Divine feminine, divine masculine (was Shaktism and Advaita)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Devi bhakta and everybody.

 

I'd like to respond to a very thought-provoking posting Devi bhakta made a

few days ago.

> Perhaps the root of the problem is that, in India as elsewhere

in the

> world, the Goddess tradition stretches back to time

immemorial. In

> prehistoric times and even well into historic times, She was

*the*

> Divinity, according to archeological evidence.

 

I'd agree that there is archeological evidence of the worship of feminine

forms in very early times. But does the evidence really prove that "the

Goddess... was *the* Divinity"?

 

Ancient stone images with female characteristics don't tell us whether the

people who fashioned them thought in terms of the Goddess, or many

goddesses, or one Goddess with many incarnations, or many goddesses who are

of one substance, or what.

 

Also. To say that "She was *the* Divinity" seems to imply that masculine

forms were not worshipped in very ancient times. Yet, all the archeological

evidence which I have seen suggests that prehistorical people, worshipped

both the feminine _and_ the masculine.

 

Specifically, the relics of the Indus Valley civilization include not only

female figures, but males one too, including an image which has been

interpreted as "The Lord of the Beasts", and "proto-Siva".

>With the rise of

> Semitic religions, She began to disappear -- as these

religions,

> Judaism, Christianity and Islam, tend to obliterate earlier

deities

> wherever they take root.

 

Having found what they considered to be the one true God, these religions

suppressed the worship of earlier masculine deities (e.g. Baal and Moloch,

mentioned in the Bible), as well as feminine ones (e.g. Astarte, whom the

Bible calls Ashtaroth).

>As She has

come

> down to us in the traditional Puranic literature, there are now

three

> main conceptions of Devi:

> 1. Chief and Ruler of the Universe. That is, whatever we mean

by

> Brahman, God, Ishvara, etc., that is Devi. She is the highest.

 

The Sanskrit word Ishvara has masculine gender. The word Brahman has neuter

gender. If these words apply to Devi, does that mean she includes the

masculine and the neuter within her femininity?

> 2. Wife, or Power (Shakti) of Shiva. According to this

conception,

> Shiva and Shakti are equals....But while they are given equal

status in

> theory, the Shaivite usually considers Shiva "the real thing,"

and

> thus slightly more worthy of reverence than Shakti, the illusion.

 

What would you say about someone who addresses worship to Eternal Kali and

Lord Mahakala, naming them in that order? Would you fit him or her into the

first of your categories, or into the second? Would you consider that a

shakta form of worship or a saiva form?

> But while the

Shakta

> religion does revere women and the feminine to a greater

degree than

> any other, it is vastly more than a "feminist religion." As I tried to

> set out in Post #1750, it is a highly evolved, scripturally sound,

> unusually world-affirming version of Hinduism.

 

I would suggest to you that the most world-affirming mode of worship is one

which honours both the feminine principle and the masculine. For both are

part of this world.

 

Om Shantih,

 

Colin.

[Guest guest]

hey colin, my dearest friend, that is the profoundest statement made

in recent times!! my own karl jung!! feminine and masculine

principle ! anima-animus!!! i love it , i love it!!

 

MY UPA-GURU COLIN WRITES...

 

I would suggest to you that the most world-affirming mode of worship

is one

which honours both the feminine principle and the masculine. For

both are

part of this world.

 

 

that is why i love the kaula approach... (so does samkar kochu)

 

Antah-shaktah

bahih-shaivah

sabhayam vaishnava matah

Nana-rupadharah

Kaulah vicaranti mahitale.

 

at heart a Shakta

outwardly a Shaiva,

in gatherings a Vaishnava (who are wont to

gather together for worship in praise of Hari)

in thus many a guise the Kaulas wander on

earth."

 

to celebrate this UNITY OF MASCUKLINE AND FEMININE PRINCIPLE, HERE IS

A HYMN TO SHIVA-SHAKTI UNITY...

 

Hymn to Shiva Shakti

 

 

Param Shiva, Shiva Shakti, thou art the

mother divine. Grant me thy devotion, remove

all obstacles and show thy might.

Thou art the transcendental super energy

of the nature of absolute bliss. Thou art the root

energy of the universe and the ordinary nature

of the embodied.

 

Thou art the power of universal ambition,

all encompassing knowledge, again thou art the

universal power of execution.

 

In the form of Brahma, though art

responsible for the creation of the world; in the

form of Vishnu, the world is sustained by thee

and again thou take the form of world destroying

power.

 

In the garb of Maya, Shiva, the ultimate

Truth is concealed by thee, but in the form of

Divine grace thou revealth the ultimate truth

(Shiva). Again thou art the independent

sovereign power.

 

Thou art the Energy in the form of three

Gunas or mental moods, and thou the ruling

power above these Gunas. Thou art the

conscious power of Shiva.

 

Manifestation of the mind, intellect and

ego are the wonders of your power. Thou art the

all limiting power.

 

Thou art the five sense powers, the five

powers of action. Again thou art the fivefold

prana (vital force) in the human being.

 

Thou art the five subtle and the five

gross elements, and thou the power in a mystic

sound formula.

 

Thou art the four stages of manifestation

of articulate speech. Again thou art the source

of primal sound 'OM'.

 

Thou art the concealed serpent power at

the base of the spine. Thou art responsible for

her play in the middle sushumna channel.

 

Thou art the very form of nectar in the

spiritual centre at the crown of the head. Again

thou art all effulgence.

 

Manifestation of form out of formless is

thy miraculous power. Thou art knowable

power.... My adoration to thee.

 

om shiva-shakti aika rupinyaii namaha!!!

 

 

thanks colin!

 

love

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Colin:

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my short-and-sweet primer on

the complex historical context of Shaktism. Much of your response,

however, suggests that you caught me in mid-argument, since I had

addressed many of the questions you raise earlier in the thread.

 

*** does the evidence really prove that "the Goddess... was *the*

Divinity"? ***

 

The evidence proves nothing, I agree. As you suggest, we are so far

removed from Neolithic culture and psychology that we simply cannot

hope to definitively interpret the "real meaning" of any given

artwork or symbol created by those ancient ancestors.

 

Historians such as Merlin Stone and Riane Eisler have, however, laid

down a powerful argument for the existence of a Supreme Mother

Goddess in those times. True, She was almost always accompanied by a

Male God, often conceived as a Son/Lover (in fact, may aspects of the

Jesus-Mary legend were adapted from these ancient Mother/Son

mythologies). And yes, the Harrapan seal you refer to as the "proto-

Shiva" does suggest an early lingam motif, just as the seal depicting

a woman giving birth to a tree suggests a "proto-Shakti."

 

But again, the meaning of these symbols are lost to us (although, in

the case of the seals, it seems reasonable to theorize that they

represent a pre-Aryan religion that later combined with Vedic

scropture to eventually produce modern Hinduism). Whether the

Harappans actually had developed the concept of a Shiva-Shakti Unity

at that early point in history remains an open question.

 

*** Having found what they considered to be the one true God, these

religions suppressed the worship of earlier masculine deities (e.g.

Baal and Moloch, mentioned in the Bible), as well as feminine ones

(e.g. Astarte, whom the Bible calls Ashtaroth). ***

 

Yes. I would note, however, that an awful lot of the deities

mentioned in the Bible besides Astarte were "masculinized" -- the

Bible is loathe to even admit the possibilty of Feminine Divinity,

even if such divinity exists (from the Biblical standpoint) only to

be wiped out. The famous "Golden Calf" of the Ten Commandments story

was a symbol of the Mother Goddess.

 

You are certainly correct that both Male and Female Deities were

equal-opportunity candidates for destruction in the Bible, but -- as

you yourself point out -- that tells us absolutely nothing about the

way those Male and Female deities were conceived by their

worshippers. The Stone and Eisler evidence suggests they represented

the faith of mainly matrilineal, Goddess-worshipping cultures. But

even if you find that to be an overly "feminist" reading of the

evidence, there is, again, absolutely nothing to indicate that any

theology as sophisticated as the Shiva-Shakti Unity was in operation.

 

*** The Sanskrit word Ishvara has masculine gender. The word Brahman

has neuter gender. If these words apply to Devi, does that mean she

includes the masculine and the neuter within her femininity? ***

 

Yes. As I quoted in Post #1750, Devi states in the Devi Bhagavata

Purana (Brown's translation):

 

"I am Manifest Divinity, Unmanifest Divinity, and Transcendent

Divinity. I am Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, as well as Saraswati,

Lakshmi and Parvati. I am the Sun and I am the Stars, and I am also

the Moon. I am all animals and birds, and I am the outcaste as well,

and the thief. I am the low person of dreadful deeds, and the great

person of excellent deeds. I am Female, I am Male, and I am Neuter."

 

By way of explanation, Brown clarifies that pure Shaktism "clearly

insists that, of the two genders, the feminine respresents the

dominant power in the universe. Yet both genders must be included in

the ultimate if it is truly ultimate. The masculine and the feminine

are aspects of the divine, transcendent reality, which goes beyond

but still encompasses them. Devi, in her supreme form as

consciousness thus transcends gender, but her transcendence is not

apart from her immanence."

 

Brown's analysis continues, "Indeed, this affirmation of the oneness

of transcendence and immanence constituites the very essence of the

divine mother [and her] ultimate triumph. It is not, finally, that

she is infinitely superior to the male gods -- though she is that,

according to the [shaktas] -- but rather that she transcends her own

feminine nature as Prakriti without denying it."

 

Now, regarding the not-quite-equal "equality" of the Shiva-Shakti

Unity (not in theory, but in popular understanding), you ask: ***

What would you say about someone who addresses worship to Eternal

Kali and Lord Mahakala, naming them in that order? Would you fit him

or her into the first of your categories, or into the second? Would

you consider that a shakta form of worship or a saiva form? ***

 

Again, I addressed this in Post 1750, and subsequent discussions,

mainly with OmPremji. My answer is the Shaivism and Shaktism are, at

many levels, very similar, even complementary faiths -- but I must

qualify that by asking, who is the "someone" you refer to? The

Tantric who addresses Kali-Kala in that order may have no particular

theological agenda; or, may simply like Kali better, while not

denying Shiva's equality. The Shakti Bhakta who uses the same order

of address may actively believe Shakti is superior, or may, again,

simply "like Her better" (or perhaps, "find more resonance in Her")

since s/he is, after all, a Shakta.

 

*** I would suggest to you that the most world-affirming mode of

worship is one which honours both the feminine principle and the

masculine. For both are part of this world.***

 

Yes, I agree. I don't think I can beat Adi in the compliment

department, in calling your suggestion "the profoundest statement made

in recent times!" ;-) But it's definitely a good one.

 

Still, the point of my argument (as myself and OmPrem and Sesh and

others have hashed out over the past week or so) is most definitely

*not* to preach the "superiority" of pure Shaktism's approach to the

Goddess, but rather to work toward a definition of what Shaktism

means to those who practice it. Your arguments seem more focused on

defining "what people should believe," but I was more interested in

exploring "what people *do* believe." To that end, I would say that

many Shaktas undoubtedly share all of the views you set out in your

post. Many Shaivites would do so as well. And when we finally

approach the lofty peak of the Shiva-Shakti Unity, such labels as

Shaiva and Shakta, indeed, begin to lose all meaning and fall away.

But for all but the very final stage of the journey, they mean an

awful lot to an awful lot of people.

 

I simply thought it might prove interesting to explore that. (It

did!) Thanks as always, Colin, for your erudite and deeply felt

contributions to this forum.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe