_I_ know that - what I'm saying is that it sometimes leaves that impression; if I didn't know you well and have had discussions with you to the extent I have, I would probably take away the incorrect interpretation of what you're saying. I do agree with you on almost everything of importance. it's just that your delivery can easily be misconstrued, IMHO.

thanks!

hehe! I was just agreeing with you about the subjective nature of the concepts of good and evil. I think you put it quite well. in a larger sense, we embody all of the things we may despise, because in the end, it's all one Reality; but even within our limited senses of self, all of those things exist. I think a much more balanced person comes out of someone who accepts that yes, within themselves there is the potential for the most horrific acts, as well as the most beneficent. when people repress that shit I think it often can turn out that they become what they fear... as Nietzsche put it, "when fighting monsters, take care that you don’t become one yourself."

:)

a good example recently is GW Bush. I've come to terms with my inner Dubya, hehe. it is much easier to label him as evil and wrong and liberals as good and righteous than to see that that SAME feeling among liberals (we're good, he's bad) taken to an extreme is what makes the man so dangerous to the world! the regime is so sure of what they think is right and wrong that they are willing to sacrifice all kinds of people's lives for it. but of course the gut reaction for an average leftist is to define that as what makes him so "evil", while missing the point that in doing so one is setting themselves up for the exact same mindset... "we know what's best for you, who's wrong, and what to do"... I see so much hatred in people that claim to promote peace that it becomes abundantly clear to me that true peace is not just a lack of war; it is making peace within even with those you find repulsive, and coming to peace with the things you and those people share, whether you are comfortable with it or not. of course this does not preclude action. there will most likely always be struggle in the world, but one has to look beyond it. good and evil are just black and white on the chessboard of life, and we don't always get to play the same color. but there is a whole universe outside of that chessboard. step away from the table once in a while and shake your opponent's hand. read a book. meditate. there is more to life than a war over arbitrary notions of right and wrong.

Om Shanti

> there's the one that Jody talks about in terms of everything being a part of Her, and then there's the view of Kali being a fairly specific, anthropomorphised deity with correspondences, stories, a particular style of worship, and so on.
*****
They are actually already completely compatible. Bhakti works because we construct an image of deity and then fall in love with it. After that, the fireworks begin.

You employ the mythology and iconography however you wish. You can go full tradit like Kali Mandir, or make it all up however you see it.

The thing that gets me is the idea that Kali is one of many deities, usually which you call for different things. Not that such wouldn't be completely effective for the practitioner, only that it has nothing to do with shaktism. Shankara saw that no matter how much he remained absorbed in samadhi, the world continued to exist, despite the truth he saw. So, he realized that ultimately, it's all Ma. Shankara's shaktism is essentially a nondual shaktism. So is Ramakrishna's, although due to the intensity of his spiritual life he spoke of having frequent visions of Kali in the form of various women he encountered, especially his somewhat long-suffering wife, Sarada Devi, as well as having your standard See God Standing Right In Front Of You-type vision.

He may have been a little "off", as they say...

>>I thought of that afterwards...but then I realised that it doesn't say anywhere that I necessarily have to fight others...it's more about defining what I as a single individual consider important.

well, I wasn't singling you out with this comment, it was a general observation. but do note that I said it was setting oneself up for trouble, and not necessarily trouble in and of itself. it is, however, quite likely to lead to a false perception of duality vis a vis "good" and "evil".

>>to me that says primarily that they have a very different conception of who/what Satan is than I do...and that's cool.

IMHO, they're right. if God (in whatever form you wish to perceive It) is all pervasive and all inclusive, as Monist doctrines assert, how can anything truly be opposed to It? it's like your hand being at war with your being - although I guess possible (I'm imagining punching oneself in the face), banging yourself into a brick wall can only last so long. if seen as a creative germ of rebellion, it can be seen as the Spanda or vibration without which existence would be inert. again IMHO, seeing the universe in terms of eternally opposing forces is a grave error, made by those who would see themselves on EITHER side of the fence. I consider myself to be walking the Vamamarga - but I see nothing wrong with right handed practices. in many ways I am a Bhakta.

>>For me, what I'd individually define as "darkness," is primarily about two things.[...]

I'd take your definitions as not connoting anything "evil", but merely ignorance. it is a funny thought to think that if people were aware of such a stance that they would align themselves with perpetual ignorance! (although, in actions it can certainly seem like some people truly have taken this ludicrous position!)

>>I don't either, at all...apart from anything else, one reason why is because the scenario where I believe Kali showed herself to me a bit more obviously than before, was actually precipitated by me taking part in somewhat violent activities in a sense...but where there was also a protective element as well.

I believe that a) an individual in this world has the right to defend oneself and, b) Ahimsa only has value if it is taken to it's (IMO il)logical conclusion, such as the Jainas who will not even kill insects (I am still wondering how, after learning about microbes, etc. they manage to believe they are not causing death to any other living being). not to insult the Jain faith; I respect that they have taken their attitude as far as they have. I see anything less as mere lip service to the idea. one may counter that without prohibitions we would all run amok, but I seem to be doing okay without worrying about whether something is "wrong" to avoid attacking people randomly or screwing people over. I would attribute this to a certain (certainly not complete by any stretch of the imagination!) lack of ignorance.

>>There seem to be several different views of Kali...there's the one that Jody talks about in terms of everything being a part of Her, and then there's the view of Kali being a fairly specific, anthropomorphised deity with correspondences, stories, a particular style of worship, and so on.

the two are actually not mutually exclusive. an adherent to the former view can certainly have experiences which s/he interprets as real, but only subjectively. being that all awareness is mediated through perception to a greater or lesser degree, this makes perfect sense.

>>I will admit that on a daily basis, I probably tend to lean towards the latter interpretation myself...but I definitely believe that the former exists...and I'm actually inclined to believe that the former employs/makes use of the latter in order to give most of us something that we can relate to on our own level, if that makes sense.

it does, and I agree. I believe both, and not due to much mental juggling at all. I have a deeply held conviction that all awareness is a singular awareness, and so the difference between "objective" and "subjective" Reality is not as great as many believe. the idea of subjectivity suggests the seperation of one mind from another; and in my eyes (of course to communicate I tend to use words which necessarily imply discrete entities because of the nature of the English language) this is the true Maya, not the world.

>>In terms of the latter/anthropomorphic deity interpretation, though...I am inclined to believe that the duality manifests itself there as compassion on the one side, but limitless chaos and ferocity on the other.

it is a wholistic view, however. seemingly oppositional forces contained within one Thing do not imply dualism in the technical sense of Dvaita.

>>The old texts of course indicate, despite my initial attempts to deny such to myself, that Ma does have a voracious love of blood and violence. In such a context, ahimsa really doesn't work so well...since how are we to make Her an offering of blood, if it is never shed? ;-)

I can't say that I speak for all Shaktas, or even all Vamacharins, but I believe that all this is to remind us of our part in the continuing play of life and death. something which is perhaps even MORE important now than in the past when one might slaughter one's one animals, etc. in these days we have our deaths prepackaged, and we never have to face them. even the deaths of human beings are highly mediated. we have lost our connection to the cycle of life as a culture, and it manifests itself in some pretty fucked up ways.

>>I'm not averse to the idea that sometimes among humans, war can genuinely be necessary, and that sometimes, even greater suffering can ensue when it is not engaged in.

sometimes the unpleasant acts have to be engaged in. I take the lesson of the Gita in this manner. where would the world be now if aggression against Nazi Germany had not been engaged in? can you imagine the pain the human race would have inflicted upon itself? I say this not because I feel that you, Petrus, do not understand what I am saying, as I believe we are in sympathy on this matter, but to give a concrete illustration of my point.