rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2013/12/bhedam-377-issue-is-driving-wedge.html
Rajeev ascribes to Hindus a non-existent view: that they perceive - or could perceive - the ardhanArIshwara ("idea of ardhanArIshwara" as he put it) as referring to the transgendered state. The two have no bearing on each other. And - consequently - that is NOT what Hindoos perceive when they look at Ardhanaareeshwara.
It's like claiming that Hindus perceive "the idea of a Vishvaroopa form" as representing persons with multiple personalities (bipolar people). That's not how the vishwaroopa form is seen by Hindoos at all.
Don't know how Rajeev came to express alien views. But it is alien (and aliens incl dabblers "converts" do express such views on a whole host of Hindu matters - because it's not their ancestral religion.)
As all Hindoos know full well and better -
Short version:
Ardhanaareeshwara = Maataa + Pitaa together in one form, refer to Vedam (includes Upanishads)/Shri Chakram.
*That* is what all the Hindoos perceive.
Ardhanareeshwara moorti is the embodiment that reveals to the Hindooos how paramaatman (parabrahmam) is a unity consisting of Shiva (Ishwara) and his Shakti (also called Devaatmashakti in the Upanishads and stotras, etc). From paramaatman's two parts, the Hindus' Kosmos is generated. That is why they are the Amma and Appa of all Hindu cosmology including the Hindus. Every Hindoo subconsciously knows all this - and far more - when the *Hindoo* (not alien dabbler or alienated) looks at the MAtA-PitA form that is ardhanArIshwara.
ArdhanArIshwara is *literally* equivalent (identical to) the Shri Chakram. It is the moorti form of the yantram (and vice-versa). Completely identical. (They're both full embodiments of Hindoos' ancestral Divine Parents.)
I.e. ardhanArIshwara=shrI chakram. So replace the words "the idea of ardhanariswara" in Rajeev's quoted statement above with "the idea of shri chakra" to see how inane his statement reads to Hindoos.
Longer version:
Ardhanaareeshwara is the embodiment of paramaatman/Ishwara revealing to the Hindoos how the paramapuruSha (in generative mode at least) consists partly of his Prakriti (his Shakti, aka Devaatma Shakti - literally embodied in his Wife who is ever a part of Him). The union of puruSha-Prakruti (also called Shiva-Shakti in Shaivam/Shaktam - but each/all Hindoo Deva-s and their Shaktis ultimately have ardhanArIshwara moorti forms, going by various texts: each/all the Hindoo Gods embody the paramaatman) - the union of Shiva and Shakti results in the All/Kosmos that gets generated, of which they become/are the Maataa and Pitaa obviously. It is this nature of the Paramashiva showing how parAshakti is his own shakti/an innate part of him, their union in Ishwara/paramaatman's generative form, and the result produced from it - the All of Hindoo cosmology, including the Hindoos themselves - that is revealed to the Hindoo and which the Hindoo correctly perceives (automatically, at a subconscious level - which is the only way and only level to perceive this) when Hindoos look at the Ardhanaareeshwara moorti. The puruSha ("Male", "spirit") part of Bhagavan provides the life force/the male seed (the puruSha, spirit) that combines with the matter of the universe manifested by his Shakti, the Prakriti (the 'female' part, Nature). [<snip>]
Maataa creates the All with her very being (Prakriti's essence) and Pitaa's essence (spirit) enters into it, to instill his life-essence (spirit) into it all. The Hindoos - and all the cosmology of Hindu perception - are thus made out of the 'male' and 'female' contributions of their Divine Father(s) and Divine Mother(s). These "contributions" - what aspects are of Shiva/"male" and which are of Shakti/"female" - are specifically enumerated in Hindu religion. They are 'gendered' in a specifically Sankhyan (not everyday) sense. Speaking of which, Ardhanaareeshwara is literally the same embodiment as the Yonilingam. They reveal the same vision of the nature of the Divine Parents to the Hindus: Yoni and Lingam have specific meanings in the Hindu Sankhyam (as originally seen in the upaniShads and other ancient Hindu texts etc), where they refer not to everyday organs - as all Hindoos know, so it feels stupid to even say this explicitly (but it was always nice to see alien morons grasping at straws, however) - but literally refer to the Hindu Sankhyam words for the 2 aspects/parts/"halves" of paramaatman - at least in generative mode: Shakti/Prakriti (which is called ParamapuruSha's Yoni) and PuruSha (IIRC in Sankhyam, the join pt of the Purusha in Prakriti when Prakriti evolves around it and including it is called Lingam; or something, but not sure, look it up)
- and how parAshakti, being an innate part of Ishwara, is inseparable from Shiva (i.e. she is his own Shakti) and that the combination of these two parts/aspects that form the unity of Paramaatman/paramashiva give rise to/manifest/generate the known Kosmos and form (pervade) the Kosmos which is entirely of them. Krishna said the same too in the Gita when he said how he (as the puruShottama/paramapuruSha) was the Appa/the seed of all and his Prakriti* was the Amma of all.
[* Also variously named Shakti, Maaya, Mohini, Yoni, etc - hence common names for all Devis. ParamapuruSha's Prakriti version is DevI. E.g. Durga is called Vishnu Maya/Vishnu Durga etc.<snip>]
Anyway, overlooking my lame description (just peruse any Hindu texts, even naamaavalis, which are full of instructive descriptives), ^that^ is what Hindoos perceive. They see their Maataa and their Pitaa - joined in perfect form as the Supreme Ultimate/showing the Nature of the Supreme Ultimate as made of these 2 "halves"/parts/aspects - when they look at their ardhanaareeshwara.
It is of course important to bear in mind that the Gods and their Shaktis (Devis) are not "hypothetical" - Shiva Shakti etc are not mere 'theory' with Paramaatman as the only 'reality'. <- That is something only ignorant armchair intellectuals who know nothing about the Gods/paramaatman (and never will) would conclude. The Hindoos' Divine Fathers and Mothers - all of whom are paramaatman individually, in pairs, in collections and collectively - are literally true and real. They literally also exist manifest in their joined forms (i.e. Ardhanaareeshwara moorti is naturally occurring, being an Own form of the Gods). All these Gods and Ammans and their forms are real and can be seen - and not because I say so, but because it IS so (no proof provided herewith, obviously. But being a native Hindoo you either already know the proof for yourself, or else can always obtain your own proof. Heathenism works - Hindu religion certainly.)
To repeat:
Viewing your (your ancestral religion's) "idols" *correctly* is the essence of "idolatry" - a fundamental, basic aspect of heathenism. If you can't do it, you're not a heathen (but are instead looking at the "idols" as an alien would. Which is the worst possible thing that could happen to anyone who is meant to be a heathen - i.e. of direct heathen ancestry). Moral: don't de-heathenise.
Actually, I needn't have bothered with my cringeworthy attempts at "explaining" how - in their Own form as ardhanArIshwara moorti - the Divine Parents of the native Hindoos are revealing (as in, instilling via visual *osmosis*) Vedic realities about an important aspect of their Divine Nature (but then, any moorti of the Gods is Veda-swaroopam and parabrahma-swaroopam). Instead, I could just have re-pasted the following 2 excerpts that summarise the relevant bits from original sacred Hindoo scriptures, which would have sufficed to refute the novel alien views about what ardhanaareeshwara 'supposedly' means to Hindoos:
Quote:Saturday, December 14, 2013(The extra surrounding lines are included only for conveying the context from which Rajeev wrote the bold bit)
bhedam: the #377 issue is driving a wedge between the bad guys!
homosexuality, transgender etc have not been burning issues in hindu society: note hijras (tolerated), shikhandi (given humane, special treatment), the idea of ardhanariswara etc.
violent anti-homosexuality is a semitic thing. because of the binary semitic mindset, they cannot see any grey areas. thus they have always been intolerant of anything they perceive as outside 'the norm'. this is what led to racism, oppression of females, pogroms against religious groups, animosity towards certain animals, etc.
[etc]
Rajeev ascribes to Hindus a non-existent view: that they perceive - or could perceive - the ardhanArIshwara ("idea of ardhanArIshwara" as he put it) as referring to the transgendered state. The two have no bearing on each other. And - consequently - that is NOT what Hindoos perceive when they look at Ardhanaareeshwara.
It's like claiming that Hindus perceive "the idea of a Vishvaroopa form" as representing persons with multiple personalities (bipolar people). That's not how the vishwaroopa form is seen by Hindoos at all.
Don't know how Rajeev came to express alien views. But it is alien (and aliens incl dabblers "converts" do express such views on a whole host of Hindu matters - because it's not their ancestral religion.)
As all Hindoos know full well and better -
Short version:
Ardhanaareeshwara = Maataa + Pitaa together in one form, refer to Vedam (includes Upanishads)/Shri Chakram.
*That* is what all the Hindoos perceive.
Ardhanareeshwara moorti is the embodiment that reveals to the Hindooos how paramaatman (parabrahmam) is a unity consisting of Shiva (Ishwara) and his Shakti (also called Devaatmashakti in the Upanishads and stotras, etc). From paramaatman's two parts, the Hindus' Kosmos is generated. That is why they are the Amma and Appa of all Hindu cosmology including the Hindus. Every Hindoo subconsciously knows all this - and far more - when the *Hindoo* (not alien dabbler or alienated) looks at the MAtA-PitA form that is ardhanArIshwara.
ArdhanArIshwara is *literally* equivalent (identical to) the Shri Chakram. It is the moorti form of the yantram (and vice-versa). Completely identical. (They're both full embodiments of Hindoos' ancestral Divine Parents.)
I.e. ardhanArIshwara=shrI chakram. So replace the words "the idea of ardhanariswara" in Rajeev's quoted statement above with "the idea of shri chakra" to see how inane his statement reads to Hindoos.
Longer version:
Ardhanaareeshwara is the embodiment of paramaatman/Ishwara revealing to the Hindoos how the paramapuruSha (in generative mode at least) consists partly of his Prakriti (his Shakti, aka Devaatma Shakti - literally embodied in his Wife who is ever a part of Him). The union of puruSha-Prakruti (also called Shiva-Shakti in Shaivam/Shaktam - but each/all Hindoo Deva-s and their Shaktis ultimately have ardhanArIshwara moorti forms, going by various texts: each/all the Hindoo Gods embody the paramaatman) - the union of Shiva and Shakti results in the All/Kosmos that gets generated, of which they become/are the Maataa and Pitaa obviously. It is this nature of the Paramashiva showing how parAshakti is his own shakti/an innate part of him, their union in Ishwara/paramaatman's generative form, and the result produced from it - the All of Hindoo cosmology, including the Hindoos themselves - that is revealed to the Hindoo and which the Hindoo correctly perceives (automatically, at a subconscious level - which is the only way and only level to perceive this) when Hindoos look at the Ardhanaareeshwara moorti. The puruSha ("Male", "spirit") part of Bhagavan provides the life force/the male seed (the puruSha, spirit) that combines with the matter of the universe manifested by his Shakti, the Prakriti (the 'female' part, Nature). [<snip>]
Maataa creates the All with her very being (Prakriti's essence) and Pitaa's essence (spirit) enters into it, to instill his life-essence (spirit) into it all. The Hindoos - and all the cosmology of Hindu perception - are thus made out of the 'male' and 'female' contributions of their Divine Father(s) and Divine Mother(s). These "contributions" - what aspects are of Shiva/"male" and which are of Shakti/"female" - are specifically enumerated in Hindu religion. They are 'gendered' in a specifically Sankhyan (not everyday) sense. Speaking of which, Ardhanaareeshwara is literally the same embodiment as the Yonilingam. They reveal the same vision of the nature of the Divine Parents to the Hindus: Yoni and Lingam have specific meanings in the Hindu Sankhyam (as originally seen in the upaniShads and other ancient Hindu texts etc), where they refer not to everyday organs - as all Hindoos know, so it feels stupid to even say this explicitly (but it was always nice to see alien morons grasping at straws, however) - but literally refer to the Hindu Sankhyam words for the 2 aspects/parts/"halves" of paramaatman - at least in generative mode: Shakti/Prakriti (which is called ParamapuruSha's Yoni) and PuruSha (IIRC in Sankhyam, the join pt of the Purusha in Prakriti when Prakriti evolves around it and including it is called Lingam; or something, but not sure, look it up)
- and how parAshakti, being an innate part of Ishwara, is inseparable from Shiva (i.e. she is his own Shakti) and that the combination of these two parts/aspects that form the unity of Paramaatman/paramashiva give rise to/manifest/generate the known Kosmos and form (pervade) the Kosmos which is entirely of them. Krishna said the same too in the Gita when he said how he (as the puruShottama/paramapuruSha) was the Appa/the seed of all and his Prakriti* was the Amma of all.
[* Also variously named Shakti, Maaya, Mohini, Yoni, etc - hence common names for all Devis. ParamapuruSha's Prakriti version is DevI. E.g. Durga is called Vishnu Maya/Vishnu Durga etc.<snip>]
Anyway, overlooking my lame description (just peruse any Hindu texts, even naamaavalis, which are full of instructive descriptives), ^that^ is what Hindoos perceive. They see their Maataa and their Pitaa - joined in perfect form as the Supreme Ultimate/showing the Nature of the Supreme Ultimate as made of these 2 "halves"/parts/aspects - when they look at their ardhanaareeshwara.
It is of course important to bear in mind that the Gods and their Shaktis (Devis) are not "hypothetical" - Shiva Shakti etc are not mere 'theory' with Paramaatman as the only 'reality'. <- That is something only ignorant armchair intellectuals who know nothing about the Gods/paramaatman (and never will) would conclude. The Hindoos' Divine Fathers and Mothers - all of whom are paramaatman individually, in pairs, in collections and collectively - are literally true and real. They literally also exist manifest in their joined forms (i.e. Ardhanaareeshwara moorti is naturally occurring, being an Own form of the Gods). All these Gods and Ammans and their forms are real and can be seen - and not because I say so, but because it IS so (no proof provided herewith, obviously. But being a native Hindoo you either already know the proof for yourself, or else can always obtain your own proof. Heathenism works - Hindu religion certainly.)
To repeat:
Viewing your (your ancestral religion's) "idols" *correctly* is the essence of "idolatry" - a fundamental, basic aspect of heathenism. If you can't do it, you're not a heathen (but are instead looking at the "idols" as an alien would. Which is the worst possible thing that could happen to anyone who is meant to be a heathen - i.e. of direct heathen ancestry). Moral: don't de-heathenise.
Actually, I needn't have bothered with my cringeworthy attempts at "explaining" how - in their Own form as ardhanArIshwara moorti - the Divine Parents of the native Hindoos are revealing (as in, instilling via visual *osmosis*) Vedic realities about an important aspect of their Divine Nature (but then, any moorti of the Gods is Veda-swaroopam and parabrahma-swaroopam). Instead, I could just have re-pasted the following 2 excerpts that summarise the relevant bits from original sacred Hindoo scriptures, which would have sufficed to refute the novel alien views about what ardhanaareeshwara 'supposedly' means to Hindoos:
Quote:Pre-classical Samkhya
[...]
The concepts of the Purusha, of the Prakriti, of the Gunas, of the evolution of different categories, of life being a vale of sorrows, of the doctrine of Samsara or repeated births and deaths, of gaining freedom from Samsara through spiritual striving, etc. are familiar to the Upanishads, may be with some differences of meaning, and they find a place in the classical Samkhya. The Mundaka and the Katha Upanishads, if closely studied, will be found to have much Samkhyan affinities. The Shvetashvatara Upanishad gives clear evidence of the existence of a pre-classical Samkhya that is not distinguishable from Vedantic ideals. In that Upanishad we get for the first time the expression Prakriti, which is also called Maya--a term which in the earlier literatures was known as Brahman, Akshara, Avyakta, and Mahan-atma. The theory of the three Gunas, which bind the Purusha, is adumbrated in this Upanishad in the passage IV.5, where it speaks of the "Aja" ('female unborn'), red, white and black in colour, and producing offspring resembling her. The dualism of Purusha and Prakriti is clearly visible, but unlike in the classical Samkhya they are unified in Supreme Being, all-powerful, described as Isha or Deva. Prakriti is called His Yoni (source of creative power) and also as Devatma-shakti (the inherent Power of the Lord). It speaks in the same breath in contiguous passages about Samkhya and Vedanta in expressions like samkhya-yogadhigamyam (the Highest Truth that can be attained through Samkhya and Yoga) and vedante prachoditam paramam guhyam (the Supreme Truth inculcated in the Vedanta). The Upanishad also mentions the name of Kapila, the reputed author of the Samkhya philosophy, although that word is interpreted in commentaries as the 'golden-coloured one', the Hiranyagarbha.
Gita Samkhya
The existence of a pre-classical Samkhya, which is both theistic and devotional and therefore indistinguishable from Vedanta, is most abundantly clear from the Mahabharata from its most important sections, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Mokshadharma section of the Shantiparva. [...] While in classical Samkhya, Prakriti is of the nature of the Gunas, the Gita describes the Gunas as both constituting Prakriti (Gunamayi), and as born of Prakriti (Prakritijan). It is the power [i.e. Shakti] of Ishwara (God).
[...]
Quote:The Tantra is regarded as a Shruti or Agama [...] It is thus classed with the Vedas. It is usually defined as "shrutishAkhAvisheShaH", a particular branch of the Vedas. This claim is strongly maintained not only by the later Tantras, but also by the earlier ones. One of the oldest Tantras available in manuscript, NS, holds that the Tantra is the culmination of the esoteric science of the vedAnta and the sAMkhya. In fact, it combines with the ultimate reality of Brahman or Shiva the validity of the world as an expression of His Shakti. The consort of Shiva therefore is first taught the vedAnta, then the 25 sAMkhyas [saamkhya categories], and after that the Shiva Tantra. P, which is an equally old tAntric text, says, 'The Tantra, first communicated by Shiva, came down through tradition. It is Agama with the characteristics of chandas (Vedas).'(The final is bit is included pre-emptively so no one tries to poach on these matters for competing ideologies or by declaring it is "non-Vedic religion". When it is - of course - Hindoo onlee.)
The later Tantras reiterate the same claim. The K Tantra says (II. 140-41) that kuladharma is based on, and inspired by, the truth of the Vedas. In the same place, Shiva cites passages from the shruti in support of His doctrine. P2 and other Tantras cite vaidika-mahAvAkyas and mantras; and as mantras are a part of the Vedas, the M Tantra says that the Tantra is a part of the Vedas. The N Tantra calls the Tantra the fifth Veda, and kulAchAra the fifth Ashrama, which follows all the others. The MSM-tantra says that the disciple must be pure of soul and a knower of the Vedas. He who is devoid of vaidikakriyA is disqualified. The GT says that the tAntric sAdhaka must be a believer in the Vedas, ever attached to Brahman, living in Brahman and taking shelter with Brahman. The K Tantra says that there is no knowledge higher than that of the Vedas and no doctrine equal to the kaula.