click tracking
Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
S1va

Shiva and Shakti - one and the same or different aspects of reality?

Recommended Posts

This started as a discussion in chat with a friend.  Are Shiva and Shakti essentially one and the same?  To me it feels like they are different aspects of may be one all pervading reality.  But, I can't accept they are one and same.  For all practical purposes Shiva and Shakti are different to me.

We can equate this as consciousness/awareness vs energy also.  Are they one and the same, even at higher levels.  They may be aspects of the same, but are they the same?

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you were to think of it as energy is the radiating power of silence?

Viewing it like that there is no separation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tom said:

What if you were to think of it as energy is the radiating power of silence?

I get what you mean.  But when we put it that way, it  sounds like silence is the first or original and energy is its power.  I see them separately for practical purposes and everything else as the interplay of silence (Shiva) and energy (Shakti).

23 minutes ago, Tom said:

Viewing it like that there is no separation.

I am fine with 'no separation', between anything for that matter, not just silence and energy.  But that does not essentially mean they are the same, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just depends on how you look at it.

Energy magnifies silence =  silence radiates energy.

I think what most people notice is that they are more residing on one side of the spectrum from time to time. Sometimes we can be on the energy side, filled with energy, all the way up to feeling emptiness with it. With silence it can be so intense it is hard to do anything but just sit there from the power of it. So we tend to think of them as two separate things or how one can influence the other.

They are the same to me but would love others comments on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that I sort of see them as two different things/beings.  While integrated as the same basis, Shiva for me would be the Space and Shakti would be the motion (or shifted state) of that Space.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I would agree that I sort of see them as two different things/beings.  While integrated as the same basis, Shiva for me would be the Space and Shakti would be the motion (or shifted state) of that Space.

 

I get the two different beings but how does that fit into the integrated as the same basis? Would it be like the two beings are representations of those aspects when in truth they are one and the same in everyone? Or something different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tom said:

I get the two different beings but how does that fit into the integrated as the same basis? Would it be like the two beings are representations of those aspects when in truth they are one and the same in everyone? Or something different?

In my personal view it would translate as Shiva is the One that emerges from the Dao, and Shakti is the motion/movement of that One. Together as beings the are the Two that come from the One.  Additionally, all of us are individually a One that emerges, so you could say we all have the same types of polarity aspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jeff said:

In my personal view it would translate as Shiva is the One that emerges from the Dao, and Shakti is the motion/movement of that One. Together as beings the are the Two that come from the One.  Additionally, all of us are individually a One that emerges, so you could say we all have the same types of polarity aspects.

 

Would it be equally valid in that view to state, Shakti is the One that emerged from Dao and Shiva is the silent aspect of that?

In essence, it is not clear to me what is the One that came out of Dao.  I wonder perhaps it is the combined union of Shiva+Shakti that came out of Dao as One (as opposed to just Shiva), and from that One, they became Shiva and Shakti as Two.  All of us are also part of that One (Shiva+Shakti) and have the aspects of Two polarities.  Just some thoughts and the way I am interpreting now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, S1va said:

 

Would it be equally valid in that view to state, Shakti is the One that emerged from Dao and Shiva is the silent aspect of that?

Not if you use a KS view of the definitions.  At a human level Shiva would be like a quiet mind (and also the mind), while Shakti would be the motion (or activity) in the mind.  But, if you go with a more yogacara view in buddhism, then they would say that buddhamind is really just the activity itself, so you could use your Shakti view with that.

8 minutes ago, S1va said:

In essence, it is not clear to me what is the One that came out of Dao.  I wonder perhaps it is the combined union of Shiva+Shakti that came out of Dao as One (as opposed to just Shiva), and from that One, they became Shiva and Shakti as Two.  All of us are also part of that One (Shiva+Shakti) and have the aspects of Two polarities.  Just some thoughts and the way I am interpreting now.

In KS it is really Shiva-Shakti anyways with no separation.  Just at the next level down they talk about the container (Shiva) and the activity inside the container (Shakti).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Not if you use a KS view of the definitions.  At a human level Shiva would be like a quiet mind (and also the mind), while Shakti would be the motion (or activity) in the mind.  But, if you go with a more yogacara view in buddhism, then they would say that buddhamind is really just the activity itself, so you could use your Shakti view with that.

It makes sense about the KS view.  I guess the Shaktha traditions (Sri Vidhya) hold the other view that Shakti is the first one to emerge.  Not as equally valid as I stated but completely as other way around.

Edited to add: I should have said some Shakta traditions.  Not all.  There are others who hold Shiva to be the One, yet worship Shakti as Supreme deity.

 

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

In KS it is really Shiva-Shakti anyways with no separation.  Just at the next level down they talk about the container (Shiva) and the activity inside the container (Shakti).

 Can the container exist without the activity (contents) -- in this case -- to say it emerged first? In other words does Shiva independently have any meaning or existence without Shakti?

Edited by S1va
Added 'activity' with contents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, S1va said:

It makes sense about the KS view.  I guess the Shaktha traditions (Sri Vidhya) hold the other view that Shakti is the first one to emerge.  Not as equally valid as I stated but completely as other way around.

 

 Can the container exist without the contents -- in this case -- to say it emerged first? In other words does Shiva independently have any meaning or existence without Shakti?

In theory, yes the container could exist without contents.  In many traditions, this would be thought of as perfectly quiet/still mind. Some consider this cessation (but I would disagree :) ). In practice, one realizes Shakti before Shiva, and that is why is KS it is viewed as an "earlier" (or lower) tattvas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jeff said:

In theory, yes the container could exist without contents.  In many traditions, this would be thought of as perfectly quiet/still mind. Some consider this cessation (but I would disagree :) ). In practice, one realizes Shakti before Shiva, and that is why is KS it is viewed as an "earlier" (or lower) tattvas.

Thanks.  That clarified some things for me.  But, I still have some doubts :)

In theory if the container or Shiva or One can exist without Shakti, then it becomes real.  Shakti as I understand is the separation, maya or the power that creates differentiation.  If One emerged from Dao and if it is just Shiva and not Shakti (yet), it is already a (some) form with certain attributes, unless that One itself is the attributeless, limitless truth.  If One is such limitless truth, then I am missing the reason, why the need for the Dao or Primordial.  Then Dao and One sound very similar or I fail to see the seperation.

Also, you said in theory, which means I assume practically it is not possible.  In this case, does that theory still have any significance?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to also make sure when you refer to Shiva as container here, you are not referring to Paramashiva which in definition sounds similar to Dao.  But to the Shiva that emerges from Paramashiva later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, S1va said:

I want to also make sure when you refer to Shiva as container here, you are not referring to Paramashiva which in definition sounds similar to Dao.  But to the Shiva that emerges from Paramashiva later.

Yes, I am not bothering with Paramashiva concepts or trying to say a highest Shiva as somehow different than Shiva. Let’s just say for purposes of my view Shiva(with Shakti inside) is the One.  In Buddhist terms, it would be like saying that Shiva is the Dharmakaya and Shakti is the Sambhogkaya.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Yes, I am not bothering with Paramashiva concepts or trying to say a highest Shiva as somehow different than Shiva. Let’s just say for purposes of my view Shiva(with Shakti inside) is the One.  In Buddhist terms, it would be like saying that Shiva is the Dharmakaya and Shakti is the Sambhogkaya.

 

That still leaves the question I asked in the post before the last one.  I made two replies before your last post.  Not sure if you checked the first one.  If you did and it's a combined answer, then please ignore this.

Edited by S1va

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S1va said:

Thanks.  That clarified some things for me.  But, I still have some doubts :)

In theory if the container or Shiva or One can exist without Shakti, then it becomes real.  Shakti as I understand is the separation, maya or the power that creates differentiation.  If One emerged from Dao and if it is just Shiva and not Shakti (yet), it is already a (some) form with certain attributes, unless that One itself is the attributeless, limitless truth.  If One is such limitless truth, then I am missing the reason, why the need for the Dao or Primordial.  Then Dao and One sound very similar or I fail to see the seperation.

Also, you said in theory, which means I assume practically it is not possible.  In this case, does that theory still have any significance?

 

We are effectively mixing frameworks or description. To your point, I am ultimately really saying that I do not personally agree with the concept of Shiva as described in KS. There is no ultimate “ultimate”. In theory there could be multiple distinct Shivas, each kind of its own relative ultimate.  If one would want to stay with the KS framework, you would say that the Dao = One as you have described above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

We are effectively mixing frameworks or description. To your point, I am ultimately really saying that I do not personally agree with the concept of Shiva as described in KS. There is no ultimate “ultimate”. In theory there could be multiple distinct Shivas, each kind of its own relative ultimate.  If one would want to stay with the KS framework, you would say that the Dao = One as you have described above.

I (think) get it.  In your view Shiva+Shakti or One came out of something like Dao.  But it is not ultimate.  There can be many such Ones that can come out of Dao -- which would defeat the very name or label One.

Thanks.  It is very interesting and raises so many possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S1va said:

I (think) get it.  In your view Shiva+Shakti or One came out of something like Dao.  But it is not ultimate.  There can be many such Ones that can come out of Dao -- which would defeat the very name or label One.

Thanks.  It is very interesting and raises so many possibilities.

Yes, but the Dao is really not a thing. More like nothingness with infinite potential. :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Yes, but the Dao is really not a thing. More like nothingness with infinite potential. :) 

 

Makes sense :)

I said 'something like' to mean some indicative term like 'Dao' or 'Emptiness' for the nothingness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, S1va said:

Makes sense :)

I said 'something like' to mean some indicative term like 'Dao' or 'Emptiness' for the nothingness.

Fits. The difference between the two for me would be something like Dao = Nothing + Infinite potential, where the One = Everything that exists + has the potential to exist.  The One emerges (or bubbles up) from the Dao.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Fits. The difference between the two for me would be something like Dao = Nothing + Infinite potential, where the One = Everything that exists + has the potential to exist.  The One emerges (or bubbles up) from the Dao.

 

 

About the Paramashiva, I was reading the part you quoted from The Secret Supreme in another post.  I understand that this is similar to the One in the view you are explaining.  In the quote below, it says Paramashiva is everywhere, which would make sense and fit with the view of One.  But, how can it be nowhere at the same time?  Wouldn't that be equating it with nothingness also?

Any thoughts on this?

 

 

"Last is that Being which does not come in the cycle of tattvas that Being called Parama Siva. Parama Siva is not only found in siva tattva or in sakti tattva. It is not only here, not only there. You will find It everywhere. You will find It from the lowest tattva to the highest. It is all levels, and therefore no level. It is everywhere, that is why It is nowhere. The one Being who is everywhere, It is nowhere."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking that nowhere is the space, not all of the space is motion but waiting for clarification :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tom said:

I am thinking that nowhere is the space, not all of the space is motion but waiting for clarification :)

That explains and makes total sense to me!  Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, S1va said:

 

About the Paramashiva, I was reading the part you quoted from The Secret Supreme in another post.  I understand that this is similar to the One in the view you are explaining.  In the quote below, it says Paramashiva is everywhere, which would make sense and fit with the view of One.  But, how can it be nowhere at the same time?  Wouldn't that be equating it with nothingness also?

Any thoughts on this?

"Last is that Being which does not come in the cycle of tattvas that Being called Parama Siva. Parama Siva is not only found in siva tattva or in sakti tattva. It is not only here, not only there. You will find It everywhere. You will find It from the lowest tattva to the highest. It is all levels, and therefore no level. It is everywhere, that is why It is nowhere. The one Being who is everywhere, It is nowhere."

 

In KS, the Parama Siva would translate to the Dharmakaya aspect of of Buddha. It is sort of like the stable bubble in emptiness in which all that exists or has the potential to exists resides. It is not really a level (like in layers of consciousness) or tattvas, it is more like the stable framework itself for all of the tattvas to have form. Hence, it sort of exists at all levels, but itself is not something that really exists.

Another way to look at is that everything is really just an overlay transmission, and not really something that exists. The Parama Siva is sort of like potential of a transmission or overlay, not the overlay (or dataset of the transmission) itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×