“अमी हलाहल मद भरे स्वेत श्याम रतनार
जियत मरत झुकि-झुकि परत जेहिं चितवत एक बार”.
The world is created from the Book or rather Books and everything of this material world is established on a divine principle. The world is not a book; it is a product of the book. In the beginning was the book. Word, as Upanishad says “वाचारंभणो विकारोनामधेयम”and also Bible, “In the beginning was the word”. All is Egg and Earth but it is in the Book. Chicken comes out from the egg but it is of the book. Chicken knows nothing; it knows only the stones of the way which lead to the future Land that hen and cock had dreamt of in line with their mummy-papa’s dream. There is no dream that is not of the book. Nothing of human is free and independent except things like flowers that are not subjected to human laws. The blooming of a lily flower is an act of the sovereign; their will and action both are free of law of the book of human fate. Jesus said that the glory of lily flower is not comparable even to the glory of the sovereign king Solomon. Nothing of human is outside of Book. It is so much fucking materialism; it is so much fucking spiritualism. And everything is a w-hole. The Hindus, however, are perfectly logically-religiously perverted in their conception of egg and earth. A mother is simultaneously an object of hate and reverence. All religious books borrow ideas from one single book of fate. Everyone is product of the book of fate, what Mummy-Papa had read and dreamt; their child too reads and dreamt of the same. In this fatalisme, the child is the germinal contemporary of his parents, says Weissmann. The book that originally conceptualized it is still untraceable. But one thing is certain that book is about the erotic sodo-masochistic play of Mummy-Papa and Me which is directed by ancient Sages. I would trace here the repressive theologic behind it and also the illogical masculine semenic liberation theology of the sages. Lyotard has reminded us by tracing its root liber of Roman word Liberamentum which means deliverance. I am not a thinker and philosopher so my blog readers should not expect polemics from me. But I promise to be philosophically entertaining in my endeavors.
Now, let’s go with the book to understand the theology of liberation. Across the world and books of fate one thing is common that Earth and Egg both are related to maternal sacred and both are Mayatmak (मायिक). It is not just about Indians, entire ancient Mayan culture existed in mystical egg. Egg is so Mayik that Hindu Adi Sankaracharya and Buddhist Nagarjuna both puts it in the category of un-interpretable “चतुश्कोटिविनिर्मुक्त”. Let’s see this un-interpretable mystical Hindu-Buddhist egg. The philosophical “Maya” of Hindu theology and expressions “Mata” or “Maa” both are derived from the same root “ma” that means measure out. Both are entities that make life measurable. Here Purush means the individual subject that you can read philosophically as well as literally with regard to Purush-Stri (prakriti) . But how could I inter-relate it? Because, Ma and Maya both conceal Purush (the individual subject) in her veil and encloses him into worldly affairs, thus she reduces the efficacy of Purush –in respect to experience of the sublime, of absolute knowledge; reduces the efficacy of kama ( its sublime aspect) by binding him into this or that (this Kama is desired in religion, he could have absolute satisfaction only when it is directed rather when it turns towards itself or interiorized. Only this kama can bring him purnatva); she becomes fate hence reducing his “time” into a specific “space” that is home, hence reducing his possibility of freedom that could bring him pervasiveness (omnipresence!! He would like to be seen everywhere, in many houses, in many bedrooms at the same time.), etcetera. Ma-Maya demolishes Purush and converts him into a creature, a limited being– an animal in his objectivistic fold. His intrinsic desire to become a sovereign is thus destroyed by her two forms of spells called avaran and vikshep. Avaran is her veiling aspect and vikshep is her producing of the difference. Once this Purush comes under her spells, his perception is colored pink on pink; he sees only with her eyes. But as soon as Purush resolves to become a sovereign, a “Pati”, he would speak and act like a master of the slave. In this resolve, Negation becomes universal logic of the Purush . His sovereign power manifests in his thought and act both simultaneously. What he produces then is a system that negates whatever counters his logic and law. To be more precise, the thought, language, and dialectic of negation the Purush have sovereign power over egg and relations of the world that it has constructed through the book of fate. We can enter in to more in-depth analysis of this theology when we contemplate over its phallic symbolism. Hindu Puranas and Smritis that represent patriarchy repeatedly call women a fool and slave (दासी) of her Pati. She is denied a human status even. Women can never be a sovereign; her becoming ruler is always anarthkaari:
शास्त्राधिकारो न स्त्रीणा न ग्रंथानां च धारणे / तस्मादिहान्ये मन्यते तच्छासनमनर्थकम –Bhavishya Puran, Brahmaparva
In Hindu family “Pati” is the master of the house, He is a feeder (भर्ता he who feeds, भर्तार is another expression for Pati); women is just a slave of his “Pati-God”. Even if she is called ‘ardhangini’ she wears ‘Mangalsutra’ and “Sindoor” as a mark to accept his sovereignty. Women’s ‘ardhangini’ status is merely for religious purpose, she is a means to some theological accomplishments of Purush . But how this image has entered into people’s unconscious that it turned women into a bare existence, matter? This should to be investigated by scholars of indology and sociology. Her image of a nartki, an object of entertainment for Purush (as we see in Indian marriage party, pubs, dance clubs, victory calibrations, etc) is also related to theology. In Hinduism, Prakriti is matter; she has bare objective existence and is imagined as a dancer who dances for the Purush’s sake, for his liberation who is the subject and the experient (bhokta). Women have an objective existence, they are not considered to be a Subject. Lacan’s “Women is still missing” perhaps refers to it. The image of Hindu male and female—male is subject, female is object, male is consciousness, female is matter, male is bhokta female is bhogya, etc. is a theological construct. All this gives us the glimpse of the theology of constitution of the masculine body and universe. Thus, we can say that this problem of desire and sovereignty i.e. of ” Pati”-tva is a problem not of ideology but of pure matter, a phenomenon of physical, biological, psychic, social, or cosmic matter, as Deleuze puts it. And If I could extend it further in the direction of theology of masculine sovereignty it would become a different text on the repressive regime of truths. At this moment I would like not to venture in to it. But I must say that Her reducing of the efficacy of Purush becomes possible because He has still not recognized his nature as “Pati” !!! What???
“Pati” of Sanskrit language and “Husband” of English language are the two different expressions for the same entity but both are not the same. Pati is a sovereign but husband is not a sovereign—the expression husband can’t be its translation because he is animal in the house under Mayik spell. He is subject of her witchy spell. Even if Huband-ry people are not sovereign because they breed for the book of the zoo . As for example, the husbandry specialist Mohan Bhagawat of RSS is not a sovereign, he is a caretaker and breeding specialist of a certain zoo. A zoo that was founded by an another husbandry specialist named “ Hedgewar“. He is just a petty doctor who breeds khaki-nikker animals according to ancient books to protect the ancients, the bonded animals called Hindus. Or perhaps, he endeavors to capture few ancient apes in his zoo. The world Zoo belongs to the sovereign. Now it is becoming quite zoological. Important difference between both is that husband is an animal and Pati is not. It is theologically distinguished as “ pashu in her pash“. He is a sovereign and the tamer of the animals of the house. Pati is commander of the zoo; he is the fate of the animals of the zoo. He is the author of the book of fate. He is the real despot, he is God. There is only one book of the fate and there is only one author. Only one Manu! Who is this Manu? We do not know anything about him, he disappeared in the laws of his book. Abraham, Muses, Mohammad, Jesus, Saint Paul all are brothers who borrowed from the book of fate that Manu wrote in the beginning. All have beaten up the waters with their stick to bring in laws for their zoo. All had seen fire. This is common to all. But to be precise these prophets and masters were not sovereign in the sense that they were slaves of their own system. Having written the book of fate these sodo-masochist pervert bitches subjected themselves to the same. Spiritually speaking, they were despots; not sovereigns. A fascist can’t be a sovereign because he is a slave of his own system.
The principle of “freedom” is cosmic; it is solely given to The Sages . We understand nothing about the egg nor about indefinite articles nor about the contemporaneousness of a continually self-constructing milieu, but Sages understood it. It is eternally the most contemporary matter. Only sages knew it and decoded, recoded and overcoded it when it is required. Sages were the Sovereign, truly Sovereign. As is written in Shaivagama: “ स्वातंत्र्य च नाम यथेक्क्षम तत्रेक्क्षा प्रसरस्य अविघातः” “The freedom of the sovereign is the Power to do according to his free will; it is the unimpeded, unrestrained flow of expression of the-Divine Will of Shiva.” Hence with such “freedom” he becomes a Sovereign, the God of this world full of Animals. “Pashu-Pati”.