Parā vidyā dharma @paravidyadharma - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

9 months ago

Śākta spirit The foundation In non‐dual Śākta philosophy (e.g., from the Śiva‐sūtra up through later Śākta Tantric text) Shiva (pure consciousness) and Śakti (pure energy) are inseparable. When Śakti descends to manifest, there is a “violent” process of creation—prāṇa (life‐force) bursting forth from unmanifest śiva, This violent process of creation or the violent destruction for that matter is nothing but a play of kāli .In this sense, cosmic violence is simply the unfolding of reality(Shiv). Is non-violence the supreme way of life? No instead this Gandhi’s principle of absolute nonviolence is seen by a Śākta as a dangerous surrender: it places moral “purity” above the imperative to uproot oppression. From the Shakta standpoint, allowing adharma to persist under the banner of ahimsa is itself a form of complicity with darkness. Shakta dharma (ksatriya‑dharma) is defined by the obligation to protect the vulnerable, uphold justice, and, if required, wield force against tyrants. A Kṣatriya who refuses to fight when duty calls is considered to have betrayed both his own honor and the trust of those he swore to defend. Gandhi’s insistence that one should never retaliate…even under severe provocation conflicts with the classical Vedic injunction (from the Bhagavad‑gītā) that a righteous warrior must not shrink from battle when duty (dharma) demands it. For a Kṣatriya‑Śākta, Gandhi’s moral stance appears idealistic at best and irresponsible at worst. “When demons march unchallenged, mercy serves defeat,  Better to heed Devi’s roar than Gandhi’s soft retreat.” When rākṣasas threaten cosmic balance, Devi herself takes up arms to annihilate them. A Śākta thus always holds that, in the face of evil or systemic injustice, violence is not only permissible but necessary….as a sacred duty entrusted by the Goddess. But Violence is wrong? yes baseless violence is wrong but using non-violence as a veil to hide under cowardice is also wrong. Violence and non-violence both have to be inspired as a divine duty by the goddess itself. The introduction of the arms act by the british changed our mindset, All our martial arts that were prescribed and banned. That changed our warrior mentality into fickle old people who needed protection from tyranny and evils, chandrashekhar azad and bhagat singh had no background of an army yet they stood up. Everyone celebrated when Sardar Udham singh shot General dyers who caused the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh. So its not the violence that’s bad, A mother who loves and nourishes once feels also takes up arms to protect, you can’t teach non-violence to her when there’s violence all around the place. जज्ञानं सप्त मातरो वेधाम अशासत् श्रिय े । अयं ध्रुवो रायिणां चिकेत यत् ॥ “May this fixed, unchanging hymn of the Sapta Matrikas (seven mothers) who as fierce destroyers pierce spears and subdue their foes, be realized by the rishis, that it may bestow divine power (śriya) upon them.” -rig veda

paravidyadharma's tweet photo. Śākta spirit
The foundation
In non‐dual Śākta philosophy (e.g., from the Śiva‐sūtra up through later Śākta Tantric text) Shiva (pure consciousness) and Śakti (pure energy) are inseparable. When Śakti descends to manifest, there is a “violent” process of creation—prāṇa (life‐force) bursting forth from unmanifest śiva, This violent process of creation or the violent destruction for that matter is nothing but a play of kāli .In this sense, cosmic violence is simply the unfolding of reality(Shiv).
Is non-violence the supreme way of life? No instead this Gandhi’s principle of absolute nonviolence is seen by a Śākta as a dangerous surrender: it places moral “purity” above the imperative to uproot oppression. From the Shakta standpoint, allowing adharma to persist under the banner of ahimsa is itself a form of complicity with darkness. Shakta dharma (ksatriya‑dharma) is defined by the obligation to protect the vulnerable, uphold justice, and, if required, wield force against tyrants. A Kṣatriya who refuses to fight when duty calls is considered to have betrayed both his own honor and the trust of those he swore to defend.
Gandhi’s insistence that one should never retaliate…even under severe provocation conflicts with the classical Vedic injunction (from the Bhagavad‑gītā) that a righteous warrior must not shrink from battle when duty (dharma) demands it. For a Kṣatriya‑Śākta, Gandhi’s moral stance appears idealistic at best and irresponsible at worst.
“When demons march unchallenged, mercy serves defeat,
 Better to heed Devi’s roar than Gandhi’s soft retreat.”
When rākṣasas threaten cosmic balance, Devi herself takes up arms to annihilate them. A Śākta thus always holds that, in the face of evil or systemic injustice, violence is not only permissible but necessary….as a sacred duty entrusted by the Goddess.
But Violence is wrong? yes baseless violence is wrong but using non-violence as a veil to hide under cowardice is also wrong. Violence and non-violence both have to be inspired as a divine duty by the goddess itself.
The introduction of the arms act by the british changed our mindset, All our martial arts that were prescribed and banned. That changed our warrior mentality into fickle old people who needed protection from tyranny and evils, chandrashekhar azad and bhagat singh had no background of an army yet they stood up. Everyone celebrated when Sardar Udham singh shot General dyers who caused the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh. So its not the violence that’s bad, A mother who loves and nourishes once feels also takes up arms to protect, you can’t teach non-violence to her when there’s violence all around the place.
जज्ञानं सप्त मातरो वेधाम अशासत् श्रिय े ।
अयं ध्रुवो रायिणां चिकेत यत् ॥
“May this fixed, unchanging hymn of the Sapta Matrikas (seven mothers) who as fierce destroyers pierce spears and subdue their foes, be realized by the rishis, that it may bestow divine power (śriya) upon them.” -rig veda

1

9

3

2

2K

Parā vidyā dharma

@paravidyadharma

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users