Reply to Prisni

[Guest guest]

Greetings Prisni

 

Let me welcome you first to Shakti Sadhana. Thousand apologies for

not doing so in advance.

 

Vaisnavas and Shaktas are enemies and have opposite

viewpoints.

 

I really don't know this. I often heard about the

`quarrels' between

Shivites and Krishnites. Devi Bhakta remarked that often he is being

accused of being Anti-Vaisnavas, and me as a feminist. That is

something I am still trying to understand and come to term with. Does

worshipping, passionate and glorifying the greatness of Devi makes

one a feminist?

 

 

"I am a Radha bhakta. Which I think requires some explanation. I

see

Radha, not (only) as the girlfriend of the cowheard Krishna, but as

the supreme female power of everything, as Shakti, and as non-

different from all the other Shakti manifestations. So my interest

and bhakti goes directly into the Shakti realm. So I see Durga, Kali

and the other manifestations as the same person as Radha. For me

there is no difference."

 

David Kinsley. Author of two very popular books: Hindu Goddesses

(Vision of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Traditions) and

The Ten Mahavidyas (Tantric Visions of the Divine Feminine) went to

India in 1968 to undertake doctoral research on the worship,

mythology and theology of Krishna. Was struck by the central role

Radha played in Bengal Vaisnavism. Despite her popularity, very

little is written about her.

 

I seek the light of Devi Parashakti and I see all are but the

manifestation of HER. Often I have heard remarks such as

"Inferior"

form, "superior' form, "Less important" etc. I find

it very hard to

accept for to me they are equally powerful and important. You have

said it beautifully "It is just different forms for different

purposes". For me there is no difference too. But all these are

forms; we should eventually look beyond the forms. As I have remarked

once Brahman to me is like the source of light, and for the Shakta we

used, the form of Devi, put it in front of the source of light, it

shines. The Shivites use Siva; Krishnites uses Krishna and so on.

They all shine because of the light, which is beyond the form. Our

destination is the light, and we all gravitate towards the light. And

once you have seen the light, be with the light or becoming the

light, the form does not matter any more.

 

"Chaitanya Vaisnavism, as far as I understand, is in core

actually

quite female-oriented, but as time has passed, for some reason, the

male (Krishna/Vishnu) aspect has been more and more come in the

foreground, and the female element (Radha) has been put more and more

in the background. When the female element becomes forgotten, with it

goes the philosophy about it, which changes the shape of the whole

philosophy to something else"

 

Perhaps I would like to suggest to you a book: The rise of the

Goddess in the Hindu tradition by Prof Tracy Pintchman. It gives you

an interesting insight into the discussion of the main concepts

relating to the feminine principle in the intellectual, literary

traditions of Hinduism.

 

 

"I am not a scholar, so when I write thing it is more in a kind

of

bhakti mode than a scholarship mode. Some things I write are

technically "wrong", but most of the time there is a deeper meaning

that I am trying to say. But

people often get hung up on the external technicalities, so often I

am rather lurking that saying anything. Let's, say that if I write

anything here, it is from my personal viewpoint. I never want to step

on anyone's toes, so if I do by mistake, it is not

intentional"

 

Don't worry about it. Majority of us here are not scholars

either.

Nevertheless there is always the tendency for one to misinterprets

opinions. That is why in Shakti Sadhana we advocate members to ask

questions. When we questions it is not to insult or to doubt, but to

confirm or clarify certain things or ideas so that we understand

better. That is what I called intellectual discussion. When we start

to get emotional in our discussion, it clouds our sense of judgment

and reasoning. Most important is that we should respect each other

opinions.

 

I have several questions though:

 

1. Could you tell me more about the Radhavallabhins and the

Sakhibhavas. Would you consider yourself as a Radhavallabhins?

 

2. In the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Radha is being portrayed as

the cosmic Queen – equal to or superiors to Krishnan. One passage

describe them as initially forming an androgynous figure of which

Krishnan is one half and Radha the other. Do you have any pictures or

seen a picture of Radha/Krishna in their Androgenic form?

 

 

Om ParaShaktiye Namaha

Namastasyai Namastasyai Namastasyai Namo Namaha

[Guest guest]

söndagen den 18 augusti 2002 17.31 skrev thegoddessisinme2002:

> David Kinsley. Author of two very popular books: Hindu Goddesses

> (Vision of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Traditions) and

> The Ten Mahavidyas (Tantric Visions of the Divine Feminine) went to

> India in 1968 to undertake doctoral research on the worship,

> mythology and theology of Krishna. Was struck by the central role

> Radha played in Bengal Vaisnavism. Despite her popularity, very

> little is written about her.

 

I have kind of noticed the same. A lot is said, but little is known. Like

something is missing. But a book with the intriguing name "God as mother: a

feminine theology in India", by Mackenzie Brown (1972 or thereabout) came to

my rescue. Actually, the funny thing was that I got a kind of philosophy in

reveiled in my head, and when I read that book, I found that it has been an

Indian tradition and is even written down.

> Often I have heard remarks such as

> "Inferior"

> form, "superior' form, "Less important" etc.

My way to resolve all that superior and inferoir is that I suspect that it

does not mean at all what it means in the west in english. Here we are kind

of obsessed by having to get everything superior, thinking it is better. I

don't think that was the meaning at all, but it was just a kind of

philosophical division. In Vaisnava philosophy it is pretty clear that you

worship and attain that what is most suited for (or dear to) you, even if it

is technically categorised as inferior. The sky is superior to the sea, just

because it is above, but is it the right place for a fish?

> Perhaps I would like to suggest to you a book: The rise of the

> Goddess in the Hindu tradition by Prof Tracy Pintchman. It gives you

> an interesting insight into the discussion of the main concepts

> relating to the feminine principle in the intellectual, literary

> traditions of Hinduism.

 

It exists in the university library where I live. I will try to borrow it.

> Don't worry about it. Majority of us here are not scholars

> either.

> Nevertheless there is always the tendency for one to misinterprets

> opinions. That is why in Shakti Sadhana we advocate members to ask

> questions. When we questions it is not to insult or to doubt, but to

> confirm or clarify certain things or ideas so that we understand

> better. That is what I called intellectual discussion. When we start

> to get emotional in our discussion, it clouds our sense of judgment

> and reasoning. Most important is that we should respect each other

> opinions.

 

Me not being scholar means that I often is not able to describe things in a

scholarly or even reasonable way. Bhakti is bhakti, and can from time appear

quite unreasonable. It is what I hang on to, otherwise I would not even be

here.

> 1. Could you tell me more about the Radhavallabhins and the

> Sakhibhavas. Would you consider yourself as a Radhavallabhins?

 

Sorry, I don't know about that. My initiation and foundation is in Bengal

Vaisnavism. In basic training you stick very strictly to one path, and then I

was never really interested in something else. Now is different, and I kind

of look into other things, but I don't know very much about them (so far).

> 2. In the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Radha is being portrayed as

> the cosmic Queen – equal to or superiors to Krishnan. One passage

> describe them as initially forming an androgynous figure of which

> Krishnan is one half and Radha the other. Do you have any pictures or

> seen a picture of Radha/Krishna in their Androgenic form?

 

Nice that you mention it. One picture that can be found is of Radha and

Krishna intertwined, but I have never seen a picture of both in one body. The

Brahma-vaivarta Purana describes that Radha is the left half of Krishna, and

Krishna then the right half. As far as I know, Bengal Vaisnavas always want

to see them separate.

 

-- Prisni