printable version PDF version

Matrika Shakti
by sadh Thursday, Feb 27 2014, 10:34am
international / poetry / post

the Hindus have a concept
which preceded semiotic
theory and linguistics
by a millennium
but the west has always been slow
in matters of language,
sign and symbol
and how they form the substrate
of cultural realities

do u follow me here?
if u do u would appreciate
that the process, including socialisation
is reversible and
language could be used
to subvert existing cultures
and personal/social realities
and replace them
with your or the visions
of poets and (to a lesser extent)
prose writers/inscribers

everything modern slaves
(of any given culture) experience
has been form-ulated by language
prior to it becoming cultural ‘reality’ --
yes, i am referring to the corporeal
world

understanding the dependent
relationship that reality
has on language
allows an adept
to change any given cultural reality
with sign and symbol and the power
or Shakti inherent or contained therein --

Tantric sages
applied this science/art
to the consciousness
of the individual
in order to achieve clarity
i.e. the enlightened awareness
of a consciousness without (fabricated
perverse) cultural content

all conventions and cultural values
have been arbitrarily created
and learned, hence
they are illusory,
not ‘mirage’ illusions but corporeal
illusions or false realities

in order to fathom the underlying
fluid consistency upon and through which
everything is constructed
essential reality must be approached
with the innocence of
an unfettered consciousness
which has been referred to
as the innocence of a child's mind
(or the awareness of the Sage)
both share ‘clean’ minds
able to appreciate something
in its totality, a flower for instance
BUT beware
neither the child nor the Sage view ‘flowers’
as “flowers,” (signifiers)
but as phenomena or continuous
nameless creations that reveal
the inherent, ecstatic beauty
of all continuous creation

remember the famous painting
that semioticians use to make
the point --
an oil painting of a (smoking) pipe
with the caption, “This is not a pipe!”

indeed, how could it be?
we only have two semiotic referrers/signifiers
a ‘painting’ and ‘text’
but not a REAL pipe!

the flower that an innocent child’s
mind appreciates
is not the flower seen by those
enslaved by the linguistic and conventional
chains of culture

hopefully both qualifier
and the process/power/shakti
have been described here

after clarity is achieved
the power/shakti
to change the corporeal world
is afforded the Sage

an-other inferred point is that a signifier
is not that to which it refers,
beware the deceptive and enslaving
effect of language and convention

Om Tat Sat