Guest guest Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 OM NAMAH SIVAYA your questions bring up something i have been thinking about for a while and want to ask here. it seems mankind has been steadily evolving toward its true Reality and purpose. and what prevents us as individuals from recognizing who and what we are, and how capable we are of attaining our True Reality, is none other than artificial perceptions or myths about God, the Bringers of Religion and Their teachings, ourselves, and those with whom we share this plane. myths related to these are i think called lore. lore being defined as any idea or concept that prevents us from manifesting our true Selves. Isn't the idea that a deity can't be adapted to our perceptions of Divinity really nothing more than lore? Why should our idea of Divinity need to conform to any idea held by culture or tradition? it seems any tradition's forms of deity are also in Reality incomplete as it is a representation of the Infinite compartmentalized through the constraints of the finite and therefore limiting the unlimited. and to accept that idea without the consideration that our own ideas of a deity is every bit as valid as the traditions of the past is to really change the word from tradition to traitition. with the root of the word being traitor, to our own Self that is. and DB the strip-mining analogy is interesting to use in a spiritual context. it is my understanding that strip-mining is the most effective way to get at the resources that are of value but buried deep beneath the surface. people don't like strip-mining because it may destroy that which is on the surface. in a spiritual context that which is buried below the surface is the Knowledge, Truth, or Eternal and the rest may not be intended to be static. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. JAI MA , " Devi Bhakta " <devi_bhakta wrote: > > Dear Cliff: > > So I am wondering, what does it mean to intellectually change a > deity's iconography so as to facilitate that particulard eity's > expropriation from another tradition? > > For example, in most Hindu traditions, the objects held by a deity > are considered to be received as divine revelation, and not to be > changed without totally skewing or nullifying the intended effect of > the prayoga or other meditation. > > I have heard this referred to as " strip-mining another culture's > spirituality " -- is this what is happening in the case of the > various " Western Kali " figures, and this Ganapati figure you describe? > > The culture that produced Lord Ganapati as an image of God would be > utterly confused by the image you describe -- as a traditional > Christian might be confused by a figure of Jesus holding nose and > goad and displaying varada and abhaya mudras; in other words, short- > circuited as a familiar, worshipable representation of the Divine for > the people who grew up in the tradition from which that > representation emerged. > > Or is this just a matter of -- no disrespect intended -- making > decorations for your altar? > > Thank you for any clarification you can provide. > > DB > > > > , " Cliff " <numinae@> wrote: > > > > Namaste Len, > > As a practitioner of both Eastern and Western streams of spirit and > the profound correlations therein I'd like to share these thoughts. > > > > Though it is true that there is no suit of the Atus of Tahuti > relative to Akasha, a number of Western traditions such as Golden > Dawn and Thelema use the lamp as a symbol of spirit. Sri Paramahansa > Shivaji (Therion) appoints it as the instrument to the pinnacle of > the Pentacle in his Book of Thoth. Some cross-practitioners > (including myself) use it as the elemental tool of Spirit. > > > > I use this same lamp in my Eastern Puja during Aarati where the > Lamp is circumambulated around or waved before the Murti, acquiring > it's essence. One then cups their hands over the flame and transfers > the blessing of the diety to the forehead. You may also recognize > this from some native American traditions which have made their way > into neo paganism by " smudging " with sacred herbs; usually sage or > sweet grass. No hard and fast rules here-just ideas which I have > found work for me. > > Interestingly, the name aarati is constructed of the roots " aa " > toward and " Rati " meaning the love of God. > > > > Regarding a Ganesha image, I have a line drawing of him with a > number of western elements including the Thoth deck two of cups lotus > in his upper left hand, a Trishati with a " shin " in his upper right > hand and Tree of Life earrings. Let me know if you might be > interested in a copy and I will try to scan it. > > > > Cliff / Nadananda > > > > > > - > > Len Rosenberg > > > > Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:26 PM > > Complete Goddess > > > > > > In Re: the lovely painting of Sarvambikeshvari that illustrates > the Intro page of Shakti Sadhana's website -- much of the iconography > of this goddess corresponds to the qualities of the Mahavidya > Bhuvanishvari, the Lady of the Spheres. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Thank you for an interesting and thoughtful post. But you know, someone else could see things differently. While you might believe that the most effective guide is your own intuition, someone else might believe that the guidance and grace of a guru or other spiritual master is the most effective for him. And while you may see traditional deity forms and established techniques as artificial and constraining; another might see them as tried-and- true. So where you see an evolution of mankind, someone else might see the evolution of your individual belief set. This isn't to say you are wrong; it may well be that there isn't an established tradition that suits you. It's just that there are other ways at looking at tradition. ecjensen_us wrote: Your [DB's] questions bring up something i have been thinking about for a while and want to ask here. it seems mankind has been steadily evolving toward its true Reality and purpose. and what prevents us as individuals from recognizing who and what we are, and how capable we are of attaining our True Reality, is none other than artificial perceptions or myths about God, the Bringers of Religion and Their teachings, ourselves, and those with whom we share this plane. myths related to these are i think called lore. lore being defined as any idea or concept that prevents us from manifesting our true Selves. Isn't the idea that a deity can't be adapted to our perceptions of Divinity really nothing more than lore? Why should our idea of Divinity need to conform to any idea held by culture or tradition? it seems any tradition's forms of deity are also in Reality incomplete as it is a representation of the Infinite compartmentalized through the constraints of the finite and therefore limiting the unlimited. and to accept that idea without the consideration that our own ideas of a deity is every bit as valid as the traditions of the past is to really change the word from tradition to traitition. with the root of the word being traitor, to our own Self that is. and DB the strip-mining analogy is interesting to use in a spiritual context. it is my understanding that strip-mining is the most effective way to get at the resources that are of value but buried deep beneath the surface. people don't like strip-mining because it may destroy that which is on the surface. in a spiritual context that which is buried below the surface is the Knowledge, Truth, or Eternal and the rest may not be intended to be static. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. JAI MA , " ecjensen_us " <ecjensen_us wrote: > > OM NAMAH SIVAYA > > your questions bring up something i have been thinking about for a > while and want to ask here. it seems mankind has been steadily > evolving toward its true Reality and purpose. and what prevents us as > individuals from recognizing who and what we are, and how capable we > are of attaining our True Reality, is none other than artificial > perceptions or myths about God, the Bringers of Religion and Their > teachings, ourselves, and those with whom we share this plane. myths > related to these are i think called lore. lore being defined as any > idea or concept that prevents us from manifesting our true Selves. > Isn't the idea that a deity can't be adapted to our perceptions of > Divinity really nothing more than lore? Why should our idea of > Divinity need to conform to any idea held by culture or tradition? it > seems any tradition's forms of deity are also in Reality incomplete as > it is a representation of the Infinite compartmentalized through the > constraints of the finite and therefore limiting the unlimited. and > to accept that idea without the consideration that our own ideas of a > deity is every bit as valid as the traditions of the past is to really > change the word from tradition to traitition. with the root of the > word being traitor, to our own Self that is. and DB the strip- mining > analogy is interesting to use in a spiritual context. it is my > understanding that strip-mining is the most effective way to get at > the resources that are of value but buried deep beneath the surface. > people don't like strip-mining because it may destroy that which is on > the surface. in a spiritual context that which is buried below the > surface is the Knowledge, Truth, or Eternal and the rest may not be > intended to be static. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. > > JAI MA > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 Hi Eric: You wrote: *** what prevents us as individuals from recognizing who and what we are, and how capable we are of attaining our True Reality, is none other than artificial perceptions or myths about God [...] *** That's a pretty broad assertion. My feeling is that it all depends on how one uses those perceptions and myths. A more open-minded spiritual seeker might find in these myths a life-changing lesson or metaphor. A so-called " strict constructionist " (a common trait of many or most fundamentalists of any religion) will insist on a " literal " interpretation, usually interpreted to condemn a person, action or situation he or she does not care for. Everyone is different. For some, " artificial myths about God, " as you call them, hold the secret of liberation. For others, as you correctly state, those same myths can indeed become snares. *** Why should our idea of Divinity need to conform to any idea held by culture or tradition? *** Simply because it works. For a lot of people, anyway. Those who are turned off by the strictures of " culture or tradition " can certainly try to forge their own path -- but that's them. As I tried to suggest above, the answer varies with the individual under discussion. *** any tradition's forms of deity are also in Reality incomplete as it is a representation of the Infinite compartmentalized through the constraints of the finite and therefore limiting the unlimited. *** Well, obviously. I could not agree more. But we are finite beings, at least until we manage to break that cycle -- and the means by which we break through are accordingly and necessarily, at the outset anyway, finite as well. My Guru taught that thus, " Seven crore mantras are said to have emanated from the five faces of Shiva. [...] But fortunately it is not necessary to practice all of them. Why complicate your life? Simplify it! How much can you achieve in a 100-year lifetime anyway? A hundred years isn't even a given yet; at best, you can probably start off at age 15 and keep going until you’re 60 or 70. So you have maybe 50 years to work with. And in those 50 years, how many mantras can you get the siddhis of? Every one of them works, so pick one path and stick to it. What's the point in reaching the same destination from all different directions? Each path offers its own unique experiences along the way, yes; but the goal remains the same. " So the Shakta Hindu approach to these matters, I would say, is " why waste time reinventing the wheel? " The sages have blazed all of these proven, perfectly serviceable -- and frequently sublime -- paths to God, and they have recorded their journeys in the Tantras and Agamas. And like a scientist who wishes to test another's scientific conclusion, there is no need to argue and debate about things. Simply put them to the test and see if the sage's stated results with a given sadhana are reproducible. If you follow the sadhana, and you feel you mad no errors, and yet you do not receive the promised result, you are free to say " Hey, this is bullshit " and publish your own results if you feel like it. But the fact is, countless generations of sadhakas *have* reproduced the promised results. Perhaps that is where the distinction lies. Shakta Hinduism does not require you to blindly BELIEVE any set dogma; it simply asks you to TRY. The goal is not a philosophical debate but a concrete result. If you want to create a " new " representation of God, great, go ahead -- the question is not one of your right to forge an independent path; of course you have that right. Have a ball. The question the Shakta is interested in, however, is, " How did it work? " As Amritaji said in the quote above, life is short -- do you want to spend it trying to build a better wheel? You can if you like, but perhaps the vast majority of common seekers (and I am nothing if not common) are better off simply choosing a model that's road-tested and proven. :-) *** to accept that idea without the consideration that our own ideas of a deity is every bit as valid as the traditions of the past is to really change the word from tradition to traitition. with the root of the word being traitor, to our own Self that is. *** I suppose that is where the Guru comes in. The Hindu systems offer a bottomless toolbox full of texts, tools and techniques. The Guru can pick and choose from these in endless combinations to suit the shishya -- or s/he can invent something entirely new. The idea, however, is that the Guru -- like an experienced mountain guide -- is carefully negotiating the perfect path for the job, considering the unique strengths and weaknesses of the shishya. The shishya, of course, is welcome to go to the store and buy a map of the mountain and plot his or her own path without any guidance. And maybe that path will work. Or maybe it will lead just nowhere, while subjecting the shishya to unnecessary danger. There is just no way of knowing til you've tried. *** and DB the strip-mining analogy is interesting to use in a spiritual context. it is my understanding that strip-mining is the most effective way to get at the resources that are of value but buried deep beneath the surface. *** It is a quote from " Starhawk, " a writer on Wicca systems, which was suggested to me by an eclectic spiritual explorer on the SS board. Her use of the term was less subtle than yours. Her meaning was the wholesale tearing of a religious symbol from out of its cultural and religious context, and reuse without regard for the meaning and significance it held for the original users of the symbol. *** Thanks for any clarification you can provide. *** Dunno if I clarified anything at all, but that's my two cents. DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 thanks for taking the time to write your 2 cents. it's all cool with me. i just feel all have the right to relate to the Infinite however we see It. and then just Love the hell out of It. Love and let Love! , " Devi Bhakta " <devi_bhakta wrote: > > Hi Eric: > > You wrote: > > *** what prevents us as individuals from recognizing who and what we > are, and how capable we are of attaining our True Reality, is none > other than artificial perceptions or myths about God [...] *** > > That's a pretty broad assertion. My feeling is that it all depends on > how one uses those perceptions and myths. A more open-minded > spiritual seeker might find in these myths a life-changing lesson or > metaphor. A so-called " strict constructionist " (a common trait of > many or most fundamentalists of any religion) will insist on > a " literal " interpretation, usually interpreted to condemn a person, > action or situation he or she does not care for. > > Everyone is different. For some, " artificial myths about God, " as you > call them, hold the secret of liberation. For others, as you > correctly state, those same myths can indeed become snares. > > *** Why should our idea of Divinity need to conform to any idea held > by culture or tradition? *** > > Simply because it works. For a lot of people, anyway. Those who are > turned off by the strictures of " culture or tradition " can certainly > try to forge their own path -- but that's them. As I tried to suggest > above, the answer varies with the individual under discussion. > > *** any tradition's forms of deity are also in Reality incomplete as > it is a representation of the Infinite compartmentalized through the > constraints of the finite and therefore limiting the unlimited. *** > > Well, obviously. I could not agree more. But we are finite beings, at > least until we manage to break that cycle -- and the means by which > we break through are accordingly and necessarily, at the outset > anyway, finite as well. > > My Guru taught that thus, " Seven crore mantras are said to have > emanated from the five faces of Shiva. [...] But fortunately it is > not necessary to practice all of them. Why complicate your life? > Simplify it! How much can you achieve in a 100-year lifetime anyway? > A hundred years isn't even a given yet; at best, you can probably > start off at age 15 and keep going until you’re 60 or 70. So you have > maybe 50 years to work with. And in those 50 years, how many mantras > can you get the siddhis of? Every one of them works, so pick one path > and stick to it. What's the point in reaching the same destination > from all different directions? Each path offers its own unique > experiences along the way, yes; but the goal remains the same. " > > So the Shakta Hindu approach to these matters, I would say, is " why > waste time reinventing the wheel? " The sages have blazed all of these > proven, perfectly serviceable -- and frequently sublime -- paths to > God, and they have recorded their journeys in the Tantras and Agamas. > And like a scientist who wishes to test another's scientific > conclusion, there is no need to argue and debate about things. Simply > put them to the test and see if the sage's stated results with a > given sadhana are reproducible. If you follow the sadhana, and you > feel you mad no errors, and yet you do not receive the promised > result, you are free to say " Hey, this is bullshit " and publish your > own results if you feel like it. But the fact is, countless > generations of sadhakas *have* reproduced the promised results. > > Perhaps that is where the distinction lies. Shakta Hinduism does not > require you to blindly BELIEVE any set dogma; it simply asks you to > TRY. The goal is not a philosophical debate but a concrete result. If > you want to create a " new " representation of God, great, go ahead -- > the question is not one of your right to forge an independent path; > of course you have that right. Have a ball. > > The question the Shakta is interested in, however, is, " How did it > work? " As Amritaji said in the quote above, life is short -- do you > want to spend it trying to build a better wheel? You can if you like, > but perhaps the vast majority of common seekers (and I am nothing if > not common) are better off simply choosing a model that's road-tested > and proven. :-) > > *** to accept that idea without the consideration that our own ideas > of a deity is every bit as valid as the traditions of the past is to > really change the word from tradition to traitition. with the root > of the word being traitor, to our own Self that is. *** > > I suppose that is where the Guru comes in. The Hindu systems offer a > bottomless toolbox full of texts, tools and techniques. The Guru can > pick and choose from these in endless combinations to suit the > shishya -- or s/he can invent something entirely new. The idea, > however, is that the Guru -- like an experienced mountain guide -- is > carefully negotiating the perfect path for the job, considering the > unique strengths and weaknesses of the shishya. > > The shishya, of course, is welcome to go to the store and buy a map > of the mountain and plot his or her own path without any guidance. > And maybe that path will work. Or maybe it will lead just nowhere, > while subjecting the shishya to unnecessary danger. There is just no > way of knowing til you've tried. > > *** and DB the strip-mining analogy is interesting to use in a > spiritual context. it is my understanding that strip-mining is the > most effective way to get at the resources that are of value but > buried deep beneath the surface. *** > > It is a quote from " Starhawk, " a writer on Wicca systems, which was > suggested to me by an eclectic spiritual explorer on the SS board. > Her use of the term was less subtle than yours. Her meaning was the > wholesale tearing of a religious symbol from out of its cultural and > religious context, and reuse without regard for the meaning and > significance it held for the original users of the symbol. > > *** Thanks for any clarification you can provide. *** > > Dunno if I clarified anything at all, but that's my two cents. > > DB > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.