C♂ncept of C♀nsorts

Thank you Dan Brown for sweeping the path for me :-)

There exist many entities in this big universal soup. But most of these entities exist as the complements. There can be in the 1-to-1 association; 1-to-many and sometimes even many-to-many. The tendency of each of the complements is to search, reach and assist in the completion of the whole. Until then there is yearning and incompleteness.

 The Siva-Shakti form fascinates me. The familiar Ardhanareshwara form is a good (visual) representation of this Siva-Shakti union. It is the form that shows one half as Shiva, the male principle, and other half as Parvati, the female principle. Each half in the divided states supports, inspires, tickles, irritates, complements and supplements the other in a sort of playfulness. The union brings the bliss and stillness in a sort of everlasting orgasm. In Hinduism, the concept is easily acceptable by any common man because of the way Hinduism loads and codes the answers to the riddles of universe with deities, symbolism and myths.

 

In Hinduism most (if not all) of gods in the pantheon have one or more (1-to-many) ‘consorts’ (Note: They were not wives but 'consorts'. Marriages are for the society and unnatural :-) ) In the polytheistic pantheon gods-goddesses combinations existed across cultures like with the Egyptians (Isis-Osiris), Greek (Adonis-Aphrodite) and more. The many-to-many structures seems to be prevalent in some old rare uncategorized societies like tribes, new-age pagan revivals etc

Completion is the way forward.