Inanna

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Inanna is a Sumerian Goddess whose worship is recorded in works dating

to around 3000 bce.

 

The hymns written to Her are quite beautiful and inspiring. Many women

I have met who are pursuing Goddess worship outside of Hinduism find

the works that refer to Her and to Her presence and power really

inspire, really express something that they are seeking.

 

This may be because, like myself, many western women are not very

aware of the Goddess tradition within Hinduism, and also do not know

how to locate the texts in Hinduism that are based in Goddess worship.

Also, some of the Hindu texts to which I have been exposed earlier

seemed to lack the power of the Goddess that I was seeking: a female

divine not subordinate to a male divinity, speaking for

Herself, independent and powerful.

 

You may wish to explore these texts. I will see what I can find myself

that you may enjoy.

 

Prainbow

 

, "nora55_1999" <nora55_1999> wrote:

> devi_bhakta

>

> Basically, I posed three examples of these practices of an unusual

> approaches to Goddess: (1) worship of living girls (Kumaris);

> (2) worship of historical figures; and

> (3) worship of living women who claim to be full avatars of Devi.

>

> One member took the Kumari Pooja question to another club for

> discussion, so I'm hoping there might be some interest here as well!

> If there is, let's talk about it! If not, carry on! ;-)

>

> evil_djinia

>

> Hi Again Devi, I always like your input into things. It's poignant.

I

> looked at the pics of Human Goddesses and find the young Kumari sad.

> Do you have a pic where she's smiling. I would like to think that

she

> could be appreciated as a human and not just as a symbol. Of course

> the Dalaio Lama was raised as such, but he's had a long lifetime of

> experience now to become what he was trained to be - a living rep of

> Buddha. I believe Krishnamurti was born into and raised a

Theosophist

> and he was supposed to become Maitreya or Buddha but chose not to. (

> I

> don't remember where I heard the last thing, so don't quote me).

> These

> things happen because people need to feel their God is nearby. What

I

> want to know is what the rep makes out of the experience. They might

> represent,but can they actually BE the thing. I think experience is

> the only teacher. I would like to find a Kumari who then became a

> saint later in life. That would be really special. Of course India

> has

> many wandering saints but how many women saints wander like the

> sannyasin and live such a life of tapas? I'm curious.

>

>

> groovflowr

>

> I don't have too very much to say on this right now, but maybe some

> more will come to mind if others respond and what they say triggers

> some other way of thinking in my mind. (I sure hope so! <g>)

>

> Basically, I view the Divine as present in everything. So, it would

> follow that any way of focussing on understanding the Divine is

> correct for that given person at that given time. Every person is

> different. We all follow a multitude of different Paths, and we're

> all

> at different points on those Paths. My understanding of the Divine

> Truth is not anyone else's. (Or, as my dear friend "Father Georgie"

> has said: "My gnosis is not your gnosis.") Not exactly. And that's

> because we all have this wonderful ability and gift to have our own

> experiences and our own unique views *because* of those varying

> experiences. All of these views adding up to create new experiences,

> which in turn create new views.... And the Cycle continues to turn.

>

> So, with everyone being at their own unique point on their own

unique

> Path, of course there are going to be different understandings of

the

> Divine! And I think that's the grooviest thing! I just find it sad

> that there are so many who don't seem to "get" this and can't seem

to

> accept that an other's Path is not their own. (But, even that could

> be

> considered a lack of "getting it" on my part....)

>

> Personally, I view any way of looking at the Divine as limiting.

"The

> tao that can be told is not the true Tao." That's not to say at all

> that it's a bad thing to focus on one particular understanding of

the

> Divine. Not at all. If you're working to understand It, then any and

> every way of doing so is valuable. Eventually it'll add up to the

big

> picture of the Truth. I just find it important to work toward those

> particular focuses on understanding while keeping in mind that the

> Sum

> is more than it's parts. But each of those parts is a valuable clue

> as

> to what the Whole is.

>

> Myself, I'm currently focussing on It through Inanna. She's totally

> foreign to me in the context of every experience I've had so far in

> this life-time. But She's the best course for me to take at this

> point

> on my Path. I know that I've taken other routes before and that I

> will

> take others in the future still. That doesn't negate or invalidate

> any

> of those priour routes, or this one when the future comes. It just

> means that my understanding of the Divine Truth is a bit different

at

> every point on my Path. And that it works for me now is really all

> that matters. I am who I am now. That person arose out of who I was.

> And she is moving towards who I will be. But always, I am who I am

at

> that moment in time. And whatever moves me closer to The Truth is

> valid for me.

>

> In the end, I don't see any one particular view as being correct.

> Each understanding has certain aspects about it which point to the

> Truth, but they're still limitations in my mind. For instance, I

know

> that this group focusses on the worship of the G-ddess and the

Divine

> Feminine. While I personally don't think that gives one the full

> picture, it's still more of the picture than one might have

> otherwise.

> And obviously, with my current focus on Inanna, I too look at the

> Divine in terms of the Feminine right now. I think there's an

equally

> important Masculine aspect that shouldn't be ignored. But I don't

> think anyone here is doing that as far as I can tell. I think I'm

> "preaching to the choir", so to speak. At least that's the general

> feeling I have coming into this ramble of mine. <g>

>

> I know that this is pretty generalised, but in the context of what

> I'm

> trying to say, I don't think getting down to specific examples is

> really going to say anything more than a general concept would. <g>

>

> I guess what I'm trying to say is that, even though I think any one

> particular view of The Truth misses something, they're all important

> in hitting on something too. And even though I may currently be

better

> understanding It All through one particular view, I still like to

try

> to understand other views too, even if they don't gel with me at the

> moment, because it can't hurt to have as many understandings as

> possible. All these little parts add up to a big chunk of the Big

> Picture, so the more one can appreciate the more of the Truth one

can

> understand.

>

> As for the specific examples Devi listed, I must admit that my

> personal knowledge and experience is limited. I only recently saw a

> film on the Kumari in my "Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion" class. Up

> until that point I don't recall ever having encountered anything

> about

> the Kumari before. And, as the film only covered the lives of a

> couple

> of the individual Kumari priour to and during their role as Kumari,

I

> don't have that great of an idea of the full implications of being

> Kumari, as far as what happens *after*. Devi said in #861 that

"often

> these girls -- as they get older-- are socially avoided, and have

> trouble making a living, finding a marriage partner, etc Or have I

> misunderstood this tradition?" While I can't comment on this at all,

> as I have no knowledge either way, these are questions that I had

> raised in my own reflection on the Kumari film.

>

> In general, I really view these different approaches to the Divine

as

> just that. There is no judgement in my mind either way about them.

> They are simply different approaches. I think the example in #468

(as

> I back-track...) brought it home a bit more for me. Here the idea of

> venerating a movie star is mentioned: "Nora stated that,

'Ultimately

> it doesn't matter as to who you worship. ... the most important is

> that this act of worshipping fulfill the need ... to feel connected

> to

> the Divine One.'

>

> However, she found it 'rather irrational' to deify popular movie

> stars

> as Baburoy notes is sometimes seen in popular Hinduism. Baburoy

> observes, 'I think it really matters who is put on the pedestal.' "

> Firstly, I was glad to learn of another cultural practise. Not

> because

> I am placing a judgement either way on that practise, but because I

> like to learn about different cultures in general. (I'm an

> Anthropology student because of this. And because I'm an

Anthropology

> student, I like to learn about different cultures. <wg>) I didn't

> know

> that popular Hinduism sometimes placed movie stars on that level.

> But,

> then again, it's not really all that different from the fanaticism

> that often surrounds film and music stars in American secular

> culture.

> So, using that connection, I tried to better understand it from my

> own

> frame of reference. However, I fell short of doing so. I can

> understand it to an extent, but not all the way. I know that I've

> personally felt rather passionate about a couple of movie and rock

> stars here and there, but in thinking about it I immediately

realised

> that I never felt that they were Divine in the same way I feel that

> My

> Lady Inanna is Divine. I know that ultimately they *are* Divine as

> people, just as I am, but there's definitely a different feel

> there.... When I think about it more, their *art* often feels very

> much to me as Inanna does. But that's more a message than they

> themselves. And that clicked for me. It's not Inanna that means so

> much to me in my Path as what she represents, and how *that* relates

> to where I am now. It's about the message and the lesson to be

> learned, not the cover of the book.

>

> Well, I've rambled on enough I think. It's 4:30 in the morning for

me

> and I think it's time I wander off to bed now. Thanks for listening

> and good night everyone!

> : )

>

> devi_bhakta

>

> Hi evil_djinia ... You and groovflowr bring up some excellent

> thoughts about the girls who become Kumaris; if you find a smiling

> pic, please do add it to the album! But I just recently read a great

> article in the "New Yorker" about the murder of Nepal's royal

family,

> in which it was mentioned in passing that until recently it wasn't

> considered at all kosher for Nepali VIPS (royalty, and I suppose the

> exalted Kumaris as well) to smile in public.

>

> "Smiling for the camera," until very recently, seems to be more a

> Western conceit -- in many if not most Asian countries, you see much

> less of it. Look at old sepia-tone photos of your ancestors and I

> think you'll see the same was true in the West for quite a long

time.

>

> So don't read too much into the Kumari's glum expression. She's a

very

> little girl with a very big responsibility, right or wrong.

>

> Groovflowr

>

> So don't read too much into the Kumari's glum expression. She's a

very

> little girl with a very big responsibility, right or wrong. >

> ::nods::

> That's a very good point about a smiling in public (or not) being a

> general socio-cultural custom.

>

> Also, the film I saw in class ("The Living Goddess") mentions

specific

> ways in which a Kumari must behave. For one, she can no longer speak

> in public. Private ceremonies occur every morning and every evening

> in

> a special room used for no other purpose. There, the Kumari sits

> trance-like while people come and make offerings to her in order to

> receive blessings. Ideally she is to remain still in a trance

because

> any movement determines what will happen in the case that has been

> brought before her. Even a twitch of the thumb or a finger could

> spell

> mis-fortune for the person who has come before her. I'm sure that

> smiling is generally tied in with the ritual of her bodily actions

in

> these private ceremonies of offerings and blessings, as well as with

> what is expected of her in public. Every aspect of her life is a

> solemn one. And while smiling is not necessarily mutually exclusive

> of

> a solemn state, it seems to be in this context. There can be great

> joy

> in being so very solemn that one does not smile. I know that I feel

> this way every morning and every evening when doing my prayers to

> My Lady Inanna.

>

> devi_bhakta

>

> Thanks for a great post. I really enjoyed it. I think

> you're absolutely right in your basic contention that Divine Reality

> is too vast to capture in any one religious construct. But I do feel

> that individual humans should settle upon a given path in their

> journey of discovery, for a while at least.

>

> Only because, in too much flitting between traditions, one becomes

> like a bee hopping from flower to beautiful flower, picking up a

> little something sweet and then moving on. The thing is to stay a

> while and immerse oneself in the flower of choice, taking in all it

> can give you -- because the sweetest treasures of any religion are

> never on the visible surface. If it takes a lifetime, or two, or

> three

> to absorb the whole thing -- fine! If a takes only a month or a

year,

> that's fine too! As you say, everything depends on the individual.

>

> You mention, "Personally, I view any [single] way of looking at the

> Divine as limiting. The tao that can be told is not the true Tao."

> That's true too -- but it's the limitations of a given tradition

that

> can provide the very discipline that's needed to escape those

> limitations. Just as a pianist must practice thousands of rote

scales

> before s/he can fly off into transcendently gorgeous improvisation;

> or

> the ballet dancer must spend hours doing dull, painful barre work

> before becoming the image of beauty incarnate onstage.

>

> Sri Ramakrishna -- a spiritual adept of the highest order --

immersed

> himself in most schools of Hinduism, as well as Christianity and

> Islam, at different points during his life. Each brought him to the

> same ulimate, inexpressible truth, he said. Which is a good answer

to

> those who would insist that only one path can lead to salvation. But

> he always returned to his beloved Goddess Kali as his own ultimate,

> heartfelt vision of the Supreme Divine.

>

> I do think you've got the right idea -- the Divine is too vast and

too

> beautiful to confine oneself to some narrow, doctrinaire view of it.

> I

> think you're right to explore as many as you can, so long as you

> don't

> allow yourself to become a mere "spiritual tourist."

>

> On another subject, could you tell me more about the Lady Inanna, on

> whom you focus your spiritual life at present? I'm not familiar with

> Her tradition, and would love to learn more.

>

> Also, you note -- in the context of movie-star/pop-star worship --

"I

> tried to better understand it from my own frame of reference.

> However,

> I fell short of doing so. I can understand it to an extent, but not

> all the way." I understand just where you're coming from, but would

> recommend that you read message from jaiphilcollins ( on Instant

> Goddess ) before you give up your efforts to get your mind around

> this

> particular approach to the Divine; it surprised me, and maybe it

will

> surprise you too.

>

> Thanks again for your heartfelt and most enjoyable post.