Our divisive nature is perpetuated by our desire to consume.

Clearly there is a recognition of the connectedness of everything hence the word 'universe' (one word) as in 'the beginning'
But our divisive nature means that we must see the one as two. What terms we use defines our culture.

The earthly options I would argue are man and woman and all things on earth are subject to these two archetypes. However as a human aspiring homo sapien then a non earthly dualism would serve better hence the notion of life everlasting and space to exist. A single terr=m life-space can be sued but will lead to an earthly tendency as the space that each creature would want. Whereas the term space is used only to add the dualist concept to life as being without consumption and space promote the notion that life is more than just an idea, though not existing in the other space that is asscociated with time.

The Godly archtypes are oten then seen as creator an destroyer but as time is an overriding factor then there is a space and time where things appear to exist and so the notion of a sustainer appears, though this is only another feeble atempt to divide in a way we think brings greater control and comfort.

So we have the three Hindu aspects of Deity, The Creator (Brhama), The Sustainer (Vishnu) and The Destroyer (Shiva) Yet as each are only a represention of the divisive 2 then each has those two aspects, which are easily noted by archetypal sexual stereotypes.

Braham, although the creator akin to lightening it must have wood to burn. Vishnu likewise though maybe represented by the sun must need darkness to appear at all and Shiva cannot use the destructive energy without form being available. Each of these pair indicates the male active and the female submissive notions.

Every product of mulitple facets has within it's origin multiple complimentary forces that go to form matter, whilst that beyond Braham, or any other creative or sustaining God is insignificant to the one immortal life that has no beginning or end.