Why is God the Father more popular than God the Mother?

[Hiwaunis]

Om Shanti,
I've often wondered why is God the Father worshipped more and is more popular than God the Mother? Although I worship God in both forms as well as the formless, it seems that a loving comforting Mother is what people need most. Honestly, sometimes I have a hard time distinguishing between the two.

I am interested in knowing how many of you see God as the Father and how many of you see God as the Mother? and why?

Om Shanti,
Hiwaunis

[satay]

namaskar,


Om Shanti,
I've often wondered why is God the Father worshipped more and is more popular than God the Mother?
Om Shanti,
Hiwaunis

Could it have anything to do with the possibility that man invented 'God' instead of women?

[santosh]

namaskar,

Could it have anything to do with the possibility that man invented 'God' instead of women?

Satayji,

man invented 'God'? Really? Is this the position of Sanatan Dharma?

[satay]

Namaskar,


Satayji,

man invented 'God'? Really? Is this the position of Sanatan Dharma?

Sanatana Dharma accepts God as the mother as well as the father.

What is the ISKCON position on Women in general and God as the mother in particular?

[santosh]

Satayji,

man invented 'God'? Really? Is this the position of Sanatan Dharma?

Satayji,

Quoting from what you have posted, is God a matter of invention? So does God exist becuase someone invented it? What is the basis of saying " invented God"?

Santosh

[satay]

Namaskar Santosh,

Quoting from what you wrote and since you asked, I gave you the position of Sanatana Dharma for the matter of 'God as the mother'.

and I asked the following:


What is the ISKCON position on Women in general and God as the mother in particular?


Does ISKCON have a position on the matter of the OP? Can the lord be accepted as a mother?



is God a matter of invention? So does God exist becuase someone invented it? What is the basis of saying " invented God"?


What's the ISKCON view on this?

[santosh]

Hare Krishna,

> Could it have anything to do with the possibility that man invented 'God' > instead of women?

You have still not provided any explanation to your statement that "man invented God". I am asking what is the basis of saying this - that man invented God?

According to Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya, Sri Ramanuja Sampradaya (also know as Shri Sampradaya), Sri Vallabhacharya Sampradaya, Lord Krishna or Lord Vishnu is the Supreme Lord. In Bhagavad Gita 10:8, http://vedabase.net/bg/10/en Lord Krishna says:

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

You can check Gita Gorakhpur publishing house's translation of this as well.

Srimati Radharani (or Srimati Lakshmiji) is the Lhadini shakti or Antaranga Shakti of the Lord and She is the Divine Mother. Therefore Lord Krishna and Srimati Radharani are non-different. That's why Lord Krishna and Srimati Radharani or Lord Vishnu and Srimati Lakshmiji are worshipped together in Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya and in Sri Ramanujacharya Sampradaya.

[satay]

Srimati Radharani (or Srimati Lakshmiji) is the Lhadini shakti or Antaranga Shakti of the Lord and She is the Divine Mother. Therefore Lord Krishna and Srimati Radharani are non-different. That's why Lord Krishna and Srimati Radharani or Lord Vishnu and Srimati Lakshmiji are worshipped together in Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya and in Sri Ramanujacharya Sampradaya.

Thanks Santosh.

[izi]

God actually has no need of a sex, that is a human definition and we apply the concept of god because of our own weakness, not because of anything god actually is or is not. So the question is, having been nurtured by a mother, or not, as adults, why the hell do we still need these concepts?

Something seems terribly wrong here...

[Hiwaunis]

namaskar,



Could it have anything to do with the possibility that man invented 'God' instead of women?

Pranam Satay,
Your comments always seem spontaneous and witty. After I read your response I laughed. I like you. There is something about your character that reminds me of Shri Hari Vishnu. Are you a devotee of Shri Hari?

I also see your point of view. The original teachers were male. So too their students were male. I would imagine it would have been very confusing in the ashrams to see the female as the server (servant) to her husband (master) and then try to teach the young men that God is Female.

I believe that these concepts (GodMother and GodFather) exist for the purpose of helping us communicate while navigating through Maya.

Om Shanti

[Hiwaunis]

God actually has no need of a sex, that is a human definition and we apply the concept of god because of our own weakness, not because of anything god actually is or is not. So the question is, having been nurtured by a mother, or not, as adults, why the hell do we still need these concepts?

Something seems terribly wrong here...

Pranam,

Although our goal is not to need these concepts it is human nature. I can see Shiv, Vishnu, and Brahma Dev as giving but I have a problem envisioning Father being warm, soft, caring and comforting. I associate those qualities with Mother.

Om Shanti,

[satay]

Namaskar Hiwanuis,


Pranam Satay,
Are you a devotee of Shri Hari?

Om Shanti

I have been thinking about this question ever since you posted it, however, sorry to disappoint you.

I still can't find an answer!

[OmSriShivaShakti]

God has no gender as he does not occupy a corporeal body. But I think the reason why most people like to think of God as male instead of female is that men are dominant (in the home and also society) therefore anything to do with power or authority is usually represented as being male. Also, strength, authority, and power are usually designated as masculine qualities. And since God cannot be submissive to anyone (like a woman is submissive to a man in a relationship), God is usually presented as male.

[dhruva023]

why God can not be submissive?

[rcscwc]

It is not correct to say that God is purely male.

tvameva mata pita tvameva tells that God is Mother and Father.

Prajapati, Vishnu and Shiva are incomplete without their female principles. In fact Shiva is conceptualised as Ardhnarishwar too. In Hindu thinking, male/female principles of God are inseperable.

But in abrahmic god is purely male and is underlined as such. Women, therefore, do not have place in their spirituality.

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

Paramahansa Yogananda would say to call upon God as the Mother in some of his talks. He said the Mother is easier access than the father.

[bhaktajan]

One cannot approach the Father God without first receiving approval by the mother.

To approach Krishna --first one must achieve the blessings and good-favor of Srimati Radharani.

[bhaktajan]

Lord Çiva’s duty is very dangerous because he has to employ the energy of goddess Kälé (or Durgä).

In a popular picture the goddess Kälé is sometimes seen standing on the prostrate body of Lord Çiva, which indicates that sometimes Lord Çiva has to fall down flat in order to stop goddess Kälé from killing the asuras.

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste: In my opinion, gender is basically irrelevant to spiritual life. We are not a body that has gender. Identifying with one's own gender leads to identifying God as having a gender.

I remember when I first realised people (the actual being within) were basically genderless. I was 17 and started noticing that girls had brains too. (Sounds stupid now, but the reality of raging hormones leads one to believe something else) So I developed a few friendships with a few people of the opposite gender, eventually marrying one of them.

God has no gender. Gender is there as a means of procreation, creating physical bodies for souls of all varieties to inhabit and have earthly experience to allow for the path to continue. This is God's creation, but to create or emit does not imply you need a gender. Does a musician need a gender to create a song.

So I think if you see gender in God, then you also see gender, or rather overfocus on gender in people. I believe that Shaktism crept into Saivism because of a guilt complex about the way women were treated. But that's another story.

Aum Namasivaya

[sunyata07]

Namaste,

While I also believe that God has no gender, I can understand why man has envisioned a male or female perception of deity. Originally, it was used as a form of abstraction, a convenient way for people to conceputalise this force as a person with a gender, a name, etc. Psychologically, I believe in their being able to see God as a father or mother figure it helps devotees connect to them better. At the end of the day it is probably completely useless, because God is ultimately neither male nor female.

The idea of God the Father was popular in the Abrahamic faiths largely because of patriarchal societies in the West. The father archetype is a figure one usually associates with positions of power or leadership. In our male dominated societies, the father is the breadwinner, the head of the household, the one who makes the decisions. Historically speaking, the man of the household was the master of everyone else living under his roof. Was it not natural then for most people (especially those coming from Abrahamic backgrounds) to perceive an all-powerful God as male? With the exception of a few cultures, females have always been the submissive figures, either to a father, a brother or a husband. The simple answer is that when man discovered religion early on he tended to associate this omnipowerful, omnipresent Being with his own father.

But to counter this, Hiwaunis, while I honestly don't see God as generally being just one or the other, I do feel a lot more emotionally invested in God the Mother than God the Father. Even when I was raised Catholic I tended to direct my prayers towards Mother Mary than Jesus Christ or just God "the Father". I worship both aspects equally, but God the Mother stirs love in my heart with less time and meditation than God the Father. I think of all the types of love you can see in this world that exists between people, there is probably no love that is more pure or selfless than a love a mother has for her child. I also associate all things tender, loving and merciful with a mother aspect of God than with a father.

But it's perhaps good to have a balance sometimes. If we grow too attached to the idea of God with a gender, we lose sight of what He/She encompasses. This is why I love depictions of God as Ardhanari, who is both Shiva and Shakti and who we, in our limited human understanding, perceive as being separate halves of a whole when in fact they are indivisible:


http://lalitavistara.free.fr/Hinduism/Hinduism_Pix/Ardhanarishvara_02.jpg


OM Shanti

[RamaRaksha]

I disagree with those who included Hinduism in depicting God solely as a man. Hinduism is the only major religion to pray to a female form of God. Imagine a faith thousands of years old giving equality to women! Truly a faith ahead of its times!

I do agree with Satay when he says God is an invention of man. The concept of God is pretty common all over the world. Different areas of the world came up with different concepts of God. Some people thought the sun was a God, so at night he went to sleep in the mountains. Stories are built around this concept.

You need a template for everything. When Michalangelo needed to depict God he chose an old, bearded man. Similarly, I believe that the Abrahamic religions made God in the image of their King. In those days Kings were mostly men, so God had to be a man. When brought before the King, you fell to your knees and shook with fear, as this man could order your death! Hence they teach a fear of God. Once you die you face his judgement. You better obey or else!

Hinduism/Buddhism are teacher religions. We are all students of God, God is our guru on the path to Moksha, Arjuna was one of the first students. You may choose to listen to God or not. It is your choice. We are taught to respect and love God, never fear. Most Hindus when they visit the temple they either sit or stand before the murti, they never kneel. Some do unfortunately, and this practice should be discouraged.

[Hiwaunis]

Pranam RamaRaksha,
I like your pov on this topic. But why do you say this?

"Most Hindus when they visit the temple they either sit or stand before the murti, they never kneel. Some do unfortunately, and this practice should be discouraged."

Is it wrong to kneel down showing your humility towards the Supreme Being who also happens to be your parent?

Do you say this because most people in positions of authority will likely take advantage of those who kneel down to God? Thus expecting/ demanding one to bow down before God's representative?

Namaste,

[atanu]

Hinduism/Buddhism are teacher religions. We are all students of God, God is our guru on the path to Moksha, Arjuna was one of the first students. You may choose to listen to God or not. It is your choice. We are taught to respect and love God, never fear. Most Hindus when they visit the temple they either sit or stand before the murti, they never kneel. Some do unfortunately, and this practice should be discouraged.

Namaste RR,

Obviously, I do not fully agree. There are stages in jiva's evolution, when jiva trembles and bows. It is natural and there is nothing wrong. In fact, it is essential before one can become free of imagined notions of ego's greatness. Sages pray to Rudra to forsake His fearsome forms and appear benevolent.

Agni is Lord. But you will find in Veda that three brothers of Agni were killed by Indra (who is again Agni) and Agni was very afraid and hid himself within the waters to escape death. It was Varuna (who again is Agni only), who imparted the wisdom to Agni of His Highest Abode.

You will find another instance, where Gautama risi worshipfully and fearfully coaxes Indra towards worship of that wherefrom even Indra is sourced. Indra will not love it if Gautama or anyone by-passes Him.

Before Varuna imparts the wisdom and allows the experience, it is imperative to be worshipful and to fear Manyu, the Wrath of God. Manyu was Indra, as the Rig Veda says.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Om Shanti,
I've often wondered why is God the Father worshipped more and is more popular than God the Mother? Although I worship God in both forms as well as the formless, it seems that a loving comforting Mother is what people need most. Honestly, sometimes I have a hard time distinguishing between the two.

I am interested in knowing how many of you see God as the Father and how many of you see God as the Mother? and why?

Om Shanti,
Hiwaunis

Bhagavatam actually repeatedly uses the word Bhagavati for Krishna. All is Bhagavati's forms. All Gods are Bhagavati's forms. Asiya Vamiya Sukta says of Sun's amshas that these are actually females. It will be surprising to many to learn that Rishi Dirghatma thought that the Adityas were females.

Male forms are more popular, probably because, in this world, premium is paid on pentrating rather than being penetrated. The premium is paid for being the eater rather than being the eaten. But what penetrates is then penetrated. When a ray of light penetrates darkness, the ray of light is male. When shadows penetrate light, then the darkness is the male.

It is said that Atma desired to create the worlds and thus came ambhas and Marichi etc. It is further said that ambhas (female) is beyond the heaven (male). But it is also said that the heaven supports the ambhas. Similar is with the Food and the Eater. The Eater (Agni) is said be beyond Food (Soma-Vishnu), but the Food supports the Eater.

Further, before Indra destroyed Vritta, the destroyed asura said "I was what you are now", and the scripture says "Vritta was the eater and has remained the eater". In a cryptic message, Brihadaraynaka informs that Brahman is neither the eaten nor the eater.

Om Namah Shivaya

[bhaktajan]

The highest stratum of esoteric philosophy of the Vaishnavas is the closet thing to answering this Threads Namesake 'god the Mother'

old maxim: "How do you know who your father is? Ask your mother"
---[this is used to say that sastra is Mother-Knowledge ---that is best passed on via a direct Parampara (family succesion/linage). Similar too, is that any sort of "Bonefide Knowledge" is passed down through an accredited Guild of Experts of any given topic, ie: Medicine is pased down through medical school comprised of old Doctors who themselves,in their youth had been began as young students of old doctors ---hence acquired knowledge via a bonefide chain of succession "parampara"]

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
According to scriptures there are seven mothers:

atma-mata guroh patni
brahmani raja-patnika
dhenur dhatri tatha prthvi
saptaita matarah smrtah

(1) the real mother,
(2) the wife of the spiritual master (guru-patni),
(3) the wife of a brahmana,
(4) the wife of the king,
(5) the cow,
(6) the nurse, and
(7) the earth [Srimati Bhumi Devi].

All of them are mothers.

Even the stepmother, who is the wife of the father, is also as good as the mother because the father is also one of the spiritual masters.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So . . . we have all pondered the nature of God person . . . "to be or not to be that is the question" . . . and alas . . . 'yo yo yam yam'

now we ask, "Has God the Mother been hiding out (even more effectively than the father) from the children of God?"

To approach God me must gain the sanction of God's Feminine consort . . . this has been the fact that has been hidden from consideration espcially by impersionalists (what to speak of flesh mongering consumers) all along . . . Srimati-Devi(s): Laxshmi, Sita, Bhavati, Sarasvati, Sati-daksa-putri, Satarupa, Satayvati, Rukmini, Gandhari, Kunti, Draupadi and all the numerous wives of all the Devas were personally pre-occupied with keeping their men (wards?) at their sides.

God the Mother is keeping her man (ward?) at her side?

Leaving us jiva-atmas on the outside? . . . until reconciliation?

[RamaRaksha]

Pranam RamaRaksha,
I like your pov on this topic. But why do you say this?

"Most Hindus when they visit the temple they either sit or stand before the murti, they never kneel. Some do unfortunately, and this practice should be discouraged."

Is it wrong to kneel down showing your humility towards the Supreme Being who also happens to be your parent?

Do you say this because most people in positions of authority will likely take advantage of those who kneel down to God? Thus expecting/ demanding one to bow down before God's representative?

Namaste,

It has to do with a certain mindset. Let's take an example - when you see old movies you see women prostrating themselves before their husband. Women routinely kneel before their husband, calling him a God even though the guy could be a cad.

Times have certainly changed haven't they. We now know that women are equal to men. A women's rightful place is in a man's heart and vice versa.

Similarly a devotee's rightful place is in God's heart and vice versa. One must aspire to a higher position, one must not lower ourselves. We are children and students of God. Our rightful place is in God's lap and before him in a seated position as a student.

Religions must change with times otherwise they run the risk of being labled backward. One gets defensive when it is one's own religion, so let's take a look at other religions. Islam for instance. These guys are so scared of giving eqaul rights to women. Scared of competing in the modern world. Without oil, can you name one successful islamic country? No wonder they want to rush back to the 16th century. Ban everything modern, confine women to the home! Scared to face modern society.

How about christianity? Insisting against all evidence that the earth is 5,000 years old? Insisting against evolution. Hanging on to backward ideas. This is the same religion that at one time insisted that the earth was the center of the universe and threatened Galileo for saying that the sun was the center of the solar system.

Actually the people who first came up with these ideas were not backward. They did not have the modern technology that we have today. So they came up with ideas the best they could. Atanu gives us some examples - we need to keep in mind that these stories are being written by people who are doing the best they can with the knowledge they then possessed.

What is backward is modern people blindly following knowledge that was gained thousands of years ago.

I will say it again, God's name is not Rama, Krishna, Allah or Christ, God's name is Truth. Pursue Truth and God will always be with you. Believe in untruth thinking you are following God, and you lose both. The followers of many cults have found that out the hard way.

The reason that people like Bheeshma and Anasuya were able to defeat Gods was because they had the truth on their side.

[RamaRaksha]

I would like to take about the difference between the major religions. Hinduism/Buddhism are Teacher/Parent religions, whereas Abrahamic religions are King religions.

I think like an atheist sometimes, and I sometimes think that religions were made up. When michalangelo wanted to depict God, he chose a kind old gentleman. Similarly people came up with concepts for God. They wondered what God might be like and different peoples came up with different ideas. Some thought God must be the sun.

Primitive man heard thunder and lightning and thought God, up there, must be angry about something. Sure enough, fire and floods followed, destroying everything. Hence a fear of God! You see this fear reflected in Abrahamic religions. Amazingly the oldest religion, Hinduism, does not teach us to fear God! Truly divine, truly mind-boggling!

Anyway back to the 2 types of religions, Abrahamic religions made God in the image of their king. Most kings in those days were men, so God had to be a man. A King issues orders, commands and passes out judgements. Sound familiar? When one is brought before the King, one fell to their knees and shook with fear, for this man could order their death! Here again, fear of God returns in another form. In these religions a devotee is reduced to a Servant, slave, or subject. These people have their back bent and are usually down on their knees.

The danger with these religions as we are seeing with the terrorism, is that it takes away personal responsibility. They call themselves soldiers of God, the problem with being a soldier is that you must obey commands. When a superior says kill, you must kill, whether it is a women or even a child. This is why terrorists and cults mostly come from within these religions. Young men are told that they are servants of God, God is telling them to go kill, and so they must!

The problem here is with the mindset - a mindset of being reduced to being a slave, subject or servant, blindly obeying orders.

[RamaRaksha]

To continue, Hinduism/Buddhism are teacher religions. We are students of God, that is clearly evident with Krishna imparting us the Gita and the Buddha.

We must act like students not blind animals obeying God. A teacher wants her students to discuss various issues from various viewpoints. Disagree if you feel that you are right, even with the teacher. Your realize that this is democracy in action.

Ever wonder why muslim pakistan has so much trouble with democracy while Hindu India does not? Many westerners thought India would go the same way as other newly formed countries, dive into a strongmen ruled country, but India continues to surprise them. To me it is no surprise, as long as India is Hindu, it will remain a democracy!

Act like students of God, sit or stand before the teacher. Love and respect the teacher, never fear the teacher. Once we start kneeling before God like the muslims do and lowering ourselves to a subject or slave level, we cease to be Hindus.

[eriko]

I had no idea that Father God is more popular than Mother God? I always thought them to be equally popular. Why, doesn't the whole West Bengal prays to Mother and most of the South India as well? And then most Hindus pray to variety of Gods both male and female.

Frankly I connect neither with the female form nor the male form. Dunno why? Maybe it will take sometime.


Most Hindus when they visit the temple they either sit or stand before the murti, they never kneel. Some do unfortunately, and this practice should be discouraged.

Don't you think people have the right to feel and relate to God on their own terms? My mother kneels sometimes, she is perfectly fine about it and then it is cool if it brings her peace of mind. Once a Hindu, always a Hindu, and experiencing your spirituality on your own terms is all what Hindu Dharma is about, no matter if there is something that you do is similar to other religions (even though it is all in the mind). You feel so, you do so.


I was 17 and started noticing that girls had brains too. (Sounds stupid now, but the reality of raging hormones leads one to believe something else)

This is hard to imagine but at the same time highly amusing. Dunno why I thought you to be mature by birth. But then I myself think of boys of my age as emotionless and those who so show emotions as freaks. So I guess it is the same thing. I think I got a really stereotypical view of the opposite gender.

[Eastern Mind]

Frankly I connect neither with the female form nor the male form. Dunno why?

Me, too. And frankly, I think that is the correct way of perception.


I think I got a really stereotypical view of the opposite gender.

lol You are definitely not alone in this regard. But we have actions and words to counter this. the action/word of namaste with hands together is a 'hello' from soul to soul, a genderless greeting.

Aum Namasivaya

[sunyata07]

Frankly I connect neither with the female form nor the male form. Dunno why? Maybe it will take sometime.



Namaste Eriko,

In many respects, this is probably a huge asset, and an ideal state of mind to perceive God. You don't have the divide in the mind that perceives the Divine as being either male or female. That should make it easier for you to grasp then that God is also beyond such other human concepts of joy and sorrow, right and wrong, here and there.

Sometimes I feel like the English language is sorely lacking in a second 3rd person pronoun for the neuter case. I say this in mind with the exception of 3rd person singular, "it". The "it" pronoun seems impersonal to me, and has of course derogatory connotations in semantics.

[DavidC]

People have been saying God is also neuter or feminine, but that is like saying man is also neuter or feminine rather than humanity is. Using the term 'God' for other than what it is perpetuates the stereotypes and biased language of the unreasonable sects in the Abrahamic religions.

The Absolute (Parashakti; Parabrahm; Maha-Vishnu; Parashiva) is neuter but more than 'God.'

'Goddess' is feminine, and I think she is more important than God because of the fact of parthenogenesis: National Geographic (NG) tv had a program that it would have been possible for a 'female' to have XXY chromosomes and give birth to a male, and as someone earlier said here 'how do you know who your father is? Ask your mother.' If NG was wrong then God is as important as Goddess, but even if they are wrong it is true that most mythology in the world has Goddess give birth to God and then they create the rest of reality.

So, let us be clear and use the most accurate words--and be clear on what mythology says.

For those who quoted philosophy of the beautifully illustrated Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, I would recommend reading Bhagavad-Gita As It Was and some Shaktist or Smarta texts.
'The above is as the below; the below is as the above'--Hermes Trismegistus.

[Eastern Mind]

People have been saying God is also neuter or feminine, but that is like saying man is also neuter or feminine rather than humanity is. Using the term 'God' for other than what it is perpetuates the stereotypes and biased language of the unreasonable sects in the Abrahamic religions.

The Absolute (Parashakti; Parabrahm; Maha-Vishnu; Parashiva) is neuter but more than 'God.'

'Goddess' is feminine, and I think she is more important than God because of the fact of parthenogenesis: National Geographic (NG) tv had a program that it would have been possible for a 'female' to have XXY chromosomes and give birth to a male, and as someone earlier said here 'how do you know who your father is? Ask your mother.' If NG was wrong then God is as important as Goddess, but even if they are wrong it is true that most mythology in the world has Goddess give birth to God and then they create the rest of reality.

So, let us be clear and use the most accurate words--and be clear on what mythology says.


I use the word 'God' as a sect neutral word out of respect for my Hindu brethen on these forums who are of of varying sects. If left to my own narrow version, it would be Siva, Siva, Siva, and Siva some more. Then I come off as a narrow South Indian sectarian Saivite. In fact I have been adamantly told that it is Shiva, not Siva. But one of the keys to life is to never feel insulted. Just understand via love why that person says what they say. Of course this is easier said than done. In one ear and out the other.


Aum Namasivaya

[DavidC]

I use the word 'God' as a sect neutral word out of respect for my Hindu brethen on these forums who are of of varying sects.

I understand. I use the distinct terms including 'goddess' out of respect for women. I can see why you say 'God' 'neutrally,' but what was said before the British came to India? Did people call Devis/Shaktis Devas or Brahmas? Do not most/all the schools of abstract philosophy--Vedanta--support what I said and that 'Paramatma' includes both Devi and Devas which are distinct? Using God as a generic term just seems old-fashioned. Maybe it will not spread patriarchal oppression but it will certainly do nothing to balance it with feminism.

I have not read the Puranas yet but am curious to see whether any really say the masculine was somehow defined as what can give birth. You can still say a Deva is some sort of philosophical ideal that has to do with intellection & jnana Yoga--being a masculine guru--but I do not think it should offend or confuse anyone (even in the symbolic abstraction of non-material forces) to say it has a mother.

[devisarada]

Twameva Mata, cha Pita Twameva, Twameva Bandhusch, Sakha Twameva, Twameva Vidya, Dravinam Twameva, Twameva Sarvang, Mama Deva Deva.

Who said that God the Father is more popular than God the Mother?

Who is SitaRam, RadheShyam, UmaMahesh?http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc146/Devisarada/ardhanarishvara_shiva__shakti_dg92.jpg

Ardhanarishwara

[eriko]

Me, too. And frankly, I think that is the correct way of perception.

I thought I was being strange. But it is a good thing to know that you feel the same. The thing that comes to my mind is that God is just spiritual energy and spiritual energy can be represented in any form and hence niether of the gender works for me.


lol You are definitely not alone in this regard. But we have actions and words to counter this. the action/word of namaste with hands together is a 'hello' from soul to soul, a genderless greeting.

Do you know Hindi Eastern Mind? And can I call you Uncle? Sometimes when I think about it, since at home I am like calling everyone Uncle and Aunty, so it gets a bit tough when I am not able to do so on the net. Maybe I am just rambling but I am not sure if it is a good thing that the net makes the age barrier almost dissappear. But I guess I made no sense.


In many respects, this is probably a huge asset, and an ideal state of mind to perceive God. You don't have the divide in the mind that perceives the Divine as being either male or female.
The point is that I don't see God either as male or form but an energy (form) that engulfs the universe. And that our soul is a miniscule the part of spritual energy.


That should make it easier for you to grasp then that God is also beyond such other human concepts of joy and sorrow, right and wrong, here and there.

Maybe but then I am unable to connect joy, sorrow and other stuff to His personality. I see the energy as Law of Karma in action.



Sometimes I feel like the English language is sorely lacking in a second 3rd person pronoun for the neuter case. I say this in mind with the exception of 3rd person singular, "it". The "it" pronoun seems impersonal to me, and has of course derogatory connotations in semantics.
This made me smile. But seriously, I don't even think of God as a human form. Dunno? I try to, sometimes even do but it is never a permanent thing and I am back to square one. So I guess it will take time before I warm to the concept of God. But then I am not sure even if I have to.

[Eastern Mind]

I thought I was being strange. But it is a good thing to know that you feel the same. The thing that comes to my mind is that God is just spiritual energy and spiritual energy can be represented in any form and hence niether of the gender works for me.

Do you know Hindi Eastern Mind? And can I call you Uncle? Sometimes when I think about it, since at home I am like calling everyone Uncle and Aunty, so it gets a bit tough when I am not able to do so on the net. Maybe I am just rambling but I am not sure if it is a good thing that the net makes the age barrier almost dissappear. But I guess I made no sense.

The point is that I don't see God either as male or form but an energy (form) that engulfs the universe. And that our soul is a miniscule the part of spritual energy.



Eriko; I appreciate your honesty and intelligence for you age. My very first 'encounter' with God may have had a gender (male) attached. Our pet dog had suffered a serious injury, and I put out a selfish prayer to a God I thought might exist, for the dog's survival. (My father was an atheist/agnostic and we had no religion at all.) That was about age 9 or so.

But the first REAL encounter was with God was while I was working harvesting machine (called a swather) on the farm when I was about 15 or so. I remember the location, the direction, the temperature, and much more. I looked up from the machine and the grain it was cutting and just got this heavy heavy (yet light) rush of energy, and I saw and felt it permeating EVERYTHING. Later I came to know it as Sat Chit Ananda. Obviously it was genderless. I attend temples and do quiet reflection just to get this feeling again. Although the murthi in a temple may be represented as having gender, its the energy I'm after. So you and I agree totally on this part.

I do not know Hindi. The people I hang out with are mostly Tamil. My only language is English, sorry.

If we were together in person, yes you could use the honorific "Uncle". I get it all the time for my Tamil friend's children. But on here it would seem kind of odd. But if you want to, go ahead. But its good for you to point out that custom because Star and Sunyata and Dani and SS are probably not aware of it. I like the custom. I call all older women 'Amma' in the same way.

Aum Namasivaya

[atanu]

But the first REAL encounter was with God was while I was working harvesting machine (called a swather) on the farm when I was about 15 or so. I remember the location, the direction, the temperature, and much more. I looked up from the machine and the grain it was cutting and just got this heavy heavy (yet light) rush of energy, and I saw and felt it permeating EVERYTHING. Later I came to know it as Sat Chit Ananda. Obviously it was genderless. I attend temples and do quiet reflection just to get this feeling again. Although the murthi in a temple may be represented as having gender, its the energy I'm after. So you and I agree totally on this part.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM,

I joyfully agree with the above. God as a person, whether male or female, possibly is the wish of the Sat Chit Ananda, when acting as a person. To paraphrase, IMO, when sad-chit-ananda is a person God is also a person.

Vedanta, of course, teaches us repeatedly that the reality is what one is -- pure unparted consciousness, which must be known.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Spiritualseeker]

This is a very interesting thread.

For myself sometimes I dont even like to use the term God. But I know God is pointing towards the truth, but the word itself is not the reality. Mother or father this too also point towards the truth. Siva is the Formless Reality, the One Life from which we manifest out of and then fall back and dissolve in.



Namaste EM,

I joyfully agree with the above. God as a person, whether male or female, possibly is the wish of the Sat Chit Ananda, when acting as a person. To paraphrase, IMO, when sad-chit-ananda is a person God is also a person.

Vedanta, of course, teaches us repeatedly that the reality is what one is -- pure unparted consciousness, which must be known.

Om Namah Shivaya


Beautiful response.

I was contemplating yesterday that it is simply our ego consciousness that causes us to not know our reality. It is profound ignorance that propels us in birth after birth. Also if we say we are God too soon then we will only be like a wave on the ocean claiming to be the ocean as Paramhansa Yogananda mentions as a metaphor. However if we truely experience formless reality then in that state we are the ocean and can claim to be the ocean. It is God's Divine Play. God pretends to forget and pretends to suffer. God also pretends to remember as Mooji says. When consciousness thinks it is the body then that is the role it takes on. Then ofcourse we are stuck in duality of men better than woman or the other way around, or argue what is God and what is His or her nature. But when we awaken to Reality as it is the veil is lifted and there is just the pure bliss of All-knowingness that pervades every corner of the universe and every inner dimension.

OM

[eriko]

Namaste Uncle,


My very first 'encounter' with God may have had a gender (male) attached. Our pet dog had suffered a serious injury, and I put out a selfish prayer to a God I thought might exist, for the dog's survival. (My father was an atheist/agnostic and we had no religion at all.) That was about age 9 or so.

My first encounter with God was when I was 3. I had my new Atlas bycycle and I was riding, when suddenly it started to rain. Everyone ran, of course nobody wanted to get drenched. I didn't and I was very happy. So I was looking up at the sky and there was a lot of lightening and rain was falling very hard. I don't know, could be just my imagination, but I am sure I saw Shiva. It was actually lightening..you know outline of Shiva. I could make out his hair. And I immediately took it to be Shiva, maybe because He was the only God I was familiar with at that time.

And soon after a few years I lost my faith. Though I don't think a 3 yr old's fantasy is faith but I lost it. For some odd reason, it was like I knew He exists and I was not ready to accept it. In short, I started living in self denial. Then couple of problems cropped up (not a good childhood) and I forgot all about God. In short, living in ignorance. But I developed an intense dislike for Shiva. This is something that I find a bit stupid because both my parents have Shiva as their personal God.

So anyways intersest in Hindu Dharma rejuvenated. So I developed an interest in Krishna and started liking Him. But then again it didn't work out. I still like Krishna but that faith thing doesn't come, and even if it is there it is not permanent.

There is one unique thing that I did. Whatever I used to ask for I used to get it (from God). I had this thing in mind that He was favoring me by giving me everything I want. (of course I now know that I thought wrong.) So taking the thought process forward, it meant that Law of Karma was being defied. And so I stopped asking Him for stuff, just for my own mental peace that Law Of Karma is always obeyed.

Of course, when you think, you send certain vibrations to the the Universe and it acts to bring it to you if the vibration is powerful enough, and this according to my personal theory, is part of Law Of Karma itself(learned this just recently). It explains why I got everything I want.

I am not sure how to end this. But I lost blind faith, something that a child realizes that whatever your parents have taught you is not the complete truth, led my life in denial, and then in ignorance and here I am trying to connect the whole Universe together and trying to get rid of mythology and everything that could be false.

My mom prays all the time, I don't. Sometimes I do but my mostly a mantra or two in Sanskrit. My logic because it the world's finest language and it it lets you express yourself completly (Figured out only till here).

So it is like that. I have my own defination of Hindu, which I would like to share if you allow me to. I mean I am not sure, and this getting a bit embarrassing.


Although the murthi in a temple may be represented as having gender, its the energy I'm after. So you and I agree totally on this part.


So that means I am not wrong in my thinking. My Ma calls me an athist sometimes, she doesn't mean it but she says it sometimes.


I do not know Hindi. The people I hang out with are mostly Tamil. My only language is English, sorry.

The sorry is bit embarrassing. It doesn't matter. Though I think it would have been great if you knew, though I don't know why. I am a karate blackbelt, read that your daughter is too. Indian standards are not that upto the mark. But I do have a certificate anyway.

[Eastern Mind]

Eriko:

Good to hear you have a black belt. I can see you whupping a few of the oldtimers like me on here. (Only in self-defense, though, of course.)

I think, once again, for your age, you have a lot of wisdom. Your religious vocabulary is especially high. Shiva in the North is quite different then Siva in the south. In the north He is usually represented as the yogi Dakshinamurthi sitting on a tiger skin, often referred to as Shiv or Shivji. In the south you're more likely to get Nataraja or the lingam, especially. In the image of man is more unusual. The concept is more genderless as well. You rarely see the family of Shiva, Parvati, and Ganesh.

You don't have to pray to be religious. I don't pray that regularly, but quite intensely at temple. I'm kind of a religious binger that way.

Aum Namasivaya

[kd gupta]

Satayji,

man invented 'God'? Really? Is this the position of Sanatan Dharma?

Yes , man invented everything including God , what is wrong with it ?

And god is father always , because he puts the jerm , mother god is inert or jad Prakriti .

Sarvayonishu kaunteya moortayah sambhavanti yaah;
Taasaam brahma mahadyonir aham beejapradah pitaa.

Great Brahma is the seed-giving father.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam gupta ji


Yes , man invented everything including God , what is wrong with it ?

Everything, what you are suggesting is that man is the master and God is servant.
No different in saying religion is opium of the masses that is what atheist scientist say, he thinks he is the master of all he surveys that is until he has un urge to go to the loo.



And god is father always , because he puts the jerm , mother god is inert or jad Prakriti .

Sarvayonishu kaunteya moortayah sambhavanti yaah;
Taasaam brahma mahadyonir aham beejapradah pitaa.

Great Brahma is the seed-giving father.


and now you are contradicting yourself

Jai Shree Krishna

[Harjas Kaur]

Yes , man invented everything including God , what is wrong with it ?
Lol. Man invented the planets too? Man is the little drop of ocean water. Inside it contains everything that the ocean is. Same stuff. But mankind is only a drop, not the ocean. God is the ocean, and when mankind slips into it, mankind ceases to be man and becomes One with the Divine. But until that time, man is just a little jeev thinking too much of himself.


And god is father always , because he puts the jerm , mother god is inert or jad Prakriti.
God is not a human being. Mother is ParaShakti without which Father is inert. That is why Shiv Ji is shown as shav, corpse.

http://www.heavenlygardens.org/album/samadhi/Kali-Shiva.jpg

[eriko]

I think, once again, for your age, you have a lot of wisdom. Your religious vocabulary is especially high. Shiva in the North is quite different then Siva in the south. In the north He is usually represented as the yogi Dakshinamurthi sitting on a tiger skin, often referred to as Shiv or Shivji. In the south you're more likely to get Nataraja or the lingam, especially. In the image of man is more unusual. The concept is more genderless as well. You rarely see the family of Shiva, Parvati, and Ganesh.

You don't have to pray to be religious. I don't pray that regularly, but quite intensely at temple. I'm kind of a religious binger that way.


Namaste Uncle,

Thanks you (even do I don't think so). There are many things that I have to learn. I like that concept of illusion about moksha. You know that the sould is already liberated and moksha is just an illusion. Though I have no idea what how or what this actually is.

I see. (About Siva). I think I like Siva more than Shiva. But I heard in a movie discusssing the relationship of husband and wife, and that the wife has to submit because Parvati did. So that shocked me. But I am not sure if this is even true? Since I myself have never come across anything as such about Shiva. Is it true?

I am glad I don't have to pray because I don't feel like it. My mom forces me sometimes saying that remember Him atleast once during the day. But I guess it is because my mom and I have a diameterically oppposite approaches towards religion.

Tell me one thing Uncle, when I don't beleive in the concept of God maybe to that extent the others do, then I maybe I am not religious? I mean basically the term religious signifies something restrictive and non-spritual. I mean seriously what is religion, nothing but a disillusion; beleiving something that you haven't experienced yourself but have been told that it is the way it is.

And being spritual is experiencing the energy inside you. Right. I think I don't like the term religion but I am not sure about the reason for not liking it.

[Eastern Mind]

But I heard in a movie discussing the relationship of husband and wife, and that the wife has to submit because Parvati did. So that shocked me. But I am not sure if this is even true? Since I myself have never come across anything as such about Shiva. Is it true?.

I think I heard this somewhere once. But for me, my own intuition overshadows any scripture or legend or myth. Using a quote like this just says that a certain male chauvinist can't let it go so has found something that excuses his nasty actions. On the inside he knows he is wring, but the anava is so thick that he continues along this wrong path.



I am glad I don't have to pray because I don't feel like it. My mom forces me sometimes saying that remember Him atleast once during the day. But I guess it is because my mom and I have a diametrically opposite approaches towards religion.

Tell me one thing Uncle, when I don't beleive in the concept of God maybe to that extent the others do, then I maybe I am not religious? I mean basically the term religious signifies something restrictive and non-spritual. I mean seriously what is religion, nothing but a disillusion; beleiving something that you haven't experienced yourself but have been told that it is the way it is.

And being spritual is experiencing the energy inside you. Right. I think I don't like the term religion but I am not sure about the reason for not liking it.

I don't 'officially' pray to God every day, but I certainly remember Him/Her. In India imagery is everywhere, so you should have less of a problem getting reminders. Your last statement works for me, except that sometimes, not always, to feel that energy, 'religious' activity may help.

I have the same trouble with the term 'religion' as it fails to convey much at all. In the west, especially amongst the fundamentalists, their 'religion', to me, is very non-religious. So yes, I think we could throw the term out with countless other abandoned words, and not lose a lot.

Aum Namasivaya

[kd gupta]

Lol. Man invented the planets too? Man is the little drop of ocean water. Inside it contains everything that the ocean is. Same stuff. But mankind is only a drop, not the ocean. God is the ocean, and when mankind slips into it, mankind ceases to be man and becomes One with the Divine. But until that time, man is just a little jeev thinking too much of himself.


God is not a human being. Mother is ParaShakti without which Father is inert. That is why Shiv Ji is shown as shav, corpse.

http://www.heavenlygardens.org/album/samadhi/Kali-Shiva.jpg

No , wrong . This picture is not of Rudra .

Once Jadbharat [ The Vishnu devotee ] was taken to a devi temple by some tribals and was decorated as rudra to pl. the devi . As tribals tried to sacrifice Jadbharat , Bhagwan Vishnu appeared in form of devi and killed the tribals .

If this is the picture of Rudra , then showing devi in this form is baseless .

[Harjas Kaur]

The painting is a representation of Dakshin Kalikaa, the first of ten Mahavidyas. She is the shakti of MahaKAL, Kal Bhairava who is the representation of Rudra. How can emanation of inner radiance ever be baseless?


Shakti (Devanagari: शक्ति) from Sanskrit shak - "to be able," meaning sacred force or empowerment, is the primordial cosmic energy and represents the dynamic forces that move through the entire universe.[1] Shakti is the concept, or personification, of divine feminine creative power, sometimes referred to as 'The Great Divine Mother' in Hinduism. On the earthly plane, Shakti most actively manifests through female embodiment and fertility - while also existing in males, in its potential, unmanifest form.[2]

Not only is the Shakti responsible for creation, it is also the agent of all change. Shakti is cosmic existence as well as liberation, its most significant form being the Kundalini Shakti[3], a mysterious psychospiritual force.[4] Shakti exists in a state of svātantrya, dependence on no-one, being interdependent with the entire universe. In Shaktism, Shakti is worshiped as the Supreme Being. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti
She is the ultimate unified Shakti, the Parameshvari, triple Tripura,
the very self of Brahma, Vishnu and Isha, the being who is Jnana
Shakti, Kriya Shakti and Iccha Shakti. - Vamakeshvaratantra 4, 10-11

Hearing the words of the Devi, the Deva of Devas, Husband of Parvati, was delighted, and spoke to Her thus: (8)
Shri Sadashiva said:

Listen, O Thou of high fortune and destiny, to the reasons why Thou shouldst be worshipped, and how thereby the individual becomes united with the Brahman (9). Thou art the only Para Prakriti of the Supreme Soul Brahman, and from Thee has sprung the whole Universe – O Shiva – its Mother (10). O gracious One ! whatever there is in this world, of things which have and are without motion, from Mahat to an atom, owes its origin to and is dependent on Thee (11). Thou art the Original of all the manifestations; Thou art the birthplace of even Us; Thou knowest the whole world, yet none know Thee (12).

Thou art Kali, Tarini, Durga, Shodashi, Bhuvaneshvari, Dhumavati. Thou art Bagala, Bhairavi, and Chhinna-mastaka. Thou art Anna-purna, Vagdevi, Kama-lalaya. Thou art the Image or Embodiment of all the Shaktis and of all the Devas (13-14). ~Mahanirvana Tantra, Chapter 4 http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/maha/maha04.htmThe Para Pakrti manifesting as Kali is Shakti of all the devatas.


katame rudrᾱ iti. daśeme puruṣe prᾱṇᾱḥ ᾱtmaikᾱdaśaḥ; te yadᾱsmᾱt śarīrᾱn martyᾱd utkrᾱmanti, atha rodayanti, tad yad rodayanti, tasmᾱd rudrᾱ iti.Katame rudrᾱ iti: "Who are the Rudras?"

The Rudras are inside us. They are not in Mount Kailaśa, as theology would tell you. They are inside us, operating in a particular manner. The powers which constitute the Rudras are the ten senses and the mind. They are eleven in number. "The ten senses and the mind make eleven. These are the Rudras." They make you do whatever they like. They are the controllers of your system...

- katame rudrᾱ iti. daśeme puruṣe prᾱṇᾱḥ ᾱtmaikᾱdaśaḥ.
Te yadᾱsmᾱt śarīrᾱn martyᾱd utkrᾱmanti, atha rodayanti, tad yad rodayanti, tasmᾱd rudrᾱ iti:

Rudu is to cry, in Sanskrit. "When the senses and the mind leave the body, they make one cry in anguish." One is in a state of grief, and weeps in sorrow due to pain of severance of the senses and the mind from the physical abode.
~Translation The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, by Swami Krishananda http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_III-09.html
Rudra isn't only a representation of Supreme Consciousness but also that force which is all pervading. So the Rudras and their counterparts the Mahavidyas are representations of powers lying dormant within our bodies. This is the yogic symbolism. Rudra is crying and lifeless without Rudrani Shakti.

In Yogini Tantra, Shiva says 'This Vidya Kalika is Maha-Maha-Maha-Vidya, through whom even the worst may attain Nirvana. Even Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheshvara are Her worshippers. She who is Kali the supreme Vidya, is Tara also. The notion of a difference between them has given rise to various Mantras.'

Again the Kamakhya Tantra says Oh Parameshvari, seven lakhs of Mahavidyas remain hidden. Of them all Shodashi is said to be the most sublime. But Oh Devi, the Mother of the world, Kalika is the mother even of Her.' Niruttara Tantra says ' Without knowledge of Shakti, Oh Devi, there is no Nirvana. That Shakti is Dakshina Kali who is the own form of all Vidyas (Sarvvavidyarupini).'

The Yamala again says ' As is Kail so is Tara and so are Chhinna and Kulluka. Oh Devi, thou, who art the supreme Kalika, art also the Murtti which is composed of these four. In the Vaidik system Sagnika (fire-maintaining) Brahma-nas achieved their ends by the offering of oblations to the seven lolling tongues of fire named Kali, Karali, Manojava, Sulohita, Sudhumravarna, Sphulingini and Devi Vishvaruchi'
Mundaka Upanishad (1st Saptaka, 2nd Khanda, 4th Sutra). http://www.achestofbooks.com/new-age/spirituality/tantra/Karpuradistotram/Om-Obeisance-To-The-Supreme-Devata-Part-5.htmlThe Mahavidyas are Rudranis. Kali in Vedas and Upanishads is the primary among the seven flames of fire of Agni/Rudra's wives.

rudrāṇī — the wife of Rudra; SB 10.53.25 (http://vedabase.net/sb/10/53/25)
So how can it be said: "If this is the picture of Rudra , then showing devi in this form is baseless?"

http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/mstore/ssubbanna/albums/default/SwacchandaBhairav.jpg
Then what is meaning of the term, "shavAHsana?" If not that Rudra whose very radiance is permeated with the fires of shakti and without which no manifestation is possible? Everything is psycho-physical-spiritual symbolism. Meaning, representing the subtle koshas of atma swaroop.


katame vasava iti. agniś ca pṛthivī ca vᾱyuś cᾱntarikṣaṁ cᾱdityaś ca dyauś ca candramᾱś ca nakṣatrᾱṇi ca, ete vasavaḥ, eteṣu hīdam sarvaṁ hitam iti, tasmᾱd vasava iti.

Katame vasava iti: "What are these Vasus which are eight in number?" "Fire is one deity; earth is one deity; air is another; the atmosphere is one deity; the sun is one deity; the heaven is one deity; moon is one deity; the stars are one deity.

These constitute eight groups" - agniś ca pṛthivī ca vᾱyuś cᾱntarikṣaṁ cᾱdityaś ca dyauś ca candramᾱś ca nakṣatrᾱṇi ca. Ete vasavaḥ: "Why do you call them Vasus?" What is the meaning of the word Vasu? Vasu is that in which something resides. In Sanskrit, Vasu means, to abide. That which is an abode of something; that in which something abides; that which is the repository or the support of something is the Vasu of that thing. Now, these things mentioned here, eight in number, are really the substances, in a subtle form, out of which everything is made, including our own selves.

All bodies are constituted of the vibrations of which, ultimately, these principles consist. Agnī, Prthivi, Vāyu, Āntariksa, etc. are not solid bodies, though names are given here which are applicable to physical bodies. Even the earth is not a solid body. It is a vibration. It is something difficult to understand for a casual observer. There is no such thing, ultimately, as a 'solid' body. Everything is a conglomeration of forces. Force concretises itself. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_III-09.html
"No , wrong . This picture is not of Rudra ."

"The Goddess Bhairavi is especially Kundalini - again merely a female form of Rudra or Shivaas Fire or Agni: "He with the
Braided Hair we call with Reverence down, the Wild-Boar of the Sky, the Red, the Dazzling shape." (Rig-Veda, I.124.5)" http://www.vedanet.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=62
Om. Obeisance To The Supreme Devata. Part 4
Sachchidananda Mahavidya, in undistinguishable union of Shiva (http://www.achestofbooks.com/new-age/spirituality/tantra/Karpuradistotram/Invocation-Aim-Om-Obeisance-To-The-Supreme-Devata.html) and Shakti, can alone be worshipped with such non-dualism of feeling. Although Tantrik worshippers are divided into five communities namely Shakta, Shaiva, Vaishnava, Ganapatya, Saura the first alone are all Dvijas since all worshippers of Savitri (Gayatri) the Mother of the Veda belong to the Shakta community. The Matrikabheda Tantra says 'Savitri the Mother of the Veda was born of the sweat of Kali's body. That Devi grants the threefold fruit and is Shakti of Brahman.'

Sadhakas belonging to the other four communities worship (http://www.achestofbooks.com/new-age/spirituality/tantra/Karpuradistotram/Om-Obeisance-To-The-Supreme-Devata-Part-2.html) their respective male Devatas associating with them their Shaktis. Thus the Shaivas worship Shiva under the names Uma-Maheshvara, Shiva-Durga, Kali-Shangkara, Arddhanarishvara and so forth.

The Vaishnavas worship Vishnu under the names, Radha-Krishna, Lakshmi-Narayana, Sita-Rama, Shri-Hari and so forth. In the Nirvana Tantra Shrt Krishna says 'To those who do Japa of Radha first and then Krishna, to such I, of a surety, grant a happy lot even now and here.' By uttering the name Sita-Rama (Sita coming first) one utters the Tara of Mahadevt, and for this reason it is also called Taraka-Brahma.The Sauras perform their worship with the Mantra (http://www.achestofbooks.com/new-age/spirituality/tantra/Karpuradistotram/Om-Obeisance-To-The-Supreme-Devata-Part-3.html) 'Obeisance to Shri Suryya accompanied by the Shakti who reveals.' Moreover the Maya-Bija (Hrim), which is the Pranava of Devi, is added to the Mulamantra by every sect.

This clearly shows that all these five sects are directly or indirectly worshippers of the Brahman who is Shiva-Shakti (Shivashaktyatmaka) both in his Nirguna and Saguna aspects. http://www.achestofbooks.com/new-age/spirituality/tantra/Karpuradistotram/Om-Obeisance-To-The-Supreme-Devata-Part-4.htmlhttp://www.dollsofindia.com/dollsofindiaimages/paintings2/ardhanarishwara_QA73.jpg
Ardhanarishvara ~ ultimate Reality, union of Shiva and Shakti.

[kd gupta]

I am a Vaishnav , I am a shaiva , I am a god loving but I am a human . I always want peace I always want to be cooled , because healthy body needs healthy thoughts . Among all imaginations of god figures Vishnu suits well , well to eyes well to mind .

Arjuna Uvaacha:

Drishtwedam maanusham roopam tava saumyam janaardana; Idaaneemasmi samvrittah sachetaah prakritim gatah.

Arjuna said:

Having seen this Thy gentle human form, O Krishna, now I am composed and restored to my own nature!

[eriko]

I think I heard this somewhere once. But for me, my own intuition overshadows any scripture or legend or myth. Using a quote like this just says that a certain male chauvinist can't let it go so has found something that excuses his nasty actions. On the inside he knows he is wring, but the anava is so thick that he continues along this wrong path.

I see.


I don't 'officially' pray to God every day, but I certainly remember Him/Her. In India imagery is everywhere, so you should have less of a problem getting reminders. Your last statement works for me, except that sometimes, not always, to feel that energy, 'religious' activity may help.

I am not against it but I think I need time before I actually feel the need to indulge myself in a religious activity.

[atanu]

Rudra is crying and lifeless without Rudrani Shakti.


Namaste Kaur Ji,

Can crying occur without life or shakti?

One can contemplate on A-U-M as partitioned or one can contemplate OM as single indivisible truth. Rudra, similarly is known at many levels. But ultimately, it is the akshara sound and the sound maker -- that is the prAna (the tenth Rudra in everyone) and the Atma ekadasha (the eleventh Rudra in everyone).

It has no gender. And it is never without shakti, which is intrinsic to it.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Harjas Kaur]

Namaste Kaur Ji,
Can crying occur without life or shakti? The comment was taken from respected Swami Krishananda Ji commentary on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:
"Rudu is to cry, in Sanskrit. "When the senses and the mind leave the body, they make one cry in anguish." One is in a state of grief, and weeps in sorrow due to pain of severance of the senses and the mind from the physical abode."
And Swamiji's interpretation is based on:
"Rudra is the intermediary between physical elements and the intellect, between the spheres of earth and the Sun. Rudra (the howling one) as a divinity associated with winds represents life-breath (prana-vayu). Rudra is thus the principles of life. Rudra the howler or the red one is the cause of tears, because : “verily, the vital breaths are the cause of the tears, for on departing they cause everyone to lament in tears” (Chandogya Upanishad 3.16.9)." http://nilalohita.com/2009/10/rudra/
So it is Chandogya Upanishad which is saying that when the vital breaths depart/leave the body it causes everyone to lament in tears. Now you point out how can anyone cry without praana? Hence my statement:
"Rudra isn't only a representation of Supreme Consciousness but also that force which is all pervading. So the Rudras and their counterparts the Mahavidyas are representations of powers lying dormant within our bodies. This is the yogic symbolism. Rudra is crying and lifeless without Rudrani Shakti."I am not the one asserting duality of separation of Divinity. I am merely exploring the yogic representation explaining the character of fundamental physical forces within the body and how they are represented in terms of male and female UNITY. And this was attempt to explain the traditional depiction of Kalikaa atop the corpse form of Lord Shiva Ji as per the comment:
"No , wrong . This picture is not of Rudra .

Once Jadbharat [ The Vishnu devotee ] was taken to a devi temple by some tribals and was decorated as rudra to pl. the devi . As tribals tried to sacrifice Jadbharat , Bhagwan Vishnu appeared in form of devi and killed the tribals .

If this is the picture of Rudra , then showing devi in this form is baseless."
Rudra, similarly is known at many levels. But ultimately, it is the akshara sound and the sound maker -- that is the prAna (the tenth Rudra in everyone) and the Atma ekadasha (the eleventh Rudra in everyone).You just acknowledge that Rudra is known at many levels. And He is not without the symbolism of His counterparts the Rudranis. The problem I had is with a narrow view which wanted to invalidate all the meaningful basis of the others.
"Among all imaginations of god figures Vishnu suits well , well to eyes well to mind."
Yes, and Shri Durga also suits well, depending on preference of course. So what exactly is wrong with the depiction of Kalikaa atop Lord Shiva in corpse pose?

But ultimately, it is the akshara sound and the sound maker -- that is the prAna (the tenth Rudra in everyone) and the Atma ekadasha (the eleventh Rudra in everyone). It has no gender. And it is never without shakti, which is intrinsic to it.
"Ten praanas (vital airs) within the body and the Atma, as the eleventh, are called Rudras."
Who is dividing? This statement:
"Ardhanarishvara ~ ultimate Reality, union of Shiva and Shakti."
If we are making philosophical distinctions and discussing some aspect of sarguna does it negate the all-pervading non-dual unity of nirguna? Nirgun aspect is without gender and intrinsically Adi Shakti. But, is that true of sarguna? Are avataars, for example, androgenous or males with female counterparts? And if we are looking at the question from a yogic perspective, why is it wrong or false to represent in bodily terms of gender?


But this Universal Form is imperishable, this Universal Name also is imperishable, comprehends everything. Omityetadaksharam: Om is Akshara, and Akshara is imperishable. Tasyopavyakhyanam, bhutam, bhavat, bhavishyaditi sarvam Omkara eva; Yaccanyat trikalatitam tadapyomkara eva... All that was in the past, all that is now in the present, all that will be in the future, all this is Om, because Om has no past, present and future; the Universal has no time.

What a grand description of Om is given in the Mandukya Upanishad! Whatever is in time, as past, present and future, is Om. Not merely this; that which is above time, also, is Om. Om has a twofold nature, the temporal and the eternal: it is Sabda and Sabdatita. It is constituted of A, U, M, representing all creation; but it has also a fourth nature which transcends these distinctions of A, U, M.

It is called Amatra and Chaturtha-Bhava: The soundless form of Om is Amatra, the immeasurable, and it is not audible to the ears. This Amatra, or the immeasurable, eternal nature of Om is not a sound or even a mere vibration, but it is just existence, pure and simple, known as Satchidananda-Svarupa - Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/mand_1a.htmlWhat you are describing as Akshara sound, AUM/OM is the nirguna. What I have been describing are sargun swaroop, to explain the depiction of Kalikaa atop the Lord Shiva Ji. And so it is rendered as female and male but is ultimately beyond gender and intrinsically Primal Shakti. Does this help?

The AUM descends into the world of form from the Primal Nada, sound current vibration from subtle level of anehad shabda, unheard sound without sound into this sansaara where is manifests in form of sound, bija mantras. The totality is the Pranava which includes the nirgun (formless) and sargun (world of form). But the sargun swaroop is limited to the form. The nirgun has no limit. Rudra has no limit. Durga has no limit. But the human body has a limit. And the psycho-spiritual-physical yogic processes are activated to stimulate kundalini and raise the shakti/praan united with the surti/consciousness to cleanse the subtle nadis and pierce the chakrs to rise to the level of Sahasranama and initiate Turiya consciousness, those processes exist in the world of form. Those processes include male and female counterparts symbolized by sun and moon within each of us.


"In Sanskrit, Vasu means, to abide. That which is an abode of something; that in which something abides; that which is the repository or the support of something is the Vasu of that thing. Now, these things mentioned here, eight in number, are really the substances, in a subtle form, out of which everything is made, including our own selves. All bodies are constituted of the vibrations of which, ultimately, these principles consist."Can a vibration truly be said to have a gender? Yet these vibrations have appearance of solidity and form and gender. So that is the difference in our explanations. You are talking vibration and I am talking appearance.

srishti-sthiti-pralaya-sadhana-saktir ekachayeva yasya bhuvanani bibharti durga
icchanurupam api yasya ca ceshtate sa
govindam adi-purusham tam aham bhajami
TRANSLATION
The external potency Maya (http://bhagavatam.net/m/maya) who is of the nature of the shadow of the cit (http://bhagavatam.net/c/cit) potency, is worshiped by all people as Durga (http://bhagavatam.net/d/durga), the creating, preserving and destroying agency of this mundane world. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda (http://bhagavatam.net/g/govinda) in accordance with whose will Durga (http://bhagavatam.net/d/durga) conducts herself. ~Sri Brahma-samhita 5.44 http://bhagavatam.net/bs/5/44/en1Rudra is known at many levels, and ultimately so is Devi.
~Om Para Shaktiyei Namaha

[atanu]

"Ten praanas (vital airs) within the body and the Atma, as the eleventh, are called Rudras."

Who is dividing? This statement:
"Ardhanarishvara ~ ultimate Reality, union of Shiva and Shakti."

Namaste harjas ji,

I only wanted to examine the logical fallacy of "Rudra is crying and lifeless without Rudrani Shakti". And thus I mentioned that crying does not occur in absence of shakti.

Om

[Harjas Kaur]

I only wanted to examine the logical fallacy of "Rudra is crying and lifeless without Rudrani Shakti". And thus I mentioned that crying does not occur in absence of shakti.

Since I was quoting, you will have to take it up with Swami Krishananda Ji of the Divine Life Society and his interpretations of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishad. As he is a respected Sanskrit scholar and I am not. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/

Personally I think you are being too literal. For example, when a person dies, their body can cry. They can cry with physical breaths and tears and they can cry with grief in the mind on a more subtle level. And after the atma has departed the body? Can a bhoot cry? Naturally all these acts reflect consciousness. But when body is a corpse, can the consciousness which has departed not cry?

So the meaning of placing the quote was to show the intimacy of Rudra and Rudrani and that separated is sorrow. Also this goes to the definitions of Devi as hladini-shakti, the Divine Love and desirableness of the Lord.


"Sri Radharani is the embodiment of that transcendental consciousness found in mahabhava. Her mind, senses and body are steeped in that highest sort of love for Krishna. She is as spiritual as the Lord Himself. In fact, being the personification of the hladini-shakti, the pleasure giving energy of the Lord, She is the only source of enjoyment for the Lord. This pleasure potency manifests spiritually as Radharani in a way that attracts even Lord Krishna. He takes no pleasure in anything material. The Lord could never enjoy anything that is less spiritual than Himself. Therefore Radha and Krishna are identical. Then She expands Herself into different forms, known as Lalita, Visakha, and Her other confidential associates that increase the mood of divine love. However, being the Lord's hladini feature, She is also the ultimate source of all happiness for all the living beings. In other words, everything that gives pleasure and happiness within the spiritual or the material worlds is because of Her and the energy that emanates from Her." http://www.stephen-knapp.com/radharani.htm

[Harjas Kaur]

Atanu Ji, why don't you share your thoughts and criticisms on what the depiction represents?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_H6ztcxT7cHc/SfWtEiCtuII/AAAAAAAAAQU/m8fCAwr3Pjk/s400/guhyakali__the_secret_form_of_goddess_kali_tj66.jpg

ਏਹਾ ਸਕਤਿ ਸਿਵੈ ਘਰਿ ਆਵੈ ਜੀਵਦਿਆ ਮਰਿ ਰਹੀਐ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
eaehaa sakath sivai ghar aavai jeevadhiaa mar reheeai ||1|| rehaao ||
When this play of Shiva and Shakti comes to his home, he remains dead while yet alive. ||1||Pause||
~SGGS Ji ang 1257

Shiva Shakti Puja Mantra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K-89GKZSko

[atanu]

Since I was quoting, you will have to take it up with Swami Krishananda Ji of the Divine Life Society and his interpretations of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishad. As he is a respected Sanskrit scholar and I am not. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/

Personally I think you are being too literal.

Namaste Kaur Ji,

I know what Swami Krishnananda Ji teaches. I am not pointing out him. You said:


"Rudra is crying and lifeless without Rudrani Shakti".

I asked whether crying can occur in lifeless shava?

Again you said:


"Ardhanarishvara ~ ultimate Reality, union of Shiva and Shakti."
Is the union of Shakti with a Shava (lifeless) then the ultimate? I am sure that Krishnanda does not imply so. Neither the Vedas do so.

Om Namah Shivaya.

[atanu]

When this play of Shiva and Shakti comes to his home, he remains dead while yet alive. ||1||Pause||
~SGGS Ji ang 1257

Just excellent.

[atanu]

The following is from Yoga Vashista, translated by a sage of Swami Krishnanda's school. I reiterate that the following has nothing to do with gender bias.

From Yoga Vashistam


RETURNING TO SHIVA

The Sage Vasishtha said: The Goddess dances with her arms
outstretched, moving like a swaying forest of tall pines against the
empty sky.

She is the power of the intellect, ignorant of herself and ever
prone to action, continuing to dance about, bedecked with diverse
emblems and devices.

She is arrayed with all kinds of weapons in her thousand arms -
the bow and arrow, the spear and lance, the mace and club, the sword,
and all sorts of missiles. Conversant with all the elements of being
and non-being, she is engaged in every moment of passing time.
She contains the world in the vibration of her mind, as airy
cities and palaces are contained in the power of imagination. She
herself is that world, as the imagination itself is the utopian city.
She is the volition of Shiva, like the wind in the air. As the
air is still without its vibration, so Shiva is quiescent without his
volitional power.

This arupa volition becomes the rupa creation, just as the
formless sky produces the wind which vibrates into sound. Thus does
the will of Shiva bring forth the world out of itself.

When this volitional energy of Kali dances and plays within the
void of the Divine Mind, the world springs forth, as if by union of
the active will and the infinite field of that Supreme Mind.

Touched by the dark volitional power, the Supreme Soul of Shiva
is dissolved into the waters, just as submarine fire is extinguished
by its contact with the waters of the sea.

No sooner does this power come in contact with Shiva, the prime
cause of all, than it inclines and turns to assume the veil of nature
and its conversion to external forms.

Forsaking her boundless and elemental form, she takes upon
herself the gross and limited shapes of land and hills, and then
becomes the beautiful forms of forests and flowers.

In the great round she rebecomes the formless void, and again is
one with the infinite vacuum of Shiva, just as a river with all its
impetuous speed enters into the immensity of the sea.

She becomes as one with Shiva by giving up her identity as an
aspect of Shiva. This feminine form of Shiva is merged back into
Shiva, the prime male, who is the form of the formless void and
perfect tranquillity.

Rama asked: Tell me, O Sage, how that sovereign Goddess Shiva
could obtain her quietude by coming into contact with the Supreme God
Shiva?

Vasishtha replied: Know, Rama, that the Goddess Shiva is the will
of the God Shiva. She is styled as nature and famed as the Great
Illusion of the world.

The great God is said to be the lord of nature and the prime
male. He is of the form of air and is represented as Shiva, calm and
quiet as the autumnal sky.

The great Goddess is the energy and will of the Intellect and is
ever active as force in motion. She abides in the world as its
nature, and roves about as the great delusion.

She ranges throughout the world as long as she is ignorant of her
lord, Shiva, who is ever serenely self-contained, without decay or
decrease, beginningless and endless, and without a second.

No sooner is this Goddess conscious of herself as one and the
same with the Lord of self-consciousness than she is joined with her
Lord Shiva and becomes one with him.

Nature touching Spirit forsakes her character as gross nature and
becomes one with the sole Unity, as a river is absorbed into the
sea.

The river falling into the ocean is no more the river but the
ocean. Its waters mingling with sea waters become the salt sea.
Just so, the mind cleaving to Shiva is united with him and finds
rest therein, as the blade is sharpened by its reduction upon the
stone.

The mind engrossed in its own nature forgets the Eternal Spirit
and must return again to this world, never attaining spiritual
felicity.

An honest man dwells amongst thieves only so long as he does not
know them as such. No sooner does he come to know them than he is
sure to shun their company and flee from the spot.

So too the mind dwells amongst unreal dualities as long as it is
ignorant of the transcendent One. But when it becomes aware of True
Unity, it is sure to be united with it.

When the ignorant mind comes to know the Supreme Bliss attendant
on the state of Nirvana, it is ready to resort to it, as the inland
stream runs to join the boundless sea.

The mind roams bewildered in its repeated births in this
tumultuous world so long as it does not find its ultimate felicity in
the Supreme, unto which it may fly like a bee to its honeycomb.
Who is there that would abandon Divine Wisdom, once having tasted
its bliss! Who would forsake the sweet, once having known its
flavour. Tell me, Rama, who would not run to sip the delicious nectar
which pacifies all our woes and pains, prevents our repeated births
and deaths, and puts an end to all our delusions in this darksome
world?

Om Namah Shivaya

[Harjas Kaur]

Namaste Kaur Ji,

I know what Swami Krishnananda Ji teaches. I am not pointing out him. You said:
Quote:
"Rudra is crying and lifeless without Rudrani Shakti".
I asked whether crying can occur in lifeless shava?
And yet I was commenting on the Swami's description:


"When the senses and the mind leave the body, they make one cry in anguish."

"One is in a state of grief, and weeps in sorrow due to pain of severance of the senses and the mind from the physical abode."
~Swami Krishananda
Note that both the Swami's description as well as the Chandogya Upanishad which is it's primary reference:

"Rudra is the intermediary between physical elements and the intellect, between the spheres of earth and the Sun. Rudra (the howling one) as a divinity associated with winds represents life-breath (prana-vayu). Rudra is thus the principles of life. Rudra the howler or the red one is the cause of tears, because: “verily, the vital breaths are the cause of the tears, for on departing they cause everyone to lament in tears” (Chandogya Upanishad 3.16.9)."

"Rudra is crying and lifeless without Rudrani Shakti". Rudra is in grief, lamenting (is that better?) without his praana shakti, because without he has to depart/die.

"I asked whether crying can occur in lifeless shava?"
Shiva in Shavasana/corpse pose, is He still Shiva? Then He is consciousness. Consciousness can grieve without the body. As body can grieve as the life is departing from it. Why are you hung up on hair-splitting like this? You have offered no particular insights of your own, only criticisms of my definition which was actually a commentary based on the previous definitions. Accept or don't accept. If it means that much to you to write it out three times, why not simply offer a better explanation?


Again you said:
Quote:
"Ardhanarishvara
Quote:
~ ultimate Reality, union of Shiva and Shakti."

Is the union of Shakti with a Shava (lifeless) then the ultimate? I am sure that Krishnanda does not imply so. Neither the Vedas do so.
Why are you being argumentative? The union of Shiva and Shakti is the interrelationship, only one aspect of which is depicted by the Kalikaa standing over Shiva in corpse pose. And that picture with corpse pose was placed due to someone else's comments having nothing to do with what you have just attributed to me.

I have written quite a long article which concluded with:
http://www.dollsofindia.com/dollsofindiaimages/paintings2/ardhanarishwara_QA73.jpg
Ardhanarishvara ~ ultimate Reality, union of Shiva and Shakti.

Is there anything in the above posted picture to go along with the comment, ~ ultimate Reality, union of Shiva and Shakti, that has to do with corpse pose?

As you imply:
"Is the union of Shakti with a Shava (lifeless) then the ultimate? I am sure that Krishnanda does not imply so. Neither the Vedas do so."

Give me a break. Don't distort my words. The ultimate I described is clearly represented by a picture showing full unity and harmony in Ardhanarishvara which is half male and half female. Nothing you are saying is even in context.

[atanu]

And yet I was commenting on the Swami's description:When the senses and the mind leave the body, they make one cry in anguish."

Kaur Ji,

You are forgetting that the Tenth Rudra is the prAna and the eleventh Rudra is the atma. The eleven Rudras in us are progeny of one Rudra. Moreover, the following two sentences are vastly different in their meaning and intent:

a)When the senses and the mind leave the body, they make one cry in anguish.

and

b) "Rudra is crying and lifeless without Rudrani Shakti".


It is illogical that Shakti will want to unite with lifeless Rudra to become the Ultimate. Why will wandering mind pine to return to the lifeless?


I repeat the following from Yoga Vashista, translated by a sage of Swami Krishnanda's school. (No gender bias is intended, as Rudra I speak of is pure consciousness and genderless. Mind form of pure consciousness is depicted as female - the shaktis. The Agni-Rudra, OTOH, is shaktiputra and male).

From Yoga Vashistam



RETURNING TO SHIVA

The Sage Vasishtha said: The Goddess dances with her arms
outstretched, moving like a swaying forest of tall pines against the
empty sky.

She is the power of the intellect, ignorant of herself and ever
prone to action, continuing to dance about, bedecked with diverse
emblems and devices.

She is arrayed with all kinds of weapons in her thousand arms -
the bow and arrow, the spear and lance, the mace and club, the sword,
and all sorts of missiles. Conversant with all the elements of being
and non-being, she is engaged in every moment of passing time.
She contains the world in the vibration of her mind, as airy
cities and palaces are contained in the power of imagination. She
herself is that world, as the imagination itself is the utopian city.
She is the volition of Shiva, like the wind in the air. As the
air is still without its vibration, so Shiva is quiescent without his
volitional power.

This arupa volition becomes the rupa creation, just as the
formless sky produces the wind which vibrates into sound. Thus does
the will of Shiva bring forth the world out of itself.

When this volitional energy of Kali dances and plays within the
void of the Divine Mind, the world springs forth, as if by union of
the active will and the infinite field of that Supreme Mind.

Touched by the dark volitional power, the Supreme Soul of Shiva
is dissolved into the waters, just as submarine fire is extinguished
by its contact with the waters of the sea.

No sooner does this power come in contact with Shiva, the prime
cause of all, than it inclines and turns to assume the veil of nature
and its conversion to external forms.

Forsaking her boundless and elemental form, she takes upon
herself the gross and limited shapes of land and hills, and then
becomes the beautiful forms of forests and flowers.

In the great round she rebecomes the formless void, and again is
one with the infinite vacuum of Shiva, just as a river with all its
impetuous speed enters into the immensity of the sea.

She becomes as one with Shiva by giving up her identity as an
aspect of Shiva. This feminine form of Shiva is merged back into
Shiva, the prime male, who is the form of the formless void and
perfect tranquillity.

Rama asked: Tell me, O Sage, how that sovereign Goddess Shiva
could obtain her quietude by coming into contact with the Supreme God
Shiva?

Vasishtha replied: Know, Rama, that the Goddess Shiva is the will
of the God Shiva. She is styled as nature and famed as the Great
Illusion of the world.

The great God is said to be the lord of nature and the prime
male. He is of the form of air and is represented as Shiva, calm and
quiet as the autumnal sky.

The great Goddess is the energy and will of the Intellect and is
ever active as force in motion. She abides in the world as its
nature, and roves about as the great delusion.

She ranges throughout the world as long as she is ignorant of her
lord, Shiva, who is ever serenely self-contained, without decay or
decrease, beginningless and endless, and without a second.

No sooner is this Goddess conscious of herself as one and the
same with the Lord of self-consciousness than she is joined with her
Lord Shiva and becomes one with him.

Nature touching Spirit forsakes her character as gross nature and
becomes one with the sole Unity, as a river is absorbed into the
sea.

The river falling into the ocean is no more the river but the
ocean. Its waters mingling with sea waters become the salt sea.
Just so, the mind cleaving to Shiva is united with him and finds
rest therein, as the blade is sharpened by its reduction upon the
stone.

The mind engrossed in its own nature forgets the Eternal Spirit
and must return again to this world, never attaining spiritual
felicity.

An honest man dwells amongst thieves only so long as he does not
know them as such. No sooner does he come to know them than he is
sure to shun their company and flee from the spot.

So too the mind dwells amongst unreal dualities as long as it is
ignorant of the transcendent One. But when it becomes aware of True
Unity, it is sure to be united with it.

When the ignorant mind comes to know the Supreme Bliss attendant
on the state of Nirvana, it is ready to resort to it, as the inland
stream runs to join the boundless sea.

The mind roams bewildered in its repeated births in this
tumultuous world so long as it does not find its ultimate felicity in
the Supreme, unto which it may fly like a bee to its honeycomb.
Who is there that would abandon Divine Wisdom, once having tasted
its bliss! Who would forsake the sweet, once having known its
flavour. Tell me, Rama, who would not run to sip the delicious nectar
which pacifies all our woes and pains, prevents our repeated births
and deaths, and puts an end to all our delusions in this darksome
world?

Om Shanti

Om Namah Shivaya

[Harjas Kaur]

"You are forgetting that the Tenth Rudra is the prAna and the eleventh Rudra is the atma."

And did my post not say:

"Rudra isn't only a representation of Supreme Consciousness but also that force which is all pervading. So the Rudras and their counterparts the Mahavidyas are representations of powers lying dormant within our bodies. This is the yogic symbolism. Rudra is crying and lifeless without Rudrani Shakti." I am not the one asserting duality of separation of Divinity. I am merely exploring the yogic representation explaining the character of fundamental physical forces within the body and how they are represented in terms of male and female UNITY.

Let me simplify it:

"So the Rudras and their counterparts the Mahavidyas."

The Rudras have female counterparts which form an indivisible unity albeit in slightly different roles depending on the particular story, tradition or representation. Why am I forgetting the Pranaa Shakti which Rudra represents and which also Rudrani represents?

Rudra IS Rudrani. And Devi is represented as Shakti Swaroopini.



"The Counterpart of the Ten Mahavidyas is the Tradition of the Seven Goddesses which are theSeven Pranas and Chakras of the Vedas, also Rudras. But they are also Fire-Goddesses and forms of Agni's wife, Svaha. Agni himself is Vedic Rudra or Shiva also, hence the Seven Goddess Tradition is also Vedic as the seven Maidens that are forms of Agni, his Mother in Rig-Veda and wife and Mother of Rudra: "Kali (black), Karali (terrific), Manogava (swift as thought), Sulohita (very red), Sudhumravarna (purple), Sphulingini (sparkling), and the brilliant Visvarupi (having all forms), all these playing about are called the seven tongues (of fire)." (Manduka Upanishad, I. 2.4)

The entire teaching of the Mahavidyas is merely a feminine form of the Vedic worship of Rudra and the Maruts or Rudras:
The Rudras like Mahavidyas are born from Maharudraor Rudra, like Durga. They kill Demons, are the letters of Sanskrit Alphabet, are the seven Pranasand Chakras as well as the Ten Pranas of Pranayama in Yoga in the Vedas, just like Mahavidyas. Most of all, they are also forms of Agni or Fire, like the Goddess are are likened often to Sevenforms of Agni. Their feminine form are the Rudranis or Prishnis, later to be the Mahavidyas." http://www.vedanet.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=62Remember I quoted this before:


In Yogini Tantra, Shiva says 'This Vidya Kalika is Maha-Maha-Maha-Vidya, through whom even the worst may attain Nirvana. Even Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheshvara are Her worshippers.She who is Kali the supreme Vidya, is Tara also. The notion of a difference between them has given rise to various Mantras.'

Again the Kamakhya Tantra says Oh Parameshvari, seven lakhs of Mahavidyas remain hidden. Of them all Shodashi is said to be the most sublime. But Oh Devi, the Mother of the world, Kalika is the mother even of Her.' Niruttara Tantra says ' Without knowledge of Shakti, Oh Devi, there is no Nirvana. That Shakti is Dakshina Kali who is the own form of all Vidyas (Sarvvavidyarupini).'

The Yamala again says ' As is Kail so is Tara and so are Chhinna and Kulluka. Oh Devi, thou, who art the supreme Kalika, art also the Murtti which is composed of these four. In the Vaidik system Sagnika (fire-maintaining) Brahma-nas achieved their ends by the offering of oblations to the seven lolling tongues of fire named Kali, Karali, Manojava, Sulohita, Sudhumravarna, Sphulingini and Devi Vishvaruchi'
Mundaka Upanishad (1st Saptaka, 2nd Khanda, 4th Sutra).Again to emphasize for clarity:

"Niruttara Tantra says ' Without knowledge of Shakti, Oh Devi, there is no Nirvana. That Shakti is Dakshina Kali who is the own form of all Vidyas (Sarvvavidyarupini).'

[atanu]

Rudra IS Rudrani. And Devi is represented as Shakti Swaroopini.


Namaste Kaur Ji,

I agree.

Through manifested existence we need to revere and worship the teachers and Rudrani is the highest teacher, who teaches Brahman to Indra and compassionate mother, who feeds all. Her love is the highest power.

I also bow down to all female forms in reverence, because they protect the unseen whereas the male forms strive to be better than the other (this is borrowed from Koran).

Om Namah Shivaya

[kd gupta]

Namaste Kaur Ji,

I agree.

Through manifested existence we need to revere and worship the teachers and Rudrani is the highest teacher, who teaches Brahman to Indra and compassionate mother, who feeds all. Her love is the highest power.

I also bow down to all female forms in reverence, because they protect the unseen whereas the male forms strive to be better than the other (this is borrowed from Koran).

Om Namah Shivaya

I agree with Atanuji completely and am much afraid of my own Maya .

[atanu]

I agree with Atanuji completely and am much afraid of my own Maya .

:) Gupta ji, You are being naughty but it is true nevertheless.

This brings me to joke. Someone told me that husbands are like split ACs -- all hissing and fuming carried out outside home.

Also, men are surely tigers, whether when alone or when with consort, with one difference, however. When the consort is around, she rides the tiger -- Durga fashion.

Om

[Avazjan]

God actually has no need of a sex, that is a human definition and we apply the concept of god because of our own weakness, not because of anything god actually is or is not. So the question is, having been nurtured by a mother, or not, as adults, why the hell do we still need these concepts?

Something seems terribly wrong here...

If God has no need for sex, why is all creation a sexual play between the two primal forces in the universe, male and female, who are in reality one?

That sex and gender are also human concepts does not affect this, it only shows us how erroneous and impure our ideas about sex and gender our compared to divine gender.

[Sonny1954]

Personally, I love worshipping and chanting the names of God the Mother. Technically I'm Christian, and I find their insistence on all aspects of God being male very irritating. When I found Hinduism and Shakta, it was truly an answer to many prayers! I love praying while imagining that I am sitting in Maa Durga's loving and protective arms. At last I experience the love of God.

Om sri Durgayai Namah

[sanjaya]

If I may ask, in what traditions does Hinduism portray God as a parent figure at all? Personally I've tended to not think of God as a parent. As I see it, I already have parents, and I would not want to replace them, not even with God. I'm reminded of the story my father once told me about the race between Muruga and Ganesha. Maybe I'm wrong here, though. Do we have any traditions where God is regarded as a mother or father figure at all?

[sambya]

If I may ask, in what traditions does Hinduism portray God as a parent figure at all? Personally I've tended to not think of God as a parent. As I see it, I already have parents, and I would not want to replace them, not even with God. I'm reminded of the story my father once told me about the race between Muruga and Ganesha. Maybe I'm wrong here, though. Do we have any traditions where God is regarded as a mother or father figure at all?


why ? the whole of tantra shastra is based on viewing god as mother . shaktism also views god as mother , a parent .

as per vaishnav doctrines there are six ways one can establish a relation with god ---

shanta(service in passive stage) , dasya(as a servant) , sakhya(as a friend) , vaatsalya(as a child) and madhur(as a lover) .

viewing of god as parents comes under vaatsalya bhava . broadly speaking everything that has to do with parent child relations come under vaatsalya .

apart from that many slokas(specially the vedic ones) also mention him as father .

what about the famous " twameva mata cha pitaa twameva " ?


As I see it, I already have parents, and I would not want to replace them, not even with God.

parents are our closest friends and the highest objects of reverence , since without them we could not have been born .

but at the end and when viewed from hindu spiritual viewpoint even that relationship is mayic !!! yes ................we are all floating across countless existence as someones mother and father or son . shankaracharya says in bhavanyastakam " na tato na mata na bandhurnanapta " which means ---- i dont know any mother , father or friends .....you alone is my refuge "

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam:

My little narrow Saiva take goes something like this:

1) Siva is genderless. Representations may demonstrate some gender, but Siva is genderless. If Siva is beyond time, form, and space, then certainly Siva is beyond gender.

2) There is no Sakti independently without Siva. The two go hand in hand like night and day, or up and down.

3) Since Siva is all and in all, in the more dual preliminary stages as Primal Soul, Siva can be mother, father, brother, teacher, restrainer, pusher, puller, helper, etc.

But from my Hindu Solidarity take, I respect and accept all other points of view. If it helps someone to place gender or separate Siva and Sakti, so be it.

Aum Namasivaya

[sambya]

yes eastern ji ,

that is correct . it is us who have personified different aspects of god in genders .

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Mother God, Father God.... Are there 2 gods?:eek: Oh I never knew that!:rolleyes:
I always thought God was one and that his gender was err not male, not female, neither, yet both, male, female, and all other combinations. Lets just call him/her/that... Err whatever whoever it is as a gender, which is a gender which is unique only to that person. I'm not getting the proper words. He/She/It/Whatever has no form, no physical appearance, only consciousness, how can you give it a gender such as male, female or even neuter(which is neither male nor female, like objects like fire, computer, energy, matter, whatever, etc.) or even any sort of complex gender.

Isn't the concept "Gender" completely full of FLAWS? Its like saying, "Who is the parent of God?" or even, "Can anyone tell me the smell of color?" "Can anyone tell me the sight of spicy taste?" "Can anyone tell me the taste of sound?" or ... (I'm getting tired typing).... et cetera. Reach god, God will tell you the the answers for the above questions and also which gender god belongs to.

I know you've started this thread in the sense, "Do you see the image of God as woman or man?" You must have meant this right. I see God as Shiva mostly, secondly as Parvathi and rest of the times as Krishna.