In the article, the analysis of Parvati’s longing for Shiva and subsequent Tapasya was that it was an allegory for the soul's longing for God, equated Parvati with an individual soul, and Shiva as the totality of God. The author quoted a great Vishnaivite purana to this effect, not realizing that the statement by the author of this article was contradicted by the quote from the Shrimad Bhagavatam.
Vaishnavite cosmology is much less derivative of Samkhya. Shaivite cosmology is derived from Samkhya, yoga and tantra as well as things unique to Shaivism although Vaishnavism represents Vishnu as introducing Samkhya in one of his avataras (this is also in the Shrimad Bhagavatam.) Before I go further, I want to clarify that I am not in any way disparaging Vaishnavism, or the Shrimad Bhagavatam. However, the material in the Shrimad Bhagavatam, or the philosophy of Vaishnavism, cannot apply to Shaivism without a great deal of ‘translation.’
Purusha is the self as consciousness. Prakriti is nature, which generates (in biological life) limited faculties of consciousness in its form as maya.
Shiva, the whole beyond the sum of all consciousness, the supreme transcendent, projects itself into manifestation by garbing itself with nature - prakriti. When this projection occurs, it scatters like a spread of light, and appears to constitute many different individual souls (atmans, where the supersoul is paramatman). In Kashmir Shaivism, we call the individuated soul Anu, which is part of the trinity, the other members being Shakti and Shiva.
Individual souls are still purusha, not prakriti. It is anu (purusha) longing to return to shiva (purusha). This soul is neither male nor female. Shiva is neither male nor female. Absolute transcendence is not confined to any particular pattern of experience, not confined to any particular duality, not even the primordial duality of maleness or femaleness.
Shiva is culturally represented as (static) male, and is unique in having an aniconic representation (the lingam), which despite the efforts of some Indian philosophers to disprove, is indeed a sexual symbol, but /not/ a primitive fertility symbol. To understand the lingam requires the seeker of truth to go far beyond culturally conditioned sexual mentalities. That is a subject for another time. Shakti (which includes prakriti), is represented as dynamic female, aniconically through the yoni, almost always depicted conjoined with the linga.
However Shakti has both male and female forms, as well as dynamic and static forms. These nuances are under-appreciated. It is prakriti which generates both male and female qualities and existences, like mirrors of eachother.
And who is to say what exactly defines male and female? We can provisionally define them based on conditioned observations of conditioned phenomena, but maleness and femaleness are open to so much differentiation over time, over place, over consciousness. The original maleness and femaleness is bhedabheda (two in one, dual yet nondual). No secondary descriptors apply to this primordial male (provisionally Shiva) or primordial female (provisionally Shakti). Not strong or weak. Not consciousness and nature. Not knower and known. Not subject and object. Not dynamic and static. Not foreground and background. Not even penetrating and receiving.
Shiva has both transcendent and imminent existences (and non-existences!) Shiva also pervades, and constitutes gross matter/form (where shakti here represents name in the namarupa duality). All physical manifestation is Shiva. Shiva is the gross(vyakta) and Shakti is the subtle (avyakta).
Shakti has both transcendent and imminent existences (and non existences!) Shakti is also pure satchitananda, the blissful absolute truth of consciousness, transcending even the Shiva tattva as Paramashakti with Paramashiva (the atattva beyond the 36 tattvas)
To return to the author’s analysis, the story can indeed be used as an allegory for the efforts of the individual soul to merge into its source, its sustenance, and its final end (even though it has never actually been separate save in illusion!), but that is not who Parvati is.
Parvati is Paradevi, Parashakti incarnate. She is as much Shiva as Shiva is. She is the ‘half yet whole’ of Supreme God. All individual souls are her manifestations/expansions. Shiva is the husband of all beings (who are the Shaktis of God(Shiva)). Even as Shakti is the wife of all beings (who are the Shivas of a Goddess(Shakti)). Our maleness is Shiva’s, as the one primordial male. Our femaleness is Shakti’s, as the one primordial female.
Yet they are many.
Shiva is consciousness. Shakti is conscious of consciousness.
Shakti is consciousness. Shiva is conscious of consciousness.
One is the object to the other. One is the subject of the other. They are not different, nor are they the same. We cannot say what they are. One is the attributes of the attributeless other. Both equally partake of, and participate in all of these dualistic pastimes, yet are not defined by them, nor confined by them.
To transcend our individual souls, to discover our true selves (soul and self are not the same! Atman is soul, AHAM is self. The true self is universal, and is *also* the whole) we must ourselves become Shiva and Shakti (which we actually already are, but we fail to realize and experience this.) In this way Parvati’s puranic story is excellent inspiration.
One cannot be truly Shiva without being Shakti as well. Or vice versa.
Jiva, the embodied soul, is Shiva from one view. Jiva is a Shakti of God (Shiva) from another view. Both are correct. Both are correct on the same levels, and in different levels.
For example, the embodiment part wherein all manifestation is seen as female prakriti. Yet it is also seen as male Shiva. Both are true.
The soul part, where all souls are seen as Shaktis of God. Or as Purushas(Shiva) inhabiting maya-prakriti(shakti). Both are true.
One commentator stated “Parvati does not understand the essence of Shiva and Shiva does not understand the essence of Parvati. That is the truth. So how do these two get together?”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Not even Shiva understands himself the way Shakti encompasses his shear reality with her absolute consciousness. Not even Shakti understands herself the way Shiva penetrates the depths of her shear reality with his absolute consciousness.
It is in error to ‘think of God’ in a conceptual manner, but we may indulge for the purpose of explication with the caveat that any conception we conjure up is terribly limited, and must be discarded and gone beyond once understood.
Shiva and Shatki are two mirrors exactly parallel to one another, extending infinitely in uncountable dimensions, infinitely reflecting eachother, savoring eachother’s light eternally. No measure of inequality, of differentiation can exist here. We cannot typecast Shakti as representing mortal souls entrapped in samsara seeking the supreme, and we cannot typecast Shiva as only the supreme, and not the former.
Do not make the error of duality when considering the supreme union. We can provisionally consider individuated jivatmans to be male or female in relation to God, assigning the opposite gender to God, to facilitate union. It is beneficial for men to cultivate the feeling of being female for a male God, as this subdues the male ego and facilitates union with, and merger into, the true maleness, but to believe this as a set reality is incorrect. One must also realize God as Female, and oneself as limited/individual-male. Krishna, whom men surrender to as female gopis, is also Kali, who is surrendered to as male. Yes, Krishna is Kali.
Volumes more can be said about the exquisite duality-yet-nonduality of Shiva and Shakti, in all its infinite manifestations and splendors, but what use are words in describing that which cannot be thought, or thought of, let alone spoken of? I wish only to correct misunderstandings here.
I want to be clear that I am not disparaging the work put into the article, or some of the comments. It is appreciated. However, seeing errors or partial truths, I am required to offer corrections and expansions.
