Azna

 


Mother God, Heavenly Mother, Sophia, Isis, Lakshmi, Tara, Azna, Gaia, Mother Earth, shakinah, mythos and  other names are all aspects of the Divine Feminine

We must not, however, forget the masculine god Om

“Without the all-knowing, all-perfect intellect of Father god (om), we would be pure emotion. Without Mother god (Azna), we would be pure intellect.”

“Om, therefore, represents both the unmanifest (nirguna) and manifest (saguna) aspects of God. That is why it is called pranava, to mean that it pervades life and runs through our prana or breath”

Hindi Worldview

Mother Azna Ask Azna Om & Azna

I continue to be struck by the non-inconsistencies of the various world views.  These are just various ways we project our dual mind’s interpretations onto the universe.  It’s all the same thing.  Just depends on which tunnel we look through.  If you are aware of the feminine god, by whatever name, you are centered, in the zone, connected.  Else, you’re an idiot



Advertisements

3 Responses to “Azna”

  1. walt, … re azna and om, …

    it’s true that individuals and cultures seem always to come up with ‘two parents’ to ‘credit’ for the continuous birthing of the great unfolding aka ‘the world of our natural experience’..

    it would appear that the concept of ‘God’ arises from our intuition that there must be an ‘ultimate shaper or maker of this continuously unfolding space of our experience that we call ‘the world’.

    these two choices of ‘God’, the ‘Great Shaper of the Unfolding World’ are often portrayed as ‘fighting’ amongst themselves over which shall prevail. the female god opens up her body space and things emerge and take shape as the result of the way she opens up spatial possibility. in debates in physics, this is ‘field’ which precedes ‘matter’ (local material objects or particles’). in the argument between Plato and Aristotle over ‘final cause’, there is the female ‘extrinsic final cause’, the virtual form that lies beyond the particular rendering that is sucked into being (imperfectly) as opposed to Aristotle’s packaging of teleological purpose (intrinsic final cause) within the local object (the acorn packaged with the purpose of developing into an oak tree).

    so, rightly or wrongly, there has been a tendency for different peoples/different cultures to popularize and celebrate one or the other of these ‘ultimate causes’ by talking about the presently unfolding actuality in such as way as to give credit to one or the other. in our western culture, we common talk as if ‘the force’ is masculine; i.e. as if what unfolds is ‘caused’ by agents acting on the immediate past to bring about the present. and we talk about ourselves (and any and all ‘living forms’) as if ‘the force’ that shapes them and animates their behaviour is ‘inside’ of them. that is, we say that internal agents called ‘genes’ shape their development and internal biochemical processes unleash energy that powers their movements and that there is something called ‘purpose’ that resides within them that ‘controls’ their behaviour, and furthermore, that they acquire ‘knowledge’ to inform their purpose.

    out of this comes ‘we can construct our own personally desired future’ rather than ‘life is something that happens while you are making other plans’.’

    our popular model, in the world-dominating wester culture, for ‘how the world works’ clearly puts ‘the masculine’ in the primacy. it’s not that ‘the masculine’ IS in the primacy, its that the cultural habit is to ‘talk it up like it is’ and by listening to ourselves talk, tending to ‘act like it is’. we call it ‘patriarchal’.

    in a matriarchal culture, such as the Amerindian culture was said to be, the popular model for ‘how the world works’ gives precedence to the female ‘extrinsic final cause’; i.e. the evolving ‘web-of-life’ continually opens and gives birth to new strands which are still, and always, ‘strands-in-the-web’. in this view, everything is connected with and interdependent with everything else. we are all whorls in the same flow. in the same vein, modern physics is midstream in making a ‘flip’ away from classical ‘intrinsic final cause’ where the ‘masculine’ causal agency of material particles is seen to underlie the unfolding of the universe, to the ‘female’ ‘extrinsic final cause’ of ‘field’ where gravitational and electromagnetic field is everywhere at the same time. the female ‘field’ view of origination involves ‘nonlocal’ sourcing forces where the ‘shape’ of the field underlies the visible, tangible feature that we like to identify as a ‘local, independently existing material system’ in the male view (a ‘local system’ which the male view further equips with ‘causal’ and/or ‘purposive’ powers). but in the ‘female view’, the energy field that is ‘everywhere at the same time’ is what is doing the old bump and grind and what we ‘see’ is the elbows and knees poking out from the sleeping bag rather than the ‘primary action’; e.g. non-uniformity (imbalance) in the thermal field between equatorial and polar regions induces circular currents or ‘cells’ (convection cells, whorls, hurricanes) which are ‘very visible’ but which are secondary to the underlying nonlocal field sourcing influence.

    in field theory, what we visually observe as LOCAL phenomena is secondary to the invisible NONLOCAL phenomena. the space of a CRT screen may be ‘painted’ entirely blue except for one pixel which is left unpainted. if the screen is continually repainted with the only difference being that the unpainted pixel is shifted slightly (the inverse understanding of this is that the geometry of the space is changing), the visual impression tends to be the masculine one, that the dark pixel is a particle that ‘exists locally’ and has its own space and time ‘trajectory’. thermal fields also influence the view from the satellite where the earth’s atmosphere is painted pale blue except where there is white condensate. the spiralling white ‘storm-cells’ tends to be visualized by the observer, as masculine entities that ‘exist locally’ and that have their own space and time trajectory (the thermal field that is everywhere at the same time is eclipsed by the male takeover which imposes its local object-based perspective).

    are the storm-cells moving, or is the spatial field geometry changing? we can say ‘yes’ to both, but as both lao tsu and schroedinger and the ancient hindu worldview acknowledged, the ‘local material entity’ is ‘schaumkommen’ or ‘maya’ (visual appearance). schroedinger, the originator of quantum wave dynamics, found an overlay between ‘the new physics’ and the ‘old belief system’; e.g. he writes;

    “In itself, the insight [our sense of ‘self’ as ‘I’] is not new. The earliest records, to my knowledge, date back some 2500 years or more. From the early great Upanishads the recognition ATMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was, after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really to assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts.”

    the ‘geometry of understanding ourselves, the local pixel, as ‘being-one-with’ the dynamic space we are included in’, is an ‘experience’ as schroedinger further notes, captured in the phrase DEUS FACTUS SUM (‘I have become God’) and it is has remained a strange thought to western ideology. as he says, “it sounds blasphemous and lunatic in a Christian society, to say ‘I am God Almighty’”.

    once we have the idea in our minds that ‘the hurricane is moving’, how difficult is it to ‘get back to’ the understanding that ‘it is not that the hurricane is moving but that the space of the atmosphere is transforming’. we lose our grasp of it even more if there are several hurricanes out there and we are worrying about where ‘each one is going to go’. by that point, we have surely lost the mental acknowledgment of the sourcing influence of these several ‘cells’ being nonlocal and understandable in terms of Mach’s principle; “The dynamics of the flow-space condition the dynamics of the flow-features at the same time as the dynamics of the flow-features are conditioning the dynamics of the flow-space”.

    our western habit is to orient to the ‘male aspect’; i.e. to the ‘differentiable features’, the visible, APPARENTLY LOCAL objects/organisms/systems and to make up a story of how the world works based on the notional causal/purposive actions of these notional LOCAL objects/systems which we impute as having their own locally originating, internal knowledge-informed, purpose-directed behaviours.

    in other words, we westerners tend to attribute to these visual features, ‘a mind of their own’. though as schroedinger observes; “there is only one thing, … and what seems to be plurality, is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by deception (the Indian MAYA)..”

    personally, my intellect ‘fully accepts’ that ‘the geometry/shape of the field’ is the source the visible features called ‘convection cells’ that appear to be local things that are born and move about, even though the changing geometry of the field is the (deeper than superficial visual appearances) ‘reality’. i can also accept that ‘motive force’ cannot be attributed to individual cells where there is a contemporaneous multiplicity of cells since they are reforming and moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence. to intellectually COMPREHEND this, as newton said; ‘exceeds, if I am not mistaken, the force of any human mind’. like newton, i ‘accept it’ but i cannot claim to ‘comprehend it’.

    finally, to take this same problem of ‘the one and the many’, wherein i can accept but not comprehend how those that count themselves as instances of the many can, at the same time, ‘be the one’, AND APPLY IT TO MYSELF, is not a matter for the intellect but for the spirit/heart. therefore, i find myself in a similar position to ‘the scholars of Vedanta’, having pronounced my intellectual beliefs as to ‘the one and the many’, am left to continue to strive to assimilate the deep implications of this intellectual model, in my mind.

    so, walt, … you may well say; “It’s all the same thing. Just depends on which tunnel we look through.”, but until i can find it in my heart and spirit to fully assimilate what i fully accept intellectually, my behaviour is going to continue to be influenced by what the we-the-culture brainwashes me with every day, … that i am a local, INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING material system equipped (notionally) with my own locally originating, internal knowledge and purpose-directed behaviour; i.e. i can proudly claim to have my own personal trajectory and, as the culture keeps telling me, i should devise my own private agenda/dream and ‘make it happen’. meanwhile, this is the grand recipe for spectacular social conflict and dysfunction that western society can’t seem to get enough of..

    i may be ‘centered’ ‘in theory’ but i would be an ‘idiot’ if i believed that intellectual discrimination is the defining element that separates idiots from non-idiots. i proclaim to you publicly, here and now, that ‘i am one-with-everything’, but see, there is no thunder and lightning that comes with this proclamation as it should, given the immensity of it, and i am still waiting for its arrival.

    it seems that we expect words and ideas aka ‘beliefs’ to be determinant in what goes on, but that would only be true if Aristotle was right, that the world dynamic derives from intrinsic final cause, the locally originating, internal idea and purpose-directed behaviour of local systems. but it is not to be; no matter what we believe to be ‘the correct way of thinking/believing’, life is what unfolds while we are busy occupying ourselves with such thoughts.

    the wildgoose, if he ‘knew’ that the opening of the fluid airspace and his assertive dynamics were in extrinsic-intrinsic conjugate relation, would not want such thoughts to stick around in his mind and displace his spontaneous grace.

    ted

    * * *.

  2. ellocogringo Says:

    Hi, again Mr Ted,
    If I don’t comment, I agree, by the way. as to the pixel moving across the screen, i’ve done quite a bit of thinking on this, i’ve written it up but I don’t think i’ve posted it yet.

    Oddly Mr Sid came out with this today, not inconsistent

    http://sidhere.com/2010/06/25/our-illusionary-inner-dialogue/

    if i find it, i’ll post it, after i tidy it up a bit
    walt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: