Credibility: Notes on the Homepage

September 24, 2002

A member wrote about the homepage and suggested (a) that we'd wrongly

transliterated the Gayatri Mantra on the Gayatri Page, and (b) that

we'd misquoted Ramakrishna at the top of the Kali Page

(http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/kali.html).

Now, I want to encourage all members to always point out any errors

or possible errors they may find on our Group homepage. Accuracy,

reliability and credibility are our goals. The Goddess deserves

nothing less. But luckily, as it turned out in this case, we

delivered:

Nora agreed that her version of Gayatri may be a variant, possibly

Singapore Tamil transliteration. But she has checked it with several

authorities in her local Hindu community (including an editor of the

Singapore Hindu, and a priest of the Sri Nageswari Temple there) and

her version is correct. So she is waiting for our member to offer

sources for alternative transliterations before she makes a final

decision on a whether to replace her version or to perhaps add the

additional version. In either event, it may be a distinction without

a difference. The pronunciations are identical.

Regarding Ramakrishna, our member said that Yeshe had taken a quote

from page 107 of the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, and surreptitiously

replaced the saint's male pronouns with female pronouns. But we have

checked our sources and can gladly report that Yeshe's page quotes

Ramakrishna exactly. Yeshe replied:

"Well, from reviewing my notes I never quoted page 107. It did not

sound Shakta, since it used the confusing "HE" to refer to Kali

within that quote. ... The quote actually came from page 734! Here it

is in full:

"Master: All in good time, my child. Kali is none other than Brahman.

That which is called Brahman is really Kali. She is the Primal

Energy. When that Energy remains inactive, I call It Brahman, and

when It creates, preserves, or destroys, I call It Sakti or

Kali. What you call Brahman I call Kali. Brahman and Kali are not

different. The are like fire and its power to burn: if one thinks of

fire one must think of its power to burn. If one recognizes Kali one

must also recognize Brahman; again, if one recognizes Brahman one

must recognize Kali. Brahman and Its Power are identical. It is

Brahman whom I address as Sakti or Kali." (Page 734, The Gospel of

Sri Ramakrishna, Originally recorded in Bengali by M. Mahendranath

Gupta, a disciple of the Master, trans. by Swami Nikhilananda.)

Yeshe comments: "This problem this person may have with his or her

critique may be simply based in a non-Shakta turn of mind. The reason

some prefer Ramakrishna's Kali-as-HE quote over the more intuitive

Kali-as-SHE quote, I feel, can be ascribed to their wish to see Maa

as ultimately and in totality tied to a Male energy or figure. ...

Ramakrishna taught many people who had many different delusions about

Maa --- and he had to work with each one where they were found them;

thus the variant quotes saying similar things: If that place had to

start from a male perspective then that is where Ramakrishna would

start ... But thanks for letting me know the page is being effective!

Jai Maa!!!"

Thank you, Yeshe!

Although, in this case, the errors turned out not to be errors, I

truly want to thank our member for bringing these questions to my

attention. As a co-moderator here, I am very free in letting devotees

share their feelings about Devi in all of Her forms, and about the

Shakta path, but -- as an attorney and editor by profession -- I am

very strict about adherence to sources. In other words, you can say

whatever you want so long as you're speaking for yourself -- but when

you quote others, don't monkey around.

When we spoke yesterday, our member kindly tried to soften their

criticism with phrases like, "It's not important, it's all the same,"

etc. But the very fact that they brought it up shows that it *is*

important. It critically affects credibility.

It's like my Ardhanarishwari presentation

(http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/shivanshakti2.html). Before I did

that presentation, several people had told me that I was simply

dreaming if I considered the Divine Androgyne to be a form of Devi,

when "in fact" the deity was "clearly" a form of Shiva. And so I

backed up my position with evidence. I wanted people to know

Ardhanarishwari is not just my fancy, but theological fact. Any given

reader is certainly free to agree or disagree with my theology -- but

at least I will provide scripture, scholarship and images so that

they cannot dismiss it as fantasy.

And now we know that the Ramakrishna quote, too, is real and not a

fantasy. That is the work of this Group and 3especially of the new

homepage: To gather together and present in one place a comprehensive

and pan-Hindu reference point on as many aspects of the Shakta sect

as we can pull together. No more, no less.

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

September 27, 2002

Our shastras speak of 33 crore (330million) Gods.

That must have been the human population at the time the statement was made. It

means that each human being is a God/dess.

Further it is said that the Kali i worship is different from the Kali another

may worship. maybe the picture is the same or it may be the SAME Icon ; still

they are different. The reason is that when one worships a form it partakes the

charecterestics of the worshipper and is relevant only to HIM/HER.

so why should we make a great deal of fuss about small things? If it is Mantas

one can understand.

however *smile* there is a typo in the gayatri page

"We know yo as Mahalakshmi

We meditate on you as the Sakti of all

May the Goddess inspire that knowledge and meditate or ours"

Should read as

"We know you as Mahalakshmi

We meditate on you as the Sakti of all

May the Goddess inspire that knowledge and meditate or ours"

Kochu

Devi Bhakta wrote:A member wrote about the homepage and suggested (a) that we'd

wrongly