Sounds like Shakti. Putting a Hindu spin on things will go over the heads of 90% of this board's participants, for whom religion = fundamentalist Biblical Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti I don't have a lot of problem with hypothesizing some kind of primeval reality out of which the rest of the universe supposedly manifests. Theoretical physicists do exactly the same thing. See this paper that's been posted on this board over and over and over and over and over and... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf I personally think that your version is superior in one respect, because you don't dishonestly call your hypothetical source "nothing". But using the words "God" and "Goddess" will just make atheist knees jerk. The board's dimmer atheists will reject anything you say if you use theistic vocabulary, but if you call your source the "Wheeler-DeWitt equation" and "vacuum energy", they will eagerly lap it up. But if I was going to divide the original source up into two different principles, I'd be more inclined to do it hylomorphically, dividing it into matter and form, instead of matter and energy. Physics (as I believe it is currently conceived) imagines quanta of forces and particles equivalently in terms of virtual gauge bosons. That would seem to me to collapse your two ultimate divine principles together. And I most definitely wouldn't try to personalize ultimate metaphysical principles in a theistic way. That just adds additional unnecessary levels of confusion. Frankly, I don't think that the whole project of trying to restate traditional Hindu religious categories in quasi-"scientific" language derived from physics is very helpful. (Not to me at least.) It might be personally valuable to you though, in your attempts to better conceive of things and to perhaps reduce some cognitive dissonance. So I don't want to dismiss it. All of that seems confusing and unnecessary. Dharma, right? I'm not sure that one can derive ethics from metaphysics quite so easily. (The is-ought problem -- how does one derive 'ought' from 'is'?) In other words, why is accordance with the "state of nature" and fulfilling one's natural duties (whatever they are) morally or spiritually good? I think that's certainly part of it, but I suspect that there's more to it than that. Some yogins seem to achieve extraordinary levels of self-control. Many would argue that yogins achieve extraordinary states of consciousness as well. Perhaps they learn something in those states.