Goddess vs. Woman

[Guest guest]

Dear Prainbow:

 

Your points are well taken as are Adi's. It is a point with which it

is essential to come to grips when Goddess chooses us to worship Her.

 

The ancient Sanskrit texts are rife with ambiguous meaning. The Devi

Bhagavata Purana, c. 1000-1500 CE, is a massive, poetic, and

theologically rich vision of Goddess as the Supreme Reality, second to

none. And yet, there is no mistaking its author's low (if not

downright hostile) opinion of human women.

 

How can we reconcile this problem? Although it is dangerous in a

spiritual context to read a text too critically -- after all, it is

supposed to be revealed scripture, not a novel to be judged good or

bad -- I think we must grapple with the implications of misogyny in

ostensibly Goddess-oriented texts.

 

In classical Vedic Hinduism, only twice-born (i.e. upper caste),

initiated, male devotees were allowed access to these scriptures. They

were written by upper-caste men for upper-caste men and -- however

divine their underlying message -- many of these works reveal the

prejudices of upper-caste men.

 

In Tantra, the other main stream of Hindu philosophy and practice, we

see everywhere a reverence for women. Unlike Vedism -- which views the

world as illusion, and woman as the symbol of all the ties a man to

that illusion -- Tantrism embraces the world as not only real, but as

the body of Goddess Herself. Every human is a microcosm of the

Universe, and every woman is specifically a microcosm of Devi. Tantric

Goddess cults welcomed women and lower-caste men into their fold,

although a selective standard (of spiritual preparedness) kept such

admissions few and secret.

 

And here is where the problem lies, I think. To speak of Vedic vs.

Tantric Hinduism is so theoretical as to be useless -- because each

stream of influence is so intimately intertwined with the other. There

are Tantras that try to gain "legitmacy" by claiming Vedic authority,

and Vedic works that are suffused with the spirit of Tantra.

 

The Devi Gita, the best-known section of the Devi Bhagavata Purana I

mentioned above, is a classic example of this sort of theological

schizophrenia. Although there are many learned Hindus who would say I

am hopelessly straying from the true path, I cannot blindly adhere to

the scriptural word when it flies in the face of the scriptural

spirit.

 

In my opinion, anyone who claims to love the Goddess but -- in point

of fact -- does not much like (or more importantly, respect and even

reverence) women, has to do some serious soul-searching as to

contradictions between their professed beliefs and their actual

beliefs. Devi is not considered a "She" simply because she's prettier

than Shiva or Vishnu, or because She's wearing a saree. Devi is a

"She" because She is the highest exponent of the Divine Feminine

Principle in all of its aspects -- Mother, Daughter, Lover, Warrior,

Friend, Confidante .... everything anyone can be, She is.

 

Upon constant and careful reflection, I simply cannot believe that a

worldview that diminishes the status of women in any way is an

accurate reflection of Her Truth.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Dear devi_bhakta,

 

Your reply is deeply appreciated and I feel I share your views. I have

taken some time, both because of my work schedule and for adequate

consideration of your words.

 

It is impossible for me to "accept on faith" any scriptural text, no

matter how dear the source without a critical (though not necessarily

negative) review.

 

You wrote: "Upon constant and careful reflection, I simply cannot

believe that a worldview that diminishes the status of women in any

way is an accurate reflection of Her Truth."

 

This is in part the concept that I was trying to express. I am not

able to communicate at present any further clarity on my feelings, but

I deeply appreciate the perspective that you bring to bear on your

considerable experience and knowlege. I would feel lost if the people

from whom I am learning did not at all appreciate the gravity of the

sexism that pervades the otherwise enlightened teachings of so many

spiritual paths. Your candid responses make a great difference to me.

Knowing that one of the founders of this temple has given such careful

consideration to this area of gravity gives me courage to release some

of the intellectual cynicism that may block me from simple enjoyment

of this marvelous forum.

 

Namaste,

 

Prainbow

 

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Dear Prainbow:

>

> Your points are well taken as are Adi's. It is a point with which it

> is essential to come to grips when Goddess chooses us to worship

Her.

>

> The ancient Sanskrit texts are rife with ambiguous meaning. The Devi

> Bhagavata Purana, c. 1000-1500 CE, is a massive, poetic, and

> theologically rich vision of Goddess as the Supreme Reality, second

to

> none. And yet, there is no mistaking its author's low (if not

> downright hostile) opinion of human women.

>

> How can we reconcile this problem? Although it is dangerous in a

> spiritual context to read a text too critically -- after all, it is

> supposed to be revealed scripture, not a novel to be judged good or

> bad -- I think we must grapple with the implications of misogyny in

> ostensibly Goddess-oriented texts.

>

> In classical Vedic Hinduism, only twice-born (i.e. upper caste),

> initiated, male devotees were allowed access to these scriptures.

They

> were written by upper-caste men for upper-caste men and -- however

> divine their underlying message -- many of these works reveal the

> prejudices of upper-caste men.

>

> In Tantra, the other main stream of Hindu philosophy and practice,

we

> see everywhere a reverence for women. Unlike Vedism -- which views

the

> world as illusion, and woman as the symbol of all the ties a man to

> that illusion -- Tantrism embraces the world as not only real, but

as

> the body of Goddess Herself. Every human is a microcosm of the

> Universe, and every woman is specifically a microcosm of Devi.

Tantric

> Goddess cults welcomed women and lower-caste men into their fold,

> although a selective standard (of spiritual preparedness) kept such

> admissions few and secret.

>

> And here is where the problem lies, I think. To speak of Vedic vs.

> Tantric Hinduism is so theoretical as to be useless -- because each

> stream of influence is so intimately intertwined with the other.

There

> are Tantras that try to gain "legitmacy" by claiming Vedic

authority,

> and Vedic works that are suffused with the spirit of Tantra.

>

> The Devi Gita, the best-known section of the Devi Bhagavata Purana I

> mentioned above, is a classic example of this sort of theological

> schizophrenia. Although there are many learned Hindus who would say

I

> am hopelessly straying from the true path, I cannot blindly adhere

to

> the scriptural word when it flies in the face of the scriptural

> spirit.

>

> In my opinion, anyone who claims to love the Goddess but -- in point

> of fact -- does not much like (or more importantly, respect and even

> reverence) women, has to do some serious soul-searching as to

> contradictions between their professed beliefs and their actual

> beliefs. Devi is not considered a "She" simply because she's

prettier

> than Shiva or Vishnu, or because She's wearing a saree. Devi is a

> "She" because She is the highest exponent of the Divine Feminine

> Principle in all of its aspects -- Mother, Daughter, Lover, Warrior,

> Friend, Confidante .... everything anyone can be, She is.

>

> Upon constant and careful reflection, I simply cannot believe that a

> worldview that diminishes the status of women in any way is an

> accurate reflection of Her Truth.

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe