Unusual Approaches to Goddess? ( A repost )

[Guest guest]

devi_bhakta

 

I have posed three examples of unusual approaches to Goddess in the

old club. These are (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. We'd touched on this topic a bit

previously on Instant Goddess.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namaha

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 onecan 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

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

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

They are simply different approaches. I think the example in the

post : Instant Goddess. 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 has 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.

 

Blessings!

 

~ Melanie

 

devi_bhakta

 

Hi Melanie ...

 

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

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.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namaha

[GroovFlowr]

I know it's been some years since this topic was discussed in its last location, but I recall this thread from time to time and, after recently finding this repost via Google, was inspired to try to find a pic of a smiling Kumari. (Hopefully it attached okay - this is my first post on this site.)

While not the full toothy smile of American standards, it is a smile. However, as previously noted, this is not necessarily a good thing as the Kumari is supposed to maintain a neutral expression. (Smiling means so many different things depending on the culture in question. I don't know about Nepal specifically, but I am aware that in other parts of Asia smiling is not necessarily so much an expression of happiness as it is a shield from shame, embarrasment, or other disturbing emotions. And in Japan it has long been customary to cover one's mouth when laughing so as not to rudely expose the teeth of an open mouth.)

I also do not know whether or not this is a Royal Kumari, or what differences that may make as far as her protocol. (The site I found it on is a travel site and didn't give any documentation with this photo - I have not posted enough here to be allowed to post the link.)

~ Mel