E-forum : No specific topics

[Guest guest]

**********************************************************************

*

 

This is a series of discussion held via e-mails ocassionally over

chat lines. It is an ongoing series. Names as requested have been

made anonymous. Just as with the inconversation series, anybody can

participate in this discussion. You can either post it personally in

the message board, or if you want it to be anonymous, just send an

email to me ( your questions and replies ) and I will post it on

your behalf. [Note : P = Participant ]

 

**********************************************************************

**

 

Mary Ann asked :

 

1. What is devotion?

 

2. Why are we ( woman ) drawn to shaktism? I am trying to compare it

with Devi bhakta's article on the Men and Shaktism.

 

3. What if neither Shakti nor Shiva produced the other? We can still

revere them as equal and as individuals unto themselves with much to

offer. We can still have groups devoted to them, without claiming

that they produced or contain each other in a way that denies the

full being of each.

 

Nora's partial answer : To say why not just Shakti or Shiva only

we

are not being practical. If we look all around us : there also the

two

polarities : the negative and the positive, the yin and the yang and

so on. We work within these two forces internally and externally to

maintain a state of equilibrium. In one of my articles on Ritual

Transvestism, my interview with a psychologist who remarked : even

within our Gender identity we have the male and the female aspect in

us. The Gender identity if the inner feelings of maleness and

femaleness. It is the gender of the inner self.

 

********************************************************************

P1 :

 

The point is that there is no equilibrium in the external world as to

these forces due to the subjugation of women in patriarchy, and the

external is a reflection of the internal. That is why I feel that

insisting on revering one over the other, or calling god He as a

matter of course, denies the fullness of being. And I think Shakta

can help right the balance by calling god She, but that it's

important not to just swing the pendulum the other way to create

imbalance, which may be why there was a patriarchal takeover to begin

with (because it upset men that She was god and not them, and they

didn't feel included in

it--this is my thinking about why the matriarchy "fell".

 

 

P2 : 'What is devotion?' Its like a passion, but devotion runs deep

right into our heart and mind."

 

P3 : Yes, sexuality can include that depth of heart and mind if

people begin to (re)establish equilibrium between female and male

within and without.

 

P4: Devotion is more than just a passion. It's a connection one

have

with the divine which goes deeper into the heart and mind.

 

P2 : Mary Ann asked an interesting question : "Does a woman

usually

imagine her husband or boyfriend to be Shakti when she makes love to

him? Does a man usually imagine he is making love with Shiva when he

makes love to his wife or girlfriend?" She is using lovemaking to

denote worship because she think it helps to put this issue in

perspective.

 

P5 : That sounds like meditation of tantric sex. It is a powerful

energy and one needs a guidance of a qualified guru to proceed or one

will have a good chance of going mad.

 

P4 : Nora is right when she says : we do not imagine ourselves making

love to Shakti nor to Shiva . There are different mode of

bhakti/devotion : Shanta ( peaceful contemplater of god/dess), Dasya

( servant of the goddess), Child of goddess ( the mother-child

approach), Vatsalya ( parent of Goddess) and Madhurya ( lover of

goddess). Sri Swami Sivananda called the last one : Madhurya as

the "highest form of Bhakti".

 

P2 Generally or personally I would approach the divine mother as a

child, because it is a kind of devotion that we are familiar with :

the mother and child relationship. "The innocence of the child."

 

P1 : I feel that as far as female sexuality, all cultures are stuck

in the virgin/whore complex, and that's why we are only familiar with

the mother and child relationship as a model to base devotion on.

 

P6 : It depends on the sadhaka; he chooses the mode that suits him

best .

 

P2 : "The best way to treat Shakti is as a Mother. It can save

you

from so many karmas also. If you look at all women as your mother

would you ever think of raping or cheating or deceiving one? And if

you see the Divine Mother in all beings can you ever intentionally

injure anyone? No, and this automatically draws you away from the

cycle of action and reaction. ". Aghore : at the left hand of

God.

Robert E. Svoboda.

 

 

To be continued ……………

[Guest guest]

*****************************************************************

This is a series of discussion held via e-mails ocassionally over

chat lines. It is an ongoing series. Names as requested have been

made anonymous. Just as with the inconversation series, anybody can

participate in this discussion. You can either post it personally in

the message board, or if you want it to be anonymous, just send an

email to me ( your questions and replies ) and I will post it on

your behalf. [Note : P = Participant ]

 

******************************************************************

 

P3

 

"Sri Swami Sivananda called the last one : Madhurya as the

"highest

form of Bhakti".

 

If Madhurya is the higest form of Bhakti shouldn't we follow it.

Why

go for second best?

 

 

 

 

To be continued ……………

[Guest guest]

> "Sri Swami Sivananda called the last one : Madhurya as the

> "highest

> form of Bhakti".

>

> If Madhurya is the higest form of Bhakti shouldn't we follow it.

> Why

> go for second best?

>

Good question. I think there needs to be fluidity in being, and

fluidity in practicing. I understand that we all are familiar with the

Mother/Child relationship, and also, that depending on individual

temperament, people may be drawn to a particular practice.

However, if we look at integrating our full range of being into our

lives in the world so that inner and outer are one, staying in

Mother/Child only and permanently would not allow full

expression, experience, or integration. The same tenderness

and vulnerability and protectiveness, etc. that is experienced in a

Mother and in a Child must be known in each individual, and to

have that level of emotional presence with erotic passion shared

between equals is a worthy endeavor.

[Guest guest]

*****************************************************************

This is a series of discussion held via e-mails ocassionally over

chat lines. It is an ongoing series. Names as requested have been

made anonymous. Just as with the inconversation series, anybody can

participate in this discussion. You can either post it personally in

the message board, or if you want it to be anonymous, just send an

email to me ( your questions and replies ) and I will post it on

your behalf. [Note : P = Participant ]

 

******************************************************************

 

P1

Shouldnt confuse Shaktism with Feminism.

[Guest guest]

OM Nora

 

<<P1 Shouldnt confuse Shaktism with Feminism.>>

 

Amen to that sister.

 

Much better to stay with Shaktism: a vital, transcendental way to

come to the Divine in yourself, in all others and everywhere.

 

Om Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

, "omprem <omprem>"

<omprem> wrote:

> OM Nora

>

> <<P1 Shouldnt confuse Shaktism with Feminism.>>

>

> Amen to that sister.

>

> Much better to stay with Shaktism: a vital, transcendental way to

> come to the Divine in yourself, in all others and everywhere.

>

> Om Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

 

I really think it depends on how one 'defines' and 'applys' the two

terms. I think within the Group we have seen a wide spectrum in an

individuals approach to Shaktism. The same applys to feminism and

certainly to some individuals they are very close. I think too much

we draw our perceptions from media which is an imperfect source of

information. f

[Guest guest]

"Shouldnt confuse Shaktism with Feminism."

 

What is the difference?

Do you know ultimately what the difference is?

Is Shaktism/Feminism the same for each and all?

[Guest guest]

, "Mary Ann <maryann@m...>"

<maryann@m...> wrote:

> "Shouldnt confuse Shaktism with Feminism."

>

> What is the difference?

> Do you know ultimately what the difference is?

> Is Shaktism/Feminism the same for each and all?

 

Namaste,

 

Can you please take the time to explain to us the relation

between Feminism and Shaktism?

 

Thank You

satish.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

To me, that relation exists in the empowerment of the female

and feminine principle in the world (inner and outer). Feminism

has this as its root, as does Shaktism.

[Guest guest]

, "Mary Ann <maryann@m...>"

<maryann@m...> wrote:

> Namaste:

>

> To me, that relation exists in the empowerment of the female

> and feminine principle in the world (inner and outer). Feminism

> has this as its root, as does Shaktism.

 

I never read about feminism so I cannot say anything about that.

 

Whatever that feminism thing is...Shaktism has nothing to do with

female empowerment. The goal of Shaktism is moxa or liberation.

 

And the method employed is Diiksha(initiation), devotion and Jnana

(Knowledge) and related things.

 

You may want to note that, on a practical aspect, most Shaktas or

Shakta teachers happen to be males.

 

Shaktas dont fight or rally for womens rights or anything like that.

(I wrote this assuming feminism or feminists has something to do with

women's rights or something similar- Do correct me on that if I am

wrong.)

 

Roots of Shaktism: Traditionally, Shaktism was taught by Shiva. One

of his five faces actually. With desire to help humans. Both male and

female.

 

rgds

[Guest guest]

You wrote: "Whatever that feminism thing is...Shaktism has

nothing to do with

> female empowerment. "

 

I was thinking that it's not so much "empowerment" as it is the

realization of power, which the failure to honor the

female/feminine in patriarchal culture has caused a worldwide

"disempowerment," hence the term "empowerment" to denote a

restoral of, or return to, power.

 

You wrote: "The goal of Shaktism is moxa or liberation."

 

Is that the same goal as Buddhism has, and Shaivism?

>

You wrote: "You may want to note that, on a practical aspect,

most Shaktas or

> Shakta teachers happen to be males."

 

Why do you think this is so? (My answer: patriarchy.)

 

"Shaktas dont fight or rally for womens rights or anything like

that."

 

Can you really speak for all Shaktas? I wonder if any people who

consider themselves Shaktas have ever done these things due

to their spiritual convictions, or found these things to be in accord

with their spiritual convictions. I find these things to be accord

with my spiritual convictions, and I practice Shakti Sadhana.

 

"Traditionally, Shaktism was taught by Shiva."

 

But who empowered Shiva to teach Shaktism? Wouldn't that

have been...Shakti? (Also, about writings/teachings by men, they

will tend to emphasize the male role.)

[Guest guest]

*****************************************************************

This is a series of discussion held via e-mails ocassionally over

chat lines. It is an ongoing series. Names as requested have been

made anonymous. Just as with the inconversation series, anybody can

participate in this discussion. You can either post it personally in

the message board, or if you want it to be anonymous, just send an

email to me ( your questions and replies ) and I will post it on

your behalf. [Note : P = Participant ]

 

******************************************************************

 

Nora :

 

Why are we ( woman ) drawn to Shaktism?

 

I am not speaking for woman in general but from my own personal

opinion/ experience. I do not choose shaktism. I never know what is

Shaktism until in come to Shakti Sadhana.

 

How do I get into this path? DEVI made the calling and I responded [

this is the simplest explaination I can give right now ] I was

minding my own business, very much committed with my career, then one

day boom !!!!!!! SHE appears in my dream. I never knew who she is

then but several elderly Indian ladies after hearing my dream told

me : AMMAN is calling for you. Go to her !!! and I did. I have two

choice then : to go or not to go. To believe or not to believe.

 

Will my path be different if I did not respond to that call? Many a

times I have heard this : DEVI chooses her devotees and not the other

way round. Maybe there are some truth in it.

 

"However, if we look at integrating our full range of being into our

lives in the world so that inner and outer are one, staying in

Mother/Child only and permanently would not allow full expression,

experience, or integration. The same tenderness and vulnerability and

protectiveness, etc. that is experienced in a Mother and in a Child

must be known in each individual, and to have that level of emotional

presence with erotic passion shared between equals is a worthy

endeavor.

 

Good point Mary Ann. But not every one can go into that erotic

passion or devotion unless of course you have the knowledge and

experience. Like I said mother/child mode is the simpliest because of

our own personal experience, and its easier for us to relate to. I

would say [ my own personal opinion], the first step to any devotion.

And then over a period of time we change this mode of devotion

according to our spiritual advancement or our connection with the

Divine one, but I don't think so that erotic devotion will actually

give a full expression, experience or integration with the Divine.

 

 

"Roots of Shaktism: Traditionally, Shaktism was taught by Shiva"

 

Now it make sense when gene said : "My dear Ishta - the first pro-

feminist alpha-male." LOL

Om Shanti

[Guest guest]

Greetings everybody.

 

They call me Sandeep.

 

Just dropped by and see the age old male versus female debate going on.:-)

 

Some two cents for consideration....

 

"That- which- is", whose objective expression is this phenomenality, can the

terminology "male", define it, can the term "female" confine it?

 

Both "male" and "female" are notional terms.

 

Without one, the other has no meaning.

 

It is "male" which defines the feminity of the "female" and it is female which

defines the masculinity of the "male".

 

When even this distinction is exposed, .......That- which- IS,......... is

neither male or female, NOR ......not male, not female.

 

 

Yaba daba gopeeee gooooo

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

>, "Mary Ann <maryann@m...>"

<maryann@m...> wrote:

> You wrote: "Whatever that feminism thing is...Shaktism has

> nothing to do with

> > female empowerment. "

>

> I was thinking that it's not so much "empowerment" as it is the

> realization of power, which the failure to honor the

> female/feminine in patriarchal culture has caused a worldwide

> "disempowerment," hence the term "empowerment" to denote a

> restoral of, or return to, power.

 

 

Let feminism be so as you redefined. But still that has nothing

to do with Shaktism. The "restoral" or "return to" mentioned above

is neither the goal nor the path in the Shakta system.

 

>

> You wrote: "The goal of Shaktism is moxa or liberation."

>

> Is that the same goal as Buddhism has, and Shaivism?

 

 

Yes it is the same as the goal of Shaivism. The goal of Buddhism

is similar, but scholars say that there are minor differences.

 

> >

> You wrote: "You may want to note that, on a practical aspect,

> most Shaktas or

> > Shakta teachers happen to be males."

>

> Why do you think this is so? (My answer: patriarchy.)

 

 

As you speak of empowerment may be Shakti inspired only males to

do that and that is the reason it is so . And may be She did not

want more females to be Shakta teachers. After all, is She not the

one who inspires? :-)

 

Or should we for some reason believe that the world She created

went out of Her control and that we need to do bring it back to Her

control by destroying patriarchy?

 

>

> "Shaktas dont fight or rally for womens rights or anything like

> that."

>

> Can you really speak for all Shaktas? I wonder if any people who

> consider themselves Shaktas have ever done these things due

> to their spiritual convictions, or found these things to be in

accord

> with their spiritual convictions. I find these things to be accord

> with my spiritual convictions, and I practice Shakti Sadhana.

 

 

Since you are a Shakta, I assume that by default you are initiated

into a Shakti mantra.

 

Atleast most Shaktas(Plz see definition below) as I know are not

involved in fighting for women's rights. If you came across Shaktas

who are involved in activities realted to feminism, it is because of

their own personal choice and has nothing to do with their being

Shakta. If they believe it is their duty to involve in feminist

activities because they are Shaktas, then obviously they are

mistaken for the Shakta tenets do not ask them to do so.

 

Those ppl can be called as "feminists whose religious affiliation

happens to be Shakta"(Just like there may be a Shaiva who happens to

be a Physicist-which does not prove any relation between Shaivism

and Physics) or "Shaktas who happen to have feminist ideas".

 

I would like to know your idea of who is a Shakta?

 

A Shakta is one who follows the path laid down in the Shakta

Scriptures(Same way as we define Shaivas and Vaishnavas). Every

Shakta is in general initiated into a Shakti Mantra. One more thing.

I am not sure about this one but all Shaktas are initited into some

Shaiva mantra and hence are also devotees of Shiva.(I request

somebody to correct me if I am wrong on the Shaiva mantra aspect)

 

Furthermore, the question of who is a Shakta will be determined

by the Shakta Scriptures. *Only* they have the authority to

determine who is a Shakta and who is not.

 

>

> "Traditionally, Shaktism was taught by Shiva."

>

> But who empowered Shiva to teach Shaktism? Wouldn't that

> have been...Shakti? (Also, about writings/teachings by men, they

> will tend to emphasize the male role.)

 

 

Who prompted Shakti to empower Shiva to teach? Wouldnt that have

been... Shiva? As Parameshvara/ParamaShiva is spoken of as "kAraNaM

kAraNANAm.." the "reason of reasons".

Some Shakta tantras(Nigamas) are revealed by Devi and glorify

Parameshvara/Shiva.

What should we make out of that?

 

 

>(Also, about writings/teachings by men, they

> will tend to emphasize the male role.)

 

Isnt it Shakti who inspired them to write that way?

I dont believe they had an independant power to do so.

 

As an aside, I am not a Shakta nor a Shaiva nor Vaishnava.

But very much wish to become a Shakta whenever there is a chance.

 

regards

satish

[Guest guest]

I read somewhere that in the Pascimamnaya school, Siva originally

revealed the teachings to the yoginis, who subsequently handed them

down from generation to generations. In the tantric traditions, woman

have always played an important and even central role as sources of

tantric instructions.

 

In the Guptasadhana Tantra, initiation by a female guru leads to the

achievement of all desires and is the initiate's great good

fortune. Maybe our Sankara Menon will be able to explain this to us

as he is initiated by a female guru.

 

If we look at most of the texts, most cases it takes a male point of

view and seems to be written by male for male. While men wrote the

great majority of tantric text, there are possibilities too that

woman too may have written several and are teachers themselves, but

their works were never given due attention or come to light. Perhaps

in near future? Just my opinion

[Guest guest]

Re my discussion with satish:

 

I feel that this is getting into "circular reasoning" territory. I have

omitted the parts I thought were pointless to respond to.

 

Re: "I would like to know your idea of who is a Shakta?"

 

I think that anyone who feels called to the path belongs on it.

>

Re: "A Shakta is one who follows the path laid down in the

Shakta

> Scriptures(Same way as we define Shaivas and Vaishnavas).

> Furthermore, the question of who is a Shakta will be

determined

> by the Shakta Scriptures. *Only* they have the authority to

> determine who is a Shakta and who is not."

>

I read that Shakta survived the onset of patriarchy by adapting.

This shows that even in the past, there was room for change,

growth, movement, in Shakta. I think there are many truths in

scriptures. I also think humankind has evolved since early

scriptures. I think there is room for what is true now and what is

true from the old in Shakta.

[Guest guest]

, "Mary Ann <maryann@m...>"

<maryann@m...> wrote:

> Re my discussion with satish:

>

> I feel that this is getting into "circular reasoning" territory. I

have

> omitted the parts I thought were pointless to respond to.

>

> Re: "I would like to know your idea of who is a Shakta?"

>

> I think that anyone who feels called to the path belongs on it.

 

 

It does sound like circular logic because Shiva and Shakti are the

same.

 

I defined who a Shakta is. I will be interested to know where

does your definition come from? Its sources.

 

Those who "feels called" will simply be ppl who are interetsed in

Shakta system. They may be Shaktas in future, but not Shaktas for now.

 

> I read that Shakta survived the onset of patriarchy by adapting.

> This shows that even in the past, there was room for change,

> growth, movement, in Shakta. I think there are many truths in

> scriptures. I also think humankind has evolved since early

> scriptures. I think there is room for what is true now and what is

> true from the old in Shakta.

 

No matter how much it evolved the goals did not change.

 

Shakta system had the same goals then, and the very same goals now

i.e liberation and not anything else.

 

Coming back to original question: I still did not see any reason as

to why some ppl feel feminism and Shakta system are related.

 

regards

[Guest guest]

*****************************************************************

This is a series of discussion held via e-mails ocassionally over

chat lines. It is an ongoing series. Names as requested have been

made anonymous. Just as with the inconversation series, anybody can

participate in this discussion. You can either post it personally in

the message board, or if you want it to be anonymous, just send an

email to me ( your questions and replies ) and I will post it on

your behalf. [Note : P = Participant ]

 

******************************************************************

 

Via the chatlines

 

Nora: you agree when I say the mother and child it the simpliest and

perhaps the first step into any devotion towards DEVI. And we change

this mode accordingly to our spiritual progress

 

P1 : Yes, thats why we call her MAA. As you advance she becomes the

child and you the father/mother (Bala); then she becomes lover

(panchadashi) and then she becomes the eternal maiden (Shodashi). It

is only at the panchadashi mode sex has any role

 

Nora: So only when you have spiritually advance, she becomes the

lover but more symbolic in nature. You approach her sexually ?

 

P1: Of course symbolic. Actually at that stage for some sadhaks there

is sexual approach.

 

Nora : So how does this becomes a lover fits in.

 

P1: Because when you really love, both are one

[Guest guest]

, "Satish

<sadaashiva>" <sadaashiva> wrote:

 

I still did not see any reason as

> to why some ppl feel feminism and Shakta system are related.

>

You might consider doing some research into feminism as a

way to increase your understanding.

 

Good luck with that

[Guest guest]

, "Mary Ann <maryann@m...>"

<maryann@m...> wrote:

> , "Satish

> <sadaashiva>" <sadaashiva> wrote:

>

> I still did not see any reason as

> > to why some ppl feel feminism and Shakta system are related.

> >

> You might consider doing some research into feminism as a

> way to increase your understanding.

>

> Good luck with that

 

 

Based on the views you expressed about Shaktism I feel that it is

time, you consider doing more research into Shaktism as a way to

increase your understanding of Shaktism.

 

Good luck for you too:-)

[Guest guest]

OM Maryann

 

Your attempted defence of feminism and its correlation with

Shaktism is weak, superficial and essentially a knee-jerk

reaction.

 

In your description of feminism, you continually harp on

the empowerment of the female in the face of a worldwide

patriarchy. This is a victim mentality where there is no actual

victim. Rather than liberating women, feminism actually

enslaves them by victimizing them with fictitious allegations. In

addition, feminism seeks to victimize the other half of the human

race by demonizing it. Feminism is not a spiritual path.

Feminism is only an attempt to grab political power, nothing

more and nothing less. Neither of the two above processes of

victimization upon which feminism is based are in any way

spiritually liberating and in fact are antithetical to spirtual

liberation. They are inconsistent with Shaktism or any other

authentic spiritual path.

 

Perhaps you would be more at home making these

ill-considered statements in a feminist club where everyone

would shake their heads in agreement and congratulate you on

your perspicaciousness. Here, those remarks come across as

tired, somewhat lazy and definitely self-serving.

 

Please do not respond to this message: I already know what you

will say and it is unconvincing.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

, "omprem

<omprem>" <omprem> wrote:

 

" I already know what you

> will say and it is unconvincing.

>

It isn't my job, Omprem, to convince you of anything. I would like

to point out, though, that it is what you know, per your above

statement, that you find unconvincing.

 

See post #4642.