Divine Feminine or Just Divine Mother? ( A repost )

[Guest guest]

devi_bhakta

 

Some of you may have noticed that we've changed our club picture

of Tara. The reason is, several Goddess devotees objected to its

overtly "sexual" nature -- and since we want of all Her devotees to

feel comfortable here, we respected their concerns.

 

I'm particularly gratified that people came forward to express their

feelings on this issue. Often, when a member dislikes a particular

image or discussion of Devi, they simply quit the club and

disappear. This has happened several times in recent months -- for

example, when we chose Lajja Gauri (an elemental form of Parvati,

usually shown nude in birthing position, with full genital display)

and when a member attempted to post excerpts from the Yoni Tantra

(an ancient guide in which Shiva advocates the complex ritual

worship of a human woman's genitals as the supreme form of

Goddess worship).

 

Ultimately, the whole debate comes down to the tension between the two

main (and often intertwining) threads of Shaktism -- pure Bhakti

(devotional worship of Goddess) vs. Tantric worship techniques. For

many non-Tantric devotees, any hint of sexuality in one's

conceptualization of Devi is blasphemy, pure and simple. A while back,

I tried to explain and defend the approach of our Tantra-oriented

members; and those of you who want to hear that side of the story can

read that (or any number of other defenses by various members,

scattered throughout the Message archive).

 

For now, I'm interested in giving "equal time" to the pure Bhakti

viewpoint. And so I was glad to find (in Cobern's "Encountering the

Goddess") the following passage, in which a Bengali bhakta explains

why he believes Devi should be approached *only* as Mother. It should

be noted that the Bengalis -- natives of West Bengal in northeastern

India; heirs to a highly sophisticated culture and extremely fine and

subtle literary and artistic tradition -- are particularly drawn to

the Goddess in their religious observances.

 

The bhakta expressing his views here is C. R. Banerjea, a

schoolteacher. He begins by repeating Ramakrishna's coy old criticism

of Shakara -- a Bhakta's indictment of a Tantric -- for "wanting to

become sugar rather than to taste it." (Although it should

be noted that Ramakrishna, though primarily a Kali bhakta, was also an

initiated Tantric.)

 

Banerjea then expresses a concern that Tantrics have "smuggled" a

concern with knowledge (jnana) into a devotional (bhakti) context.

Banerjea believes these two separate paths of yoga should not be

combined. While acknowledging that the Goddess is indeed knowledge

itself, he warns that She is also Mahamaya, the Great Illusion -- and

that she is, thus, something beyond mere knowledge.

 

To try and approach Her merely by the path of knowledge is to risk

dire entanglement in illusion and ignorance -- the devotional route is

the only safe and effective approach to Devi.

 

Banerjea says, "She is the highest knowledge (Paravidya), beyond

Brahman (Ultimate Reality)," and so she must be approached with

pure devotion and love -- or as he phrases it, with "an affection that

lies in your heart and grows a little day by day."

 

And now to the most important point: The devotee's love, Banerjea

clarifies, *must* be the love of a child for its Mother. For members

who aren't aware of this, in mainstream Hinduism, bhakti (devotion)

is said to take several forms, depending upon the bhakta's (devotee's)

temperament: The most common approaches are the devotion of a subject

for its ruler; a servant for its master; a child for its parent; an

intimate friend for her/his friend; and a lover for her/his lover.

 

However, Banerjea counters that only *one* of these approaches is

appropriate for Shakta (Goddess worship) -- and that is the devotion

of a child for its Mother. Furthermore, the final approach -- in which

the devotee would consider Devi to be a lover -- is

especially improper:

 

"The Goddess is, above all else, Mother. Anything that smacks of

eroticism in relation to her is clearly wrongheaded, and potentially

dangerous. The 'Devi Mahatmyam' itself demonstrates this danger,

for the third episode teaches, among other things, that those who

approach the Mother as consort or as lover must die."

 

So: Now you have both sides of the story -- or at least a broad

introduction to the argument. So let me put the question to all of our

members:

 

Should Devi only be approached as Mother? If so, why? Is Banerjea's

argument correct? If not, why? How do you approach Devi and why?

 

Any and all replies to any or all of these questions will be most

welcome and appreciated!

 

Aum Maatangyai Namaha

 

 

baba108

 

Should Devi only be approached as Mother?

 

No - Even though that is how I relate to Kali

 

If so, why?

 

Each must follow their own path to Mother's Lotus feet. She and

the devotee should not be interferred with.

 

Is Banerjea's argument correct?

 

If not, why?

 

He is correct to state how he is to approach Her, but not how other's

percieve the path to Her Throne of Grace.

 

How do you approach Devi and why?

 

As She unfolds the path in you heart. She is consciousness in all it

forms.

 

Love baba

 

 

adi_shakthi16

 

yes db! baba is absolutely correct i pointing out that the divine

mother is cosciousness personified - chid shakti! but in all my

experience, i have seen the divine mother being worshipped only in two

popular ways... one is to approach the lotus feet of the divine

mother as a child yearning and crying for one's mother ( like sri

ramakrishna) or in some instances, to treat the divine mother as a

child- take care of her- dress her up, bathe her and feed her---

vatsalya bhava

 

BUT i have never seen the divine mother being approached as

one;'s mystical lover - the way krishna is worshipped by the gopis

of brindavan or smt. radharani ! the only devotee who approaches the

divine mother as a divine over is LORD SHIVA HIMSELF - in all tantrik

texts, you see KAMESHWERA APPROACHING HIS KAMESHWER AS HIS OBJECT OF

KAMA ---- for some odd reason, i do tend to agree with banerjee ! if

you remember, this was also the premise of our dear founder SILENT

SOUL JI! he maintained time and again that the divine mother

should be worshipped by a devotee as a nother where the devotee

assumes the form of a simple and innocent child !

 

shri ramakrishna even went one step further and did shodashi puja to

his young wife sharada devi and worshipped his wife as an incarnation

of the divine mother! this is a rare phenomenon! although the

saundarya lahirri is full of ornate description of sree lalita, her

physical beauty and spiritual beauty, adi shankara's relationship

withn the divine mother was one of a simple devotee and not a mystical

lover! same with poet ramprasad! so i think it is safe to maintain

that the divine mother is worshippable in her formm as a mother ,

nurturer and nourisher, protectress and creatrix!

 

my 2 and half cents!

 

om sree matraiyaii namaha!

 

devi_bhakta

Thanks as always for your insightful input, Adi!

You wrote, "I have never seen the divine mother being approached

as one's mystical lover - the way Krishna is worshipped by the

gopis of Brindavan or Smt. Radharani! ... The only devotee who

approaches the divine mother as a divine lover is LORD SHIVA HIMSELF."

 

That does, indeed, fall into line with Banerjea's opinion -- and

Silent Soul's. Baba notes that he doesn't see a problem with the

bhakti of lover, but that he would not attempt it himself. I would say

the same.

 

But is that really the issue here? Aren't those members who have

been offended by "sexual" portrayals of the Goddess missing the

point? Sure, a nude Tara engaged in copulation with Shiva is pretty

explicitly sexual. But one doesn't have to delve very far into the

philosophy of Tantra to understand that this arresting symbolism has

*nothing at all* to do with sex in any human understanding of the

term.

 

Portrayals of the Goddess nude or engaged in copulation are meditative

images designed to shock the devotee out of her/his preconceptions;

not to indulge sexual passion, but to overcome and sublimate it,

taking that earthbound energy and directing it instead upward to

spiritual goals.

 

More certainly, very few bhaktas would presume -- or dare -- to

develop a lover's bhakti with Devi. But Tantrics seek no dualistic

relationship at all -- they seek to become ONE with Devi, riding the

spiritual force of Her desire to the Ultimate Union.

 

Am I oversimplifying the issue or does that make sense? If one

looks at an ancient, highly symbolic, sexually charged image of the

Goddess (even coital or genital display, etc) and sees only

pornography, hasn't one totally missed the point?

 

I think they have, but I do understand that explicit Tantric imagery

is a bit much for many people, and I don't want to force the issue

just for the sake of provocation and controversy. But it's obviously a

major "unspoken issue" in Shakta, and as such I think it merits

discussion.

 

So please, all member comments and opinions are welcome and

encouraged.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

 

adi_shakthi16

on another note, it is for this reason that once a young girl in nepal

is chosen for the "kaumari" pooja - it becomes very difficult for her

to get a "match" or an ordinary man to marry her. it is believed once

a young girl is worshipped as a "kaumari" the goddess resides in her

and she becomes the divine mother goddess herself! so, normal men are

afraid to approach her in the normal way - so she will be always put

on a pedstal and worshipped as such - therefore, no man would like to

have "conjugal" relations with her! you donn't want to know what

happens to these girla afterwards! thats the

worst case scenario!

 

just my random toughts!

 

db, again- you have hit the nail on the head! it is "sex"

and "pornography" or "eroticism" to those who view these pictures that

way ! it ois "love" : art" amd "mysticism" to those that view it

another way! perception, projection or all states .of mind! for some.

tantra is all about sex, nothing but sex or sexual postions... to

enlightened ones, , tantra is " expanded consciousness" - sri

ramakrishna once remarked he saw the "breasts of all women as a

mother's breats" what he meant was A WOMAN IS A NURTURER AND A

NOURISHER JUST LIKE A DIVINE MOTHER!

 

i don't know many people have problems with a display of "nudity" or

"nakedness" but if you look at the sculptures in indian temples , the

gods and goddesses are all as transparent as clear water!

 

it all depends! one may be fully clothed and a man mau unstrip this

woman with his naked eyes! and one may be fully naked and another may

be looking at the divine soul in that woman!

 

a true tantrik is beyond all body concepts- man- womabn, naked

-clothed etc! a true tantril sees beauty and divinity in

all manifestations of all creation1

 

love