Do Shaktas Ignore or Deny Shiva?

[Guest guest]

A friend of the Group recently sent me a private e-mail saying that

they were upset by what they saw as a tendency in the Group toward

"pure" Shaktism -- which they defined as a spiritual practice that

embraces Shakti (the Divine Feminine), while denying or ignoring Shiva

(the Divine Masculine).

 

I'd just like to state unequivocally that this is not the case. In

fact, our front page message states it straight out. There is no form

of Hinduism that rejects either the Divine Masculine or the Divine

Feminine; the different schools are simply matters of focus and

emphasis. I've only recently made attempts to clarify this, notably in

post #1750 and the subsequent Group discussion. However, long-time

members will know that this issue always comes up, so I hope they will

forgive me if I repeat some things I've said before. But these are

important points:

 

Hinduism recognizes *three* main theological conceptions of Devi: (1)

Supreme Divinity, manifesting as all gods and goddesses; (2) Divine

Power of Shiva (who is Divine Consciousness); and (3) Divine Consort,

subordinate wife and "helper" to a Supreme Male Divinity. For details,

see post #1785.

 

Conception (1) is Shaktism. As the late, great Satguru Sivaya

Subramuniyaswami, a Shaivite monk and 162nd successor to the

Nandinatha Kailasa lineage, explained: "In philosophy and practice,

Shaktism greatly resembles Shaivism. But Shaktas worship Shakti as the

Supreme Being exclusively, as the dynamic aspect of Divinity, while

Shiva is considered solely transcendent and is not worshiped."

 

Conception (2) mainly describes most schools of Tantra and certain

sects of Shaivism. Conception (3) covers certain other sects of

Shaivism, and many if not most sects of Vaishnavism. These two

approaches are perfectly legitimate approaches to Hinduism -- no

better or worse than Shaktism. But they are not in fact Shaktism.

These points of view are recognized and welcome, but the primary focus

of this particular Group is Conception (1). Allow me to make clear

that these are not strict, doctrinaire divisions; like the rest of

Hinduism, the defining borders are soft and porous, with many devotees

falling in between strict definitions.

 

But broadly speaking, Shaktism considers Mother as Supreme Divinity --

this is the so-called "Pure" Shaktism of the Devi Mahatmyam, Devi

Gita, and Devi Bhagavatam Purana. For the devotee's convenience and

inspiration, Supreme Brahman Itself, as the inconceivable source of

all, encompassing and transcending all gender, is focused upon in its

Feminine aspects, as the Mother of all Gods, Goddesses, Heavens and

Universes. Only Shaktism gives the Divine Feminine this supremacy.

 

This approach to the Divine is NOT dualistic, separating Male from

Female and denigrating the Male. It explicitly recognizes that Supreme

Divinity encompasses and transcends *all* genders, but merely chooses

to focus on the Feminine, for reasons set out in Post #1750, and in a

beautiful excerpt which I will post next.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

I was asked to respond to this question. The discourse given

thus far is fairly extencive, in fact it would make Sir Woodruff

proud. There are a few basic points so far missed. Traditionaly

followers of Devi do not ignore or Deny Shiva. In fact at every

Shakti Peet there is a Shiva Temple, and at every Jyoti Lingam

there is a Devi temple. The appearance that Devi is Ignored or

denied comes from the way the Scriptures come to us. It is Shiva

who is the author of most of the scriptures that are written. The

Durga Saptashati (Chandi) comes from the Markandeya Purana

( Purana dedicated to Shiva). Since it is Shiva who is the

worshiper, He would natrally extol his beloved and not himself.

 

It is in modern traditions that the Pundits have become extreme

in this matter. From my tradition we see no difference between

Shiva and Shakti. While it is true that Devi can exist without

Shiva, We cannot know of Devi without Shiva.

 

Jai Maa

[Guest guest]

Namaste Swami Ji!

 

What a surprise and honor to see you posting here! Thank you, I

appreciate your astute observations regarding the fact that both

Shiva and Devi Temples honor the complementary half of the

Ardhanareshwara.

 

*** There are a few basic points so far missed. Traditionaly

followers of Devi do not ignore or Deny Shiva. ***

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and in fact, this idea was the whole

thrust of my last couple of posts. I hope that the added weight of

your comments will help drive that point home at last.

 

*** While it is true that Devi can exist without Shiva, We cannot

know of Devi without Shiva. ***

 

Is this true? I've never come across this idea before! Even in the

most resolutely Shakta scriptures -- such as the Devi Bhagavatam

Purana, which has Devi creating Shiva to serve as Her Static Ground,

Lover and Helpmate -- I always had the impression that He is inherent

in Her, just as, from another point of view, She is inherent in Him.

Could you offer any more detail on the idea of Devi existing without

Shiva?

 

Thank you once again for your comments.

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

Recently you have felt compelled to respond to suggestions that

Shaktism "embraces Shakti (the Divine Feminine), while denying

or ignoring Shiva (the Divine Masculine)". Your posts on this

subject have been lyrical, detailed and heart-felt. You state

categorically that Shiva is being neither denied nor ignored by

Shaktism.

 

Swami Vittala has obliged us by adding some detail and his

important distinction "that Devi can exist without

Shiva, [but] We cannot know of Devi without Shiva".

 

The more thoughtful and spiritually developed among the

membership have no problems with either of these points of

view. They recognize that each must initially conceptualize the

Absolute in ways that reflect their experience and their

aspirations.

 

There are many paths to the top of the highest mountain. Some

are easier or more difficult, more scenic or more arduous than

others. Some head straight for the top, while others wind back

among themselves before resuming an upward direction. But

these paths and people who follow them all eventually arrive at

the top of the mountain where the shared view is the same - a

featureless sky above and a new perspective on the earth below.

 

There is no need to justify Shaktism. It is a viable spiritual path

that will take those who follow it to the top of the mountain.

 

The reasons people sometimes query the validity of Shaktism

are threefold:

 

(1) they are entrenched in their own path and are not yet secure

enough to notice the similarities of all paths while respecting the

differences between the paths. They fail to see that it is not the

paths that are different but that the same message has been

presented in different ways to accommodate differences in

spiritual aspirants.

 

The way to reach these people is to do just as you have done -

repeatedly outline the tenets and emphases of Shaktism,

maintain a respectful, informative, and sattvic tone to the

messages of the group, and hope that over time the personal

sadhana of these people will broaden and deepen their spiritual

awareness.

 

(2)they are drawn to Shaktism but because of their newness they

may misinterpret some Shaktisms tenets.

 

Again, the way to approach these people is the same as the

above - education, maintaining a sattvic tone and patience.

 

(3) I feel the real problem lies with the third group - those who

profess an affinity for Shaktism but who are really driven by

allegiances to other disciplines or to other philosophies. These

people attempt to co-opt Shaktism and your good intentions in

order to serve other agendas that are driving them.

 

For example, Paganism is arguably a spiritual practice for those

who are stuck in the lower chakras. It's practitioners, therefore,

can be driven by all of the lower order emotions. This contrasts

with the higher order perceptions and emotions that are required

to fully apprectiate Shaktism.

 

Also, there is a distinct feminist thread that winds through the

messages of the group. Not only is it feminist in nature but it is

abusive towards males. This should not be tolerated. I did a

quick survey of the last 100 posts and found three that

demeaning of males or say males as the enemy. This may not

sound like much but it is 3% and, moreover, a 3% that glaringly

stands out from the other 97% because of the rajasic/tamasic

nature of that 3%.

 

I draw your attention to the following comments from those posts

(post numbers upon request):

 

"There has been too much patriarchal demonization of women

for too long."

 

"I refused to accept that male dominance still prevail in my

religious community. Thus you can say that my attraction

towards Shaktism is more of defiance against my

religious upbringing."

 

"Feminism has not screwed anything up for anyone other than

the patriarchal societies and the misogynists of the world."

 

There is a contemptuous, adversarial message in these posts

that is out of place in an authentic spiritual path. It is a message

that is confusing to newcomers and that inspires some from

other paths to respond in kind.

 

This feminist agenda is also served in other ways. It has come

to my attention that Sakti Sadhana refused to post a message

about Lakshmi on the grounds that it mentioned Lakshmi in the

context of consort of Vishnu. My first response was to think of the

arrogance required to second guess Maa's decision to

materialize as Lakshmi and to play the role of consort. It is Maa's

decision. It should be respected and one should strive to

understand its meaning.

 

It seems you would be well advised to monitor some posts more

(the feminist ones) and monitor other posts less (the ones

appear to disagree with a feminist perspective).

 

I respect your efforts vis a vis this club and offer these comments

in the interest of maintaining the high standards of Shakti

Sadhana.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaste OmPremji:

 

I really don't know what to say, except for thank you. Your message was itself

an extremely "lyrical, detailed and heart-felt" one, as you were kind enough

to say about my efforts. It is an honor to have members in the Group who care

enough to formulate and share their thoughts on how it could be better.

 

I find it interesting that you say I "have felt compelled" to continually try

and clarify the nature of Shaktism, as I understand its doctrine. That is a very

accurate description of my feelings. I found I was asking myself: (1) "Am I

nuts?" for repeating myself and trying so hard to make a point that apparently

refuses to be made? and (2) "Am I missing something?" as to why my attempts to

be clear seem to cause some people such confusion.

 

In an important way, your post provided answers to both of those questions.

 

*** The reasons people sometimes query the validity of Shaktism are threefold

***

 

I won't repeat your breakdown of these three categories of people, though I will

encourage people to go click "Up Thread" and have a look at your entire post for

themselves. It is excellent, and I would guess that it's probably correct. It

provided a much-needed perspective for me, at any rate.

 

You note that the real "problem" members are "those who profess an affinity for

Shaktism but who are really driven by allegiances to other disciplines or to

other philosophies," specifically mentioning paganism and "a distinct feminist

thread" that accompanies some of these messages.

 

WHY WELCOME PAGANS?

 

In response, I will state straight out that I do not have a problem with either

pagans or feminists. I like the fresh perspective they bring to the Group.

Shaktism is, as you note, a subtle, highly refined religion. It offers a wealth

of philosophical, scriptural, iconographical, and ritual resources,

unparallelled in any other "Goddess-oriented" religion (which is what I assume

you're referring to when you mention Pagan philosophies in this context). Pagans

and feminists bring with them an admirable desire to apply these ancient

precepts in a way that is relevant to their modern lives.

 

I welcome these members also because most of them represent ancient non-Indian

goddess traditions, often those that have been lost for many centuries. They

are rebuilding from scratch, "creating" ritual, "creating" a tradition, and --

whether we as Hindus feel that this attempt is worthy of merit or disdain,

whether we believe they are reclaiming a lost heritage or simply wasting

valuable time on a fool's errand -- we should respect those who are serious

enough to come here and attempt to learn something from the world's oldest,

uninterrupted Goddess tradition. Whether they put the things they learn to good

use, or misinterpret it, is not for us to judge. Each has her/his own dharma --

let them fulfill it. As you note, in time we all end up in the same place. But

how nice if we can compare notes along the way.

 

FEMINISM YES, MALE-BASHING NO

 

So, paganism is fine with me, in that regard. And feminism is fine too, in my

estimation. As I've pointed out so many times before, there is no other

spiritual system on Earth that gives such a high place of honor to the female

gender as does Shaktism. 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." Like it or not, agree or disagree, that's practical Shaktism for

you.

 

Also, abstract theology aside, I think the "idea" of Shaktism (however

incompletely realized) offers an important practical boon for many women. It's

exciting and empowering -- and I think it's wonderful. Shaktism makes us think

twice about out traditional gender assumptions; like a Yogic headstand, it can

radically flip our perspective, upset our pat complacency in the status quo, and

force us to see the world with fresh new eyes. Almost every religion teaches

that, in order to progress, we must drop the jaded lenses of adulthood, and

reclaim the wonder and total attention of a child. I realize that not all

"feminist" posts will aim quite so high, but in general. Women have had a hard

go of it in most world religions, and it is an honor if some of them finally

find a resonance, and a home, in Shaktism.

 

Now, those particular "feminist" passages that you've drawn from the last 100

messages certainly reflect an incorrect idea of Shaktism's beautiful totality.

But I prefer to place their authors in your category of those who "are drawn to

Shaktism but, because of their newness, may misinterpret some Shaktisms tenets."

And I would take your advice that, "the way to approach these people is

[through] education, maintaining a sattvic tone and patience." Who knows? Drawn

initially by the perceived feminism of Shaktism, some of these folks

might in time be pulled into the larger truth, beauty, wonder, and profundity of

the system.

 

Okay. Having said all of that, let me hasten to agree with you 100

percent that we do NOT welcome posts that are "abusive towards males,

demeaning of males or [that posit] males as the enemy." These do set

entirely the wrong tone for the Group, and really have nothing to

Shaktism, which is in many ways the least divisive of faiths.

 

Could it actually be true that this tiny minority

of "rajasic/tamasic" posts accounts for the bulk of misunderstanding

posts I've been fielding? Frankly it seems incredible, but I am

perefectly willing to take your word for it. I'll keep an eye out for

posts that "male-bashing" posts, since they would by definition

violate the club policy of not allowing posts that hold up any member

or members, named or unnamed, for ridicule and/or abuse.

 

REJECTION OF A VAISHNAVA HYMN

 

*** It has come to my attention that Sakti Sadhana refused to post a

message about Lakshmi on the grounds that it mentioned Lakshmi in the

context of consort of Vishnu. ***

 

This is actually true, OmPremji. Please remember that this Group is always a

"work in progress," and that the moderators do not lay claim to any kind of

infallibility. But here is how it happened:

 

We had noticed an erosion of the Group's focus on Shaktism, and a drift toward

"General Hinduism" -- a wider field for which numerous large forums already

exist, some with a many hundreds or even thousands of members. We are in no

position to "compete" with these giants, nor do we wish to do so. They serve

their constituency very well; there is no need to duplicate their valuable work.

And so we wished to define ourselves as a niche group, opting for an in-depth

focus on a single aspect of Hinduism, rather than trying to emcompass the entire

vast sweep of it.

 

How did we hope to do this? By asking members: Please post only Shakta-related

items to the Group. Shakta being defined for these purposes as items that hold

up Devi as the primary focus of worship, in a capacity equal or superior to Her

consort. That is, after all, our niche.

 

The post in question was something of a "test balloon," purposely floated by a

well-meaning member immediately following our request -- perhaps in an effort to

try the limits (and perhaps the seriousness) of our request. (The same member

simultaneously posted a clearly Shakta hymn, which went up immediately.) The

sense I got was, "Okay, they just asked for all-Shakta posts; I wonder how will

they react to a Vaishnava hymn that explicitly subordinates Lakshmi to Vishnu?"

My response was simple: "It's not our niche."

 

Now, this was not a "feminist" decision -- it was simply me, a human, imperfect

moderator, attempting to make a good decision for the Group as a whole. Was it

the right decision? Apparently not. But it was a honest and well-meaning attempt

at fairness, in which I felt no "arrogance." Nor did I feel myself to be "second

guessing Maa's decision to materialize as Lakshmi and to play the role of

consort."

 

On the contrary, I felt myself to be second-guessing that particular member's

decision to choose that particular hymn at that particular moment, while having

full knowledge of the difficult background debates that had gone into our

formulation of our brand-new Group policy. Neither the member's motives in

posting the hymn, nor my motives in rejecting it, had anything to do with

Lakshmi, in my estimation -- well, except perhaps for the fact that the whole

affair was a lovely example of Her play as Maya.

 

But I do learn from my mistakes. I gave this member the benefit of the doubt,

and sent them an explanation and apology immediately upon rejecting the post --

and I will certainly strive to handle incidents like this with a bit more

diplomacy and finesse in the future.

 

Thank you once again, OmPremji, for your invaluable input.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

I place my head at your feet and thank you for your fine example

of spirituality in action - humility, clear thinking, control of

emotions, willing to listen to (and post) dissenting viewpoints,

strength of conviction where needed and strength of character to

admit to possible mistakes of judgement.

 

We can all aspire to behave this impeccably in difficult situations.

 

I would add that Paganism can be viable spiritual path and

feminism a good starting philosophy, provided that ego does not

become engaged and an adversarial attitude does not develop.

The world is polarized enough without contributing more

divisiveness.

 

'Empowerment' is a dangerous concept to aim for as a final goal

in that it is by definition limiting, ego-based, self-aggrandizing,

and can easily degenerate into vituperation, destroying any

spiritual gain that might have accrued.

 

A person's reach should exceed their grasp.

 

OM Namah Sivaya/Jaya Maa

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Bright Blessings,

 

Well, this has certainly been an interesting thread. I have learned so

much, and observed so much more since the time I joined this group.

Similar to omprem, I have been drawn to and inspired by devi bhakta's

"fine example of spirituality in action - humility, clear thinking,

control of emotions, willing to listen to (and post) dissenting

viewpoints, strength of conviction where needed and strength of

character to admit to possible mistakes of judgement." I must give

credit to Nora also, her posts and re-posts remind me of the love of

the Goddess which is the center of my life and the reason I joined

here in the beginning.

 

I am a priestess in a very young faith, contemporarily; and I am here

as a guest. Therefore there is much I do not say, and much to which I

do not respond. I am here to learn of an ancient and respected

tradition, and to share in the spiritual love of the Feminine Divine

that we seem to share, at least nominally. I do think that I have much

in common with many of the actual members of this faith, but I respect

that we have differences.

 

It is, therefore, hard to not respond strongly and negatively to

something like: "Paganism is arguably a spiritual practice for those

who are stuck in the lower chakras. It's practitioners, therefore, can

be driven by all of the lower order emotions." In this forum, I am

here to learn your faith. I hesitate to waste any time or energy in

defending my own. However, as your guest I would like you to know that

I cherish my faith and hope that my conduct has not given you reason

to believe that I am being driven by all of the lower order emotions.

There are many Pagans. Like any other group we have persons of all

temperments and motives.

 

It was said "These people attempt to co-opt Shaktism and your good

intentions in order to serve other agendas that are driving them." To

be honest, I do serve another agenda. I am a priestess of the Goddess

in my own faith. It is a part of my sworn vows to continue to grow in

knowledge of her and service to Her. I do not intend to misrepresent

myself as Hindu. Nor, when I studied Tibetan Buddhism, did I

misrepresent myself as Buddhist. I want to know that I am welcomed for

who I am, that way people do not feel betrayed that they have shared

their faith with an outsider. I would rather be excluded honestly than

included dishonestly. It is contrary to the tenets of my personal

faith to invade a sacred space where my presence is not welcomed. I

welcome the honest commentary about the non-Hindus who are here in

this group. It is important to know how you feel, and if you are

uncomfortable or disquieted. In fact, that's a strong reason for my

reply. I want you to know that I'm here and I'm interested in what you

have to say. It seemed dishonest to lurk around and not speak to your

concerns about group members like me.

 

It's a little harder for me to respond dispassionately to your

concerns about feminism. Some of the political issues of Feminism can

certainly be separated from issues of faith, and even could be

responsible for gutting the essence of a practice of faith. I have

seen this happen more than once when people mix politics and religion.

In fact, I feel this is the unfortunate cause of some of the bloodiest

and most violent human conflicts.

 

On the other hand, I believe that one should take one's faith into all

aspects, especially the most difficult aspects of one's life. Also,

one should not be afraid to point out the politics and other social

difficulties that creep into religious life and religious

organization. It is a deeply political act to see the ultimate

expression of the Divine with a femine face. In my country there have

been near riots at the depiction of mainstream religious figures as

non-white or as female.

 

My parents and grandparents were raised in a faith that did not allow

women to serve the Divine directly. They were raised in a religious

culture that specifically subordinated women to men. Although I

didn't say this myself, I feel that saying: "I refused to accept that

male dominance still prevail in my religious community. Thus you can

say that my attraction towards Shaktism is more of defiance against my

religious upbringing" is an accurate description of the conditions in

which my mother and her mother were raised. It doesn't sound like a

bashing of men at all. But perhaps that is because I had to kneel at

the feet of men who said I was not fit to serve simply because of my

gender. I am now free to associate with other men and women who more

closely share my values. If you feel that I hold the actions of other

men against you, I assure you I do not. By your membership here I know

that you do not denigrate women merely for their sex.

 

There are those who do demonize women, who characterize them as

filthy, contaminating and the source of evil. That's just a fact. But

when I come here to listen and to learn I don't have to address that

or fight that. It's not a part of the dialog here, and to me that

means that I don't really even have to discuss it. This is a welcome

respite for me and I want to participate in preserving it. I hope that

my relief at the existence of such a group is not interpreted as

contempt for men in general.

 

There are important real issues of violence against women and contempt

for women that must be grappled with in the real world. Undoubtedly

the world will be improved by a spiritual approach to such important

conflicts. However, I do not come here for the purpose of debating

such matters. I come here to deepen my own faith that I may take that

with me into the real world and do a better job at living in it.

 

I hope that fears and concerns about feminists and Pagans do not

interfere with the incredible depth of the discussions here and I hope

that my participation is both welcomed and appropriate to the forum. I

have been greatly enriched by the wisdom and experience shared here. I

would be saddened if my own contributions were seen as denigrating.

 

Yours in Her Service,

 

prainbow

[Guest guest]

OM Prainbow

 

 I am only one member in this group and speaking as an

individual, I can say that you are most welcome.

 

You project the attributes of humility, sincerity, commitment to

your path, vairagya (detachment), viveka (discrimination between

the Real and the unimportant), faith in Goddess/God that are the

hallmarks of the serious spiritual aspirant. Plus you are

articulate and interactive.

 

My earlier comments did not say that all Pagans and feminists

were unwelcome or even that any of them were. I pointed out that

some 3% of the last 100 messages had directed animosity

toward men and tried to do so under the guise of Shaktism. This

is demeaning to Shaktism, to men, and to all those who read

those messages. It is negativity that has no place here or in any

authentic spiritual path. It is divisive and leads one away from

Oneness instead of toward It.

 

You say that you serve another agenda but you do not. You are

sincerely following a spiritual path. That is a common agenda.

Paths are many, Truth is One.

 

Regarding feminism, the only statement of yours with which I

disagree is, "It is a deeply political act to see the ultimate

expression of the Divine with a femine face." To see the Divine

with a feminine face is not a political act, it is an expression of

who you are at that moment. If the Divine wants to appear to you

as feminine, masculine or in the abstract, as with Jnanis, that is

between you and the Divine. To include politics with that vision is

to corrupt the vision.

 

It is up each of us to identify and separate the

psychological/karmic forces that drive us in our daily life from the

internal vision of the Divine that resides in each of us. To allow

the former to intrude on the latter is to contaminate one's vision

of the latter.

 

Spiritual evolution consists of quieting the mind until our inner

Divinity becomes apparent to us. Political crusades do not

accomplish that. Male bashing (or any other form of violence

toward another person) does not accomplish that. Hanging on to

past injustices does not accomplish that. You know this already

for you say that despite your upbringing, "I am now free to

associate with other men and women who more closely share

my values." That freedom from the past and the increasing need

to be with spiritually-minded people are important signs of

spiritual unfolding. It is these types of changes that many people

are afraid to make.

 

Fear of the new, not wanting to let go of the old (and the

dysfunctional), is a major stumbling block for the spiritual

aspirant. It is to these people who hang to their negativity and

project it into groups such as this I was referring in my earlier

message.

 

You seem to be agreeing with me when you say, "There are

those who do demonize women, who characterize them as filthy,

contaminating and the source of evil. That's just a fact.But when I

come here to listen and to learn I don't have to address that or

fight that. It's not a part of the dialog here." Exactly, it is not part of=

 

the dialogue here. Nor should it be. Such observation,

discussion, politicking is out of place here and lowers the tone of

the group. I'm pleased that you have risen above that in your own

life and in this forum. That was main point of my earlier comment

and you have captured it precisely.

 

I look forward to more posts from you. Could you perhaps talk

about your personal relationship with the Goddess - how that

relationship guides your life choices, how it elevates your

sensibility, how your life has changed as a result?

 

Jaya Maa

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

dear ompremji,, as usual a beautiful response to prainbow's post..

 

yes, you are absolutely right when you say each member is valuable no

matter what their spiritual or cultural background is - the more

diverse the group is, the better it is because we can get to hear and

read a whole range of view points and opinions - that is what

lends 'color' to a group ----otherwise, conformity can be boring and

dull to say the least !

 

i personally am here only because i love this group right from day

number one and feel a bonding i have never experienced before in any

other group setting... twice i lef this group only to rejoin the next

minute for i thought the loss was entirely mine!

ompremji, i do agree with you on one point and this has been

emphasised by penkatali in one of his recent posts as well...

 

you say...

 

"some 3% of the last 100 messages had directed animosity

toward men and tried to do so under the guise of Shaktism. This

is demeaning to Shaktism, to men, and to all those who read

those messages. It is negativity that has no place here or in any

authentic spiritual path. It is divisive and leads one away from

Oneness instead of toward It."

 

 

this is very true... whether it is shaktism, shaivism, vaishnavism,

islam , christianity or whatever ... the real goal of any spiritual

path is to 'unite' and not divide people into groups like -

feminists, ant-feminists, etc.... then it is not 'spiritual'

 

as merrilyn also has pointed out in another group - there should be a

hamonious blend of all qualities - masculine and feminine - so, we

should try to attempt at a harmonious blend of reason and passion

as khalil gibran has so eloquently pointed out....

 

WE all have our isthadevata ( or ishtadevi ) and if one wants to

worship God as the divine feminine , that is wonderful but the only

problem arises when we start labelling 'one is as inferior or

superior' because in the kingdom of god/godess there is no such

****Rating****** because there is no such hierarchy!!! there is a

king and there is a queen and there are subjects.... because how can

there be a queen if there is no king!!! all this debate bout laksmi

is shown as inferior just because she is sitting at the lotus feet of

mahavishnu is not only meaningless but totally blasphemous!!! we are

not here to rewrite hindu mythology.

 

So, by all means let us focus on the divine feminine but as ompremji

says , let us avoid *****BASHING****** PERIOD!!!!

 

love