MEN AND SHAKTISM

[Guest guest]

What sorts of problems are faced by men who follow

Shaktism? I was asked that question by an offline

correspondent, and offered the following, admittedly

partial, reply:

 

Back when we first started the old "Shakti Sadhana"

Club, some of the "old guard" from the more

established, mainstream Hindu clubs came over to do

some heckling. A couple of them tried to corner me on

the idea that Shaktism demands complete respect,

non-injury, even deference toward women, in contrast

with mainstream Hinduism, which -- as a social reality

-- tends to marginalize and subjugate women. These

"hit-and-run" posts were pretty predictable: They

would raise an example of a hypothetical woman, whom

they described as really mean and selfish and cruel

and nasty, not at all admirable. And then ask, "So --

would you reverence *her*?"

 

Well, I doubt I'm as naïve as they seemed to think I

was. I have a mother who drives me nuts sometimes, two

sisters who do the same, a wife, lots of women

friends, and many women colleagues. My wife often says

that her female colleagues are more vicious

professional competitors than her male colleagues. And

in my own work, I've noted that the best women lawyers

can be absolutely scary -- merciless, calculating,

"take-no-prisoners" players. The "artificial

selection" process of big law firms tends -- as it

does in many professions -- to reward some of the most

seemingly "despicable" human beings; men and women who

have completely buried their redeeming human qualities

under "bottom line" concerns. In cases like that, I

know, there is not much difference between women and

men -- they are neither masculine or feminine; they

are corporate servants. Gender is irrelevant.

 

The other main comment the hecklers like to raise --

that Shaktas (especially male Shaktas) are simply

sex-obsessed. I mean, talk about a patriarchal

attitude! Can you imagine saying that women who

worship a Male god (in Christianity, Islam, Judaism,

and most forms of Hinduism) do it because they can't

stop thinking about guys?

 

This criticism of Shaktas becomes especially strong

when we step away from viewing Devi as Mother or

Child. Not coincidentally, mainstream Hinduism say

these are the only two "safe" approaches to Mother for

men -- i.e. because worshiping a girl-child or

mother-figure effectively short circuits any

possibility that erotic undercurrents will sneak into

the devotee's psyche. It's like the school of thought

that says men and women can't be friends because there

will always be an unacknowledged sexual tension.

Perhaps this is a legitimate concern in societies

where unrelated men and women remain more or less

socially segregated. In societies where men and women

mix freely, however, it depends more on the particular

man and woman you're talking about.

 

Anyway, back to bhavas: The devotee of a male Hindu

god is welcome to approach him in a number of ways --

as a Friend & Confidante, as a servant to a Master, as

a Parent or Child, or as a Lover. Sri Swami Sivananda

wrote, "Madhurya Bhava -- in which the devotee regards

the Lord as his Lover -- is the highest form of

Bhakti. This was the relation between Radha and

Krishna. ... The lover and the beloved become one. The

devotee and God feel one with each other and still

maintain separateness in order to enjoy the bliss of

the play of love between them. This is oneness in

separation and separation in oneness."

 

Thus, the male Krishna devotee is encouraged to view

himself as a gopi [female shepherd girl], drawn to her

lover Krishna like a moth to a flame. The devotee of

Ram can be a devoted servant, upon the model of

Hanuman. But the devotee of Devi is limited to the

Parent/Child model. Now, that's okay with me; I do not

consider myself enough of an adept to attempt any

other approach at this stage. But even so, I have to

wonder when the male Shakta who dares consider other

bhakti bhavas (modes of relation to the object of

devotion) is accused of being sex-obsessed. I have

trouble believing that such a devotee only worships

Devi's image because he's preoccupied with women

(whose only role, in many Hindu theologies, is to bind

men to Maya).

 

In fact I've had some first-hand experience with this

kind of attitude: A while back, when I posted a

picture of Lajja Gauri (a nude, lotus-headed form of

Parvati, in birthing position) as Goddess of the Week

in the Shakti Club, several founders of other Hindu

clubs posted broadsides against me and the club,

basically saying we'd finally proven

that our minds are in the gutter, that we were

"less-evolved" than the people who ran the other Hindu

clubs. Why? Because a naked Goddess is pornography, of

course! Never mind the fact that I'd posted an

extended essay on what the image actually symbolized,

I wasn't fooling them for a minute -- I was

sex-obsessed, and that was that!

 

But does such an accusation really stand up to

scrutiny? After all, if I was looking for sex on the

Internet, I could certainly find more fertile ground

than a club dedicated to revering the Goddess! And

second, if I just wanted to post sexy pictures, I

could undoubtedly find something more explicit than

7th-century statuary.

 

More than that, the idea of denying Feminine Divinity

Her Femininity -- the idea that acknowledging her

sexuality is akin to blasphemy -- seems to me a

fundamental misunderstanding of what Shaktism all

about. Devi is not just God is drag, as I've written

elsewhere. And for that matter, the Goddess

emphatically about more than just physical

attractiveness -- think of the corpse-like Chamunda,

the boar-headed Varahi, etc. And the Tantric

Mahavidyas all temper their beauty with fearsome

traits. Further, consider the Triple Goddess model --

in which girl-child, mother, and grandmother all

appear in one form simultaneously, expressing the

diverse continuum of Feminine reality. All of these

images force us to focus on the nature of the

"Feminine" itself -- and on what the idea of the

"Divine Feminine" might really mean. And that's more

than just "beauty" -- especially

beauty as defined by mainstream, patriarchal culture.

 

Once again, I doubt that I am as naïve about such

things are the club's detractors imagined. (I couldn't

be! My younger sister, who has a fast, killer wit and

is very, very funny, used to love mocking "women's

culture." For example, she could single-handedly bring

to life the sights and sounds of the women's dressing

room at Filene's Basement on a sale day -- an

experience she guaranteed would make the even most

robustly heterosexual man swear off the opposite sex

for life. ;-))

 

Anyway, my answer to all of these charges was simple:

To reverence woman is not to believe that she is

Divine, flawless or "better" than man. It is not to

want to look at pictures of (or actual) pretty girls

-- or Goddesses, as the case may be. Rather, it is

simply to acknowledge that you have committed to the

path of the Divine Feminine -- it is a first step in

practicing what you preach! I've written before on the

technique of worshiping Goddess forms that one finds

repulsive or unattractive -- about how, very soon,

these forms reveal their beautiful message to the

serious devotee, and become attractive themselves. The

same thing goes for the unpleasant, nasty women (and

men, for that matter) whom we meet in everyday life.

In fact, it goes *especially* for such people.

 

After all, one might think it is easiest to perceive

the Divine Feminine essence in some obviously

"perfect" female form -- say, a 20-year-old fashion

model or "Miss World" finalist. But it's not true!

Just the opposite, in fact. Focusing on such a

corporate "sex-symbol" caricature of woman can too

easily make a devotee (especially a man, and

especially one who is new to Shakta) fall in love with

a surface, while thinking he's focusing on the unseen

and hidden Feminine within. But falling in love with a

form that is not obviously beautiful or kind or

admirable to fall in love with the Divine Feminine

hidden deep within.

 

I'll close with a passage from Van Lysebeth's "Cult of

the Feminine" (see my Amazon

booklist for more info):

 

"It might seem that [the Shakta/Tantric tenet that all

women are to be revered as a manifestation of Goddess]

has nothing to do with our daily lives, with the

flesh-and-blood women we live with and met every day:

Our mothers, sisters, wives, lovers. Is the mystery of

the Feminine concealed in *them*? Where? …

 

"[so] what, and who, is the true woman? That is the

question! Although each and every woman embodies the

ultimate Female Principle, the true Shakti is becoming

ever scarcer. Who is to blame? Women, or the

patriarchy that stifles them? Today, our women are

like zombies, like attractive caricatures of real

women. In matriarchal cultures, women can reach true

fulfillment, and so can men, for the latter can evolve

and grow only if they are in living contact with true

women: By stifling women, men have stifled themselves.

…

 

"[but] fathoming the abysmal depth of the Feminine

hidden in actual women, and gaining access to this, is

precisely the stuff that Tantra is made of. The

'Kaulavali Tantra' says, 'One should bow to any

female, be she a girl flushed with youth, or be she

old; be she beautiful or ugly; good or wicked. One

should never deceive, speak ill of, or do ill to a

woman and one should never strike her. All such acts

prevent [spiritual] attainment.'

 

"[And for women practitioners,] Tantra believes that

first and foremost the Feminine must emerge from the

woman herself. She must become aware of what she

*really* is, and she must integrate that awareness

into the way she views herself and the world, as it

becomes part and parcel of her life."

 

"Actually, Tantra's message concerns both women and

men. Every Tantric Shakti [woman practioner] is, or

seeks to become, a *true* woman, one who dares to

delve into her own being to discover her inner and

ultimate wellsprings. She *is* the goddess -- a

living, present-day incarnation of the ultimate cosmic

energy, although she may be unaware of it. Her true

mystery is the mystery of life, that fantastic

creative dynamism --which gives rise to atoms and

galaxies, makes wheat sprout, makes bacteria

proliferate -- is present and active at all times in

all women."

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

 

 

 

Try FREE Mail - the world's greatest free email!

/