some comments

[Guest guest]

 

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