some comments

[Guest guest]

Dear Parama Karuna Devi:

 

Well, just jump right in there, paramakaruna! Welcome to Shakti

Sadhana, the ! This is a great post. Thank you for your

input on the many topics. I don't think anyone has intended to

offend anyone else in these explorations of each topic you address.

Some people just have a certain "je ne sais quoi" when posting :-P

but it's always welcome that members "speak up" if someone seems to

step over a line in terms of communication etiquette.

 

I think the first appearance of "pillows" was a reference to what we

call "pillow fights" that usually happen between children during

sleepovers with friends. But I'll let jodyr field that one if

necessary.

 

Again, thank you for your considered input. It is much appreciated.

I did not understand the move from Shiva/Shakti to Vishnu as a

patriarchal incursion - I am not a Hindu scholar, and that is why I

appreciate this forum. You might appreciate Riane Eisler's ideas

regarding dominator and partnership mentalities. I feel she does

well not to say that "male" = dominator (destructor) and "female" =

partnership, instead to note that we each carry these tendencies in

ourselves through collective unconscious, and consciousness. I think

these things are explored in her book The Chalice & the Blade, which

used to be on the Shakti Sadhana reading list; that's how I found

it.

 

 

, "Parama Karuna Devi"

<paramakaruna@r...> wrote:

>  

> Dear Friends of Shakti Sadhana,

> Namaskar! Jay Sri Mata!

>

> I am a "new kid in the block" here, so you will forgive me if my

posting is lacking or "out of line" in any respect.

> I have been observing the recent postings and I have some comments

based on my personal experience:

>

> 1. The meaning of non-violence

> The concept of "non-violence" is not equivalent to avoiding force

at all costs.

> It means "not hating" anyone, and it amounts to legitimate self

defence or to legitimate defence of the innocent, harmless and

helpless – without the excessive use of force. It can also be

compared to surgery procedures.

>

> The line between violence and non-violence is a fine one – you can

be very violent by unnecessarily abusing innocent and good people

even if only verbally, or pushing them to extreme despair through

apparently "non-violent" acts. People who claim to be "benefactors"

and "loving caretakers" are often very cruel and destructive even

without showing any sign of physical violence.

>

> You can drive a person to kill himself without showing any

physical violence. You can incite hatred and cause genocides: I do

not think that Hitler ever needed to kill anyone personally. Some

people can cause death and immense sufferings to millions of

innocent, good and harmless people simply by writing words on paper

or by giving discourses or giving orders. Isn't that violence?

>

> One can send biological warfare missiles or nuclear weapons to a

distance of thousands of miles, to kill or hurt innocent

unsuspecting children and people who would never harm anyone – by

using the gentle touch of a clean and manicured hand that was never

physically stained with blood.

>

> The sarcastic observation about pillows was in my opinion, quite

shallow. People do use pillows to kill other people: by suffocation,

for example. It is particularly easy to do that to children or

babies: isn't that violence? Why is chopping away the head of an

adult and violent aggressor on the battlefield "more violent" than

that?

>

> It's a clean death, a honorable death in a equal and fair fight.

> Regarding the motivation of the violence (it's not WHAT you do,

but WHY you do it), if you read the Mahabharata you will find that

Arjuna and the Pandavas tried for many years every possible way to

avoid the war, and finally they were forced to defend themselves on

the battlefield at Kurukshetra.

>

> Even Krishna himself went to Duryodhana to try to convince him to

give up the idea of war and simply leave the Pandavas alone in their

Indraprastha, but it was in vain. Duryodhana and his allies would

not tolerate to let the Pandavas live and execute their duties in

peace.

>

> Vedic scriptures say that one has the right to respond with force

(even extreme force) in case of extreme aggression, and the

Pandavas had been persecuted for many years, even barely escaping

from several assassination attempts by the Kurus. Still, they did

not respond with violence for all those years. They did so only on

the battlefield, when there was no other option.

>

> All the Pandavas wanted to do was having the chance to govern the

people who had chosen to be ruled by them – by moving to

Indraprastha. As you could say, "voting with their feet". Still,

they were not allowed to do so.

>

> Duryodhana had usurped the royal capital of Hastinapura with

adharmic means (i.e. by cheating and politics), yet the Pandavas

were ready to renounce their legitimate royal rights to the capital

of the great kingdom, and went to a wild forest turning it into a

wonderful and prosperous city, where many people were attracted to

live.

>

> Regarding the arm-chopping etc in which Arjuna was engaged on the

battlefield, when you are attacked with equivalent weapons by

aggressors, unfortunately it may be the only thing you can do to

defend yourself and your dear ones.

>

> However, this does not necessarily mean that you must HATE your

aggressors to do that.

>

> In Gita, it is clearly stated that the "force devoid of passion"

is Divine: a real kshatriya, master in the Vedic martial arts, knows

how to use force exactly as required, without being blinded by rage

and passion. Unfortunately, there are not so many real kshatriyas

today and probably it is even difficult for most people to

understand what kshatriya means. Kalau sudra sambhavah.

>

> The alternative of sitting down in protest with banners and badges

in the middle of the battlefield, going on "kshatriya hunger strike"

or collecting signatures for an "awareness campaign" is not very

feasible in these circumstances. Look at what happened in Tibet when

the Chinese invaded it, or what happened with the Khmer Rouges in

Indochina.

>

> Being "nice and non violent" is possible only when you are dealing

with peaceful people and you do not need to fight. When you have to

fight, you have to fight, and you'd better do it well, with the

sufficient amount of force.

>

> Or is it better, more ethical, to cross one's arms in inaction,

and let innocent and good people be slaughtered by those who do not

give a damn about non-violence?

>

> At least Arjuna was fighting against dangerous and mighty

warriors, he was not chopping up children like "nice Christians" did

in Rwanda or in many other places even recently.

>

> And what about the things that Christians have done

to "evangelize" Europe and the Americas, and to "wipe away" witches?

>

> We should have had hundreds of Arjunas rising up and standing in

front of Pizarros, Cortezes, Torquemadas and all their child and

women torturers, and in front of the Muslim marauders who invaded

and razed India for centuries. And seeing the present trend of the

US government and the global situation, we may need some Arjunas in

the near future, too.

>

> The people who were killed by Arjuna may have been people with

loving families, and this is why Arjuna hesitated to fight against

them in the first place. But they had assembled on the battlefield

resolved to fight and kill Arjuna and the others, who had loving

families, too.

>

> It was their free choice to get on the battlefield and clash with

mortal weapons, at the risk of being killed: they were not rounded

up in the night from their beds and blindfolded away to torturing

centers or concentration camps.

>

> 2. The meaning of the worship of Salagram shila

> Puranic stories have several layers of meanings, and we should not

superficially condemn them if we do not understand them. The minimum

we can do is approaching the subject with an open mind, not with a

challenging and insulting spirit: that will not do any good to

anyone.

>

> The origin of the Salagram shila worship, reaching back to pre-

Kali yuga times, is the connection or passage between/from the

worship of Shiva and/to Vishnu.

>

> Shiva has always been worshiped as stone lingam, as the visible

and tangible form manifestation of the formless existence. This

spiritual culture and method of worship was present in all the

ancient "pagan" religions, where stones were worshiped as "formless

forms" of the Divine.

>

> Still the "black stone" in the Kaaba is the center of worship for

Muslims, who shun the worship of forms of the Divine.

> In earlier times still, the stone was the representation of Mother

Earth – and we should know that there is no difference or separation

between Shiva and Shakti – from which the sacred water of life

spring. Thousands of symbolic examples can be found in all

traditional cultures.

>

> Starting from about 5,000 years ago, with the onset of Kali yuga,

the patristic form of religion (centered on Vishnu) gradually became

prominent over the matristic form of religion (centered on

Shakti/Shiva). Those who were worshiping the Shiva linga and/or the

Mother in the form of Earth or Sacred Stones had to shift their

focus to a patristic Sacred Stone form, and Salagram shila was the

answer.

>

> If you read the legend in this perspective, you will understand

its deeper meaning. The "chastity" of the Shaktis of Shiva and

Vishnu is to be interpreted in this way.

>

> The particular composition of each particular shila or lingam is

also important and has effects at subtle levels.

>

> 3. Is war a characteristic of human beings?

> I have found from my research that war is a characteristic of

patristic societies.

>

> Occasional and moderate self defense, in individual and collective

forms, is a natural reaction of all living entities – human and

animals – while organized and persistent warfare based on aggression

(often motivated by greed and domination lust only) is found only in

patristic societies – both human and animals. Conquest of

territories and resources is not really justified by need, but by

greed.

>

> Greed is a characteristic of the "possession and domination and

enjoyment" mania of male dominated societies. Women can be infected

by greed and possession when they are not satisfied at a deep and

personal level, but a balanced and powerful woman will be very

giving and caring – not greedy or exploitative. This is the female

energy.

>

> In the animal world we find a wide range of sexual and social

behaviors.

>

> Some species are male-dominated, others are female-dominated,

others make no difference.

>

> Some animal species frequently have homosexual behavior, in some

species the female eats up the male just after the mating is over,

in some species sex is indiscriminately used as a social means of

communication and relationship.

>

> Some species have the male and female take turns in taking care of

the eggs and the cubs, some species can even change sex according to

the environmental situations.

>

> However, it is a constant characteristic that female-dominated

societies, both among animals and humans, are more pacific and

pleasure-oriented, while male-dominated societies are aggressive and

pain-oriented.

>

> Recent archeological research is showing the evidence of a very

serious/violent patristic revolution starting from around 2,300 BCE

in the region that can be called Saharasia (see De Meo's very good

book), introducing slavery, sexual mutilation (both male and female

circumcision), the production of weapons, wars, fortifications,

building of cities, rape, incest and child abuse. All these social

evils were practically unknown in the previous matristic societies.

I am not saying that matristic societies were perfect – but war

mania was not their problem.

>

> 4. Akshaya Tritiya

> In Jagannatha Puri, Orissa (India), where I live, Akshaya Tritiya

marks the beginning of the Chandan yatra festival, an ancient

tradition connected with the tantric worship of the Mother Goddess

to ensure rains, fertility and opulence. It starts during the dry

and hot summer season and continues for 21 days. A part of the

rituals involved the Devadasis (women worshipers) entering the

sanctum in the darkness of the night to "secretly seduce" the Deity

of Balaram/Shiva as THE ascetic, to bring about the rain – connected

with sexual pleasure. A very famous episode is the story of sage

Rishyasringa. This is the purpose of the maithuna sculptures on the

Vedic temples in India.

>

> 5. Buddhist deities trampling Hindu deities

> As Gita says, no enterprise is free from defects. Each religious

tradition has some flaws due to the infiltration of bad influences

and the limited vision of its new adherents. Particularly the

influence of time almost invariably gets the original message

distorted (sa kaleneha mahata yogo nasta), but for some religious

traditions the original purity of the message may become lost very

quickly, although the tradition itself may still preserve many

valuable teachings. Nothing is totally white or totally black, the

gunas keep intertwining and dancing all the time.

>

> Buddhism started well into the Kali yuga and it was deeply

transformed after Siddhartha's disappearance, dividing into several

groups. Its development in the Himalayan area was heavily influenced

by the Yaksha culture – which is considered asuric by the Vedas. The

Yakshas are traditionally considered as a white-complexioned, blond

or red haired people originated from the Himalayan/Caucasian area,

fond of underground caves and galleries, black magic and shamanic

practices.

>

> Kuvera, Shiva's brother, is considered the

head/progenitor/protector of the Yakshas.

>

> The fact that Vedic culture labels Yakshas as asuric does not mean

that Yakshas and Rakshasas did not have any Vedic knowledge: some of

the greatest and most powerful mystics described in the Vedic lore

were Yakshas and Rakshasas. Shiva is explicitly described as

worshiped by both Devas and Asuras.

>

> At the same time, we cannot say that such great and powerful

Yaksha and Rakshasas mystics were/are ethical persons just on the

strength of their mystic powers or worship practices, and their

behaviors and opinions should be imitated and followed by us and by

the entire population of the planet.

>

> Shiva is also worshiped by Devas – who generally give a much

better example for us to follow.

>

> The concept of paramahamsa contained in Vedic knowledge is

described as "being able to accept only what is good from a mixture

of bad and good". We should become Paramahamsas.

>

> True, good and bad are relative dualities, but each of them must

be applied in the proper way for the best interest of the universe

according to time, place, circumstance and subject. This requires

depth, wisdom, knowledge (both theoretical and practical). It cannot

be done with a narrow minded attitude, otherwise there will be bad

results.

>

> So I believe that we should worry more about Hindus (or ourselves)

disrespecting Hindu deities (or any deity), rather than Buddhist

deities trampling Hindu deities.

>

> I pray that nobody takes offence at my comments, they are made in

a positive spirit for the benefit of all.

>

> Parama Karuna Devi

> www.dharmaseva.net