Advertisement
what is Shiva and Shakti.. is it human interpretation of some cosmic aspects.. or can it be said that they are entities/beings beyond our comprehension.
like how can it be said that Shiva has always existed and will always exist?
like how can it be said that Shiva has always existed and will always exist?
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 11:04 AMIn my opinion, "Shiva" and "Shakti" are human interpretations of cosmic principles that really exist. At the same time, They may indeed be beyond our comprehension.
We now know that the universe is full, not empty. It is full of energy, some visible and some invisible, and a relatively small amount of matter and anti-matter. Energy is convertible into matter and vice-versa. If Shakti is the energetic component of Shiva, then it seems logical to give precedence to Shakti. In other words, in my own cosmology I see everything, including Shiva, as having been born from the dark womb of Mother Kali.
Due to the law of conservation of energy, it can be said that Mother Kali has always existed and will always exist., though Her creations (including this universe and everything in it) may have an end, and may be reborn.
Just my opinion. If anyone has a better explanation, I'd like to hear it.
Jai Ma!
--Devidas -
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 5:20 PMShiva = primordial consciousness, otherwise known as Brahman
Shakti = manifest universe
-
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Fri, November 13, 2009 - 7:51 AM"Yasya swaroopam brahmadayo na jananti tasmaduchyate ajneya." Your form is not knowable even to Brahma- so you are the unknowable. So says the Devi Atharvasheersham.
The intellect is not a vehicle sufficient for comprehending Her or Him or It. These( Shakti and Shiva) are all mere empty concepts when not experienced in 'person'. Any such definition is what would tend to be called anthropomorphisation in other fields. What I am also trying to say is that excess intellectualisation is not good either.
To your questions- at one level, both your first question is right. At another, your second question is right too. Confusing ? The concept is that the truth is eternal- but our conception and even our experience changes. The question of who is right in theory does not matter- because the truth is there to be experienced. Just like the view changes when we climb a mountain, it is only at the very top that one can see the whole mountain and the valley below. -
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Fri, November 13, 2009 - 8:35 AMhow is it possible to say that anything is eternal? is it impossible that God may only live for 75 God years, for example?
and do we owe our intellect to Shiva or Shakti? -
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Fri, November 13, 2009 - 10:37 AMShiva and Shakti are like fire and the ability to burn. They are facets of the same thing. They are separate only in the realm of duality. So if we are looking to realise as opposed to trying to intellectualise, there is no point in trying to see the difference. What is duality? - it is the pair of opposites or difference which makes creation:
Good and bad
Riches and poverty
Happiness and sadness
Youth and old age
Light and darkness
Beginning and End
Birth and death
One cannot exist without the other. Reality is conceived as being beyond this.
Space and Time are also created by the one who is eternal. Eternal in this sense means- beyond time. The word Eternal does not really convey this. Eternal is within time. But this is beyond time. The Devi Atharvasheersham says about the Devi ' Yasya jananam nopalabhyate- tasmad uchyate Aja' : You are the one whose birth it is impossible to determine- for you are the unborn.
Theory aside- you may find it interesting : the Aparajita stuti says- "Ya Devi sarva bhuteshu bhranti rupena samsthita..... " She who is incarnated in all beings as confusion , we bow to you.
Yes - you can say this could all be untrue- but you can experience this for yourself ( though it may take time), as I too seek to experience it for myself. We dont have to always rely on what someone else says. And don't worry- even as concepts, these are not easy to understand or to digest.
-
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Fri, November 13, 2009 - 9:07 AMNamaskar, Durgaputra. Your answer is the best.
There are many things that we cannot know, will never know, and do not need to know. It seems to me that experience is the key, and out of that experience grow both jnana and bhakti. Words are only words.
Jai Ma!
--Devidas
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Fri, November 13, 2009 - 7:37 PM> The intellect is not a vehicle sufficient for comprehending Her or Him or It.
*****
There is no comprehension to be made of Brahman, but there is an apperception available to us as our own shining Atman.
> These (Shakti and Shiva) are all mere empty concepts when not experienced in 'person'.
*****
There is no existence outside of what Shakti and Shiva play metaphor for. At every moment of our existence, our experience rests in Brahman, while we also exist entirely within the maelstrom known as the Mahashakti.
> Any such definition is what would tend to be called anthropomorphisation in other fields. What I am also trying to say is that excess intellectualisation is not good either.
*****
Equally unadvised would be the abdication of our mind's abilities of cognitive discernment. There are the practices of enquiry and discrimination. Both of these are entirely dependent on a well-functioning intellectual/emotional capacity.
> Just like the view changes when we climb a mountain, it is only at the very top that one can see the whole mountain and the valley below.
*****
This quaint metaphor, that of the achievement of climbing the highest mountain, is as destructive to apperception as any other. The Atman is not at the top of a mountain, or at the bottom of a deep ocean, anymore than it's right on the end of your nose. While it's utterly natural, and even neurologically mandated, that we see things in terms of these metaphors, to keep them in circulation keeps ignorance in circulation. We must learn to drop all metaphors of the transcendent if we are to finally see what has always shone in plain view in our hearts. -
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Fri, November 13, 2009 - 7:55 PM>Theory aside- you may find it interesting : the Aparajita stuti says- "Ya Devi sarva bhuteshu bhranti rupena samsthita..... " She who is incarnated in all beings as confusion , we bow to you.<
i like that :D
i'm just not sure when people say all these things like infinity and eternal that they are not themselves limited in their own minds (about these concepts).
like do Shakti and Shiva transcend even our Universe? by that i mean to ask if there is not another set of powers in control of other Universes.. as i've read they are determined by different laws.
>There is no comprehension to be made of Brahman<
do statements like this speak for everybody?
thanks -
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Fri, November 13, 2009 - 7:58 PMcan Shakti and Shiva comprehend Brahma?
-
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 7:36 PM> We must learn to drop all metaphors of the transcendent if we are to finally see what has always shone in plain view in our hearts.
you mean drop everything, don't you ;)
the Atman always shines and is completely unaffected by anything we do-feel-think, but it is not in the heart of the body, nor is it not, for that heart is the beyond the most subtle of elements.
neither the manas (senses), intellect, nor body/mind can fully grasp the totality of Brahman/Atman... or the filters that we use to identify the world with and our-selves, which are an illusion or a distorted mirror at best as so far as the mind perceives the changing self, and are the limitations we must abandon in complete contemplative absorption to experience the fullness of the totality, or Shiva~Shakti, and the unshakable bliss of their union...
the I am, I feel, I think need to be rendered neutral or surrendered completely to really know what any of this means, as all of these words are merely concepts of mind.
~Adya -
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 7:57 PMyes yes but what about the third eye?? is even that regarded as insufficient? -
-
Re: 'Shiva' and 'Shakti'
Thu, November 19, 2009 - 4:31 PMwhat's insufficient?
In Yoga (not hatha) it is taught that there is knowledge that can be known without the mind. they also say that knowledge or wisdom of Brahman can only dawn in complete silence and stillness--without thoughts, without mind.
but the mind can be our friend and our maid, the mind can be a bridge to the supreme~Brahman. we can follow the stream back to Source with the aid of mind, equally one's mind can be the worst enemy. while under our control, we can use direct inquiry or discrimination--not the ordinary variety, this sort called vivek--a very focussed one-pointed reflecting power of mind. though the mind has its limits. just like we can map the chakras, many people have done it, there are loads of books out there and some of them are useful...but maps are simply neat categories not the actual experience. you really can't map the ascent of Shakti or consciousness. the third eye, nor the sahasrara really can't be mapped, though people have tried... which part of the thousand-petaled lotus is going to light up when Brahman is touched... it all kind of falls apart in practice.
~Adya
-
-
-
-
