To MAV Energy and Matter

[Guest guest]

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