out of some of the righteous purveyors of the same-old

same-

> old.

>

> But it's always a good idea to remember Adi Shankara's great

adage,

> cited in th original Sanskrit by Kochu just yesterday: "Engage in

> upasana and not in hairsplitting debates -- for all this debate

will

> not help you during your last moments."

>

> You note: *** As for the "effective tool of personification" idea,

I

> think it's more an effective tool for continuing to misunderstand,

> misalign, and control people. ***

>

> Okay. And is electricity an effective tool for running your

computer

> or stereo, or is it an effective tool for executing a prisoner? Is

a

> knife an effective tool for slicing bread, or for murdering your

> neighbor? It all depends on who is using it, where their head's

at,

> and what they want to accomplish.

>

> You expressed these same sentiment in regard to the Khadgamala

> imagery, and my answer remains the same: If the imagery doesn't

work

> for you, don't use it. If it does, enjoy the ride. ;-)

>

> *** until those cultures begin to reflect their wondrous spiritual

> claims in the way they conduct basic human relations, I think it's

> time to question the claims rather than defend tradition. ***

>

> But that's a classic "shut-up" argument; like telling a

> scientist, "Until you get rid of your car, don't tell me how to

end

> global warming." Or teling a veterinarian, "Until you go

vegetarian,

> don't tell me how to take care of animals."

>

> Or even more: It's the no-win approach of judging the most

positive

> part of a Whole by the most negative part of a Whole: "George W.

> Bush is wrong, and the war in Iraq is wrong, therefore the United

> States has nothing positive to offer." Or "The 9/11 hijackers were

> wrong, and Osama Bin Laden is wrong, therefore Islam has nothing

to

> offer."

>

> It is just too broad of a brush. In dismissing the merits of Hindu

> spiritual practice, you refer, with tongue-in-cheek, I assume,

> to "their [THOSE people's] wondrous [as-if] spiritual claims

[ha],"

> and note they until "THEY" [i.e. "those cultures," baby and

> bathwater alike] begin to straighten out their act, You want

nothing

> to do with whatever they have to offer.

>

> But who is this insidious "THEY"? All Hindus? All Indians? Or just

> the ones who follow texts and practices you feel are not

> sufficiently feminist? And what is the "Culture" that we are to

> condemn? Religious culture? Which one? All of them? Social

culture?

> Which of the 500 or so distinct linguistic and cultural groups in

> India shall we begin with? Rajastani [patriarchal]? Malayali

> [matriarchal]? You see what I mean.

>

> When you premise the effectiveness of spiritual pursuit on the

> lowest manifestations of the present-day state of the culture that

> supposedly produced it, you are performing the ultimate cop-out.

You

> are taking yourself off the hook, saying "I'm not gonna give any

> credence to that culture's ideas until the whole culture begins

> acting "right." Well, as we all know, complete cultures take

> centuries to change and you're only here for say 100 years at the

> outside. So who loses? Them, or you?

>

> Sorry for the rambling response

>

> DB