Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:41:46 -0000 "Mary Ann <maryann" <maryann writes: > 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 think that depends entirely on the Shakta practitioner. It was historically possible to find, say, a Kshatriya (warrior caste) man who worshipped Durga in her military aspect, and who revered Shakti, yet who disdained the company or the needs of women and who treated his wife and daughters atrociously. Don't make the mistake of assuming that because a culture has Goddesses, that they necessarily also are feminist. Just look at the Classical Greeks and Romans, for example. -- Len/ Kalipadma ______________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 , Black Lotus L Rosenberg <kalipadma@j...> wrote: "Don't make the mistake of assuming that because a culture has Goddesses, > that they necessarily also are feminist. Just look at the Classical > Greeks and Romans, for example." I appreciate this, esp. after some of the posts on this topic yesterday and today! It's amazing how much hostility there can be toward the female/feminine, even in groups worshipping the feminine as divine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 Kalipadma wrote : Don't make the mistake of assuming that because a culture has Goddesses, that they necessarily also are feminist. Good point Kalipadma. Thank you. In my opinion I personally believe Shaktism and Feminism are two separate issues. One spiritual and the other political. But again maybe I too need to do some homework and research into this. LOL. OM Parashaktiye Namaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 , "Nora <ashwini_puralasamy>" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: "In my opinion I personally believe > Shaktism and Feminism are two separate issues. One spiritual and the > other political. But again maybe I too need to do some homework and > research into this." > In America, our religious / spiritual convictions are imbedded in our laws, despite the fact that we claim a separation between church and state. Politics and law are inseparable. What I'm trying to say by this is that our politics are our spirituality in action in the external world. BTW Some have named my posts "feminist," but they are simply my thoughts and feelings as I learn about the world outside, as well as the world within, and share my perceptions, which include my spiritual convictions. Namaste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 Hi Mary Ann, - Mary Ann <maryann Thursday, January 16, 2003 09:42 AM Re: Does Shaktism = Feminism? , "Nora <ashwini_puralasamy>" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: "In my opinion I personally believe > Shaktism and Feminism are two separate issues. One spiritual and the > other political. But again maybe I too need to do some homework and > research into this." > In America, our religious / spiritual convictions are imbedded in our laws, despite the fact that we claim a separation between church and state. Politics and law are inseparable. ------- Is there anything in Life which is inseparable from the rest? ------- What I'm trying to say by this is that our politics are our spirituality in action in the external world. ---- LOL Is that a tongue-in-cheek comment? Politics, no matter of what form, which shape, what "ism", is essentially about division. Spirituality, no matter in which form, what shape, whatever path, whatever "ism", .....if it is not about apperceiving the innate uncity of the apparent multiplicity, ........is spuctam tauri. Not that spuctam tauri is not as much a nuance of the perfection, as any other expressions. ------------- BTW Some have named my posts "feminist," but they are simply my thoughts and feelings as I learn about the world outside, as well as the world within, and share my perceptions, which include my spiritual convictions. ----- Interested to hear about these convictions, that is ofcourse if you care to share.:-) And also who is it that is convinced about those particular convictions? Zip-A-Dee-dah-doo-phat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 , Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > Interested to hear about these convictions, that is ofcourse if you care to share.:-) > Already have, and will continue to, despite the upset it seems to cause > And also who is it that is convinced about those particular convictions? > Who is asking? Yippee ki yi yay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 OM Mary Ann "It's amazing how much hostility there can be toward the female/feminine" You still don't get it. There is no hostility toward the female/feminine. Nor is there is no hostility toward you personally. There is, however, widespread objection to your two main contentions, namely: 1. That Shaktism and feminism are equal, and 2. Feminism is a fight against a world-wide patrimony. Several people have pointed out the errors of these positions, and yet you continue to promote them. Now, there is growing recognition of and response to the faulty logic of your attempted defence of those positions as well as the mean-spirited obstinacy with which you hold them. You cloak yourself in a philosophy of divisiveness, suffocate yourself in an illusion of gender conflict, and then overreact when this is pointed out to you. To those who object to your contentions you simply label them as anti-feminine/feminist. This mean-spirited argumentum ad hominem has no place in this forum. Be brave, be positive, reexamine your positions, and, above all, be your true self and don't seek refuge in a sorry excuse for a philosopy as feminism. Feminism is death. Shaktism is Life. Feminism is divisive. It has no place in a spiritual practice. It is antithetical to spiritual practice. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 , "omprem <omprem>" > Feminism is divisive. It has no place in a spiritual practice. It is > antithetical to spiritual practice. > > OM Namah Sivaya > > Omprem Dear Omprem, First I will say I have deep respect for (most of) your posts. Can't you just 'consider' the possibility that maryann's definition of 'feminism' is perhaps different than yours. You are applying your personal perspective and honestly I think you are being unfair to her and yourself. f Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 OM Mary Ann "Who is asking? Yippee ki yi yay!" "Yippee ki yi yay" is the phrase used by the Bruce Willis character in the Die Hard series of movies as he tracked down and killed the bad guys. For you to use that phrase here and as a trailer to your disrespectful question 'Who is asking" demonstrates your combativeness, your low vision, your destructiveness and your lack of respect for yourself, this forum and those who post in it. Please take your low opinions and go to a more appropriate forum. Your tamasic posts lower the tone of this forum and infirnge on the vibrations of those who read them. I will not read anything further that you have to post here. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem , "Mary Ann <maryann@m...>" <maryann@m...> wrote: > , Sandeep Chatterjee > <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > Interested to hear about these convictions, that is ofcourse if > you care to share.:-) > > > Already have, and will continue to, despite the upset it seems to > cause > > > And also who is it that is convinced about those particular > convictions? > > > Who is asking? > > Yippee ki yi yay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 OM omprem I find your response to Mary Ann full of value judgements. Do not project your views on this Lady. She has joined this forum to learn about Shaktism not listen to your sunday sermon'. Also, she is not disrespectful. If you are a real Yogi, as you claim to be, then her quotimg a Bruce Willis song should not 'disturb' you. For a real yogi, there is nothing 'good' or 'bad' Everyhing is pure , untainted consciousness . It is called 'equanimity' or 'titiksha.' Who are you to ask her to leave the forum? are you one of the moderators? I pray not. I have reaD your posts in the archives and you attack anyone and everyone who do not 'toe' your Sivananda Line. SIvanaNda's reality is His 'reality' , not yours. In any case, 'reality' changes every moment. If you can not respect women, you do not belong here. To me it appears you have never experienced real 'love' from a woman and that is why you have this hatred for 'feminism' and 'females' . I do not want to hear one word from you until you improve your communication skills specially to the women in this forum. I like Mary Ann. She is a true seeker, thirsty for knowledge. Do not belittle her or any other woman in this forum. Regards > Please take your low opinions and go to a more appropriate > forum. > > Your tamasic posts lower the tone of this forum and infirnge on > the vibrations of those who read them. I will not read anything > further that you have to post here. > > OM Namah Sivaya > > Omprem > > > > , "Mary Ann > <maryann@m...>" <maryann@m...> wrote: > > , Sandeep > Chatterjee > > <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > > > Interested to hear about these convictions, that is ofcourse if > > you care to share.:-) > > > > > Already have, and will continue to, despite the upset it seems > to > > cause > > > > > And also who is it that is convinced about those particular > > convictions? > > > > > Who is asking? > > > > Yippee ki yi yay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 , "omprem <omprem>" <omprem> wrote: > OM Mary Ann > > "Who is asking? > > Yippee ki yi yay!" > > > "Yippee ki yi yay" is the phrase used by the Bruce Willis character > in the Die Hard series of movies as he tracked down and killed > the bad guys. I never watched that show. I liked Bruce in The Sixth Sense, though. Did you see that one? That phrase is from a cowboy song. The lyric goes: "Yippee ki yi yay, git along little dogies..." and is sung by cowboys when they are bringing cattle home from the range. I was bringing a point home. The question "who is asking" was meant as a Zen question. OM SHANTI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 , "Frank Martin <sriprank>" <sriprank> wrote: > , "omprem <omprem>" > > Feminism is divisive. It has no place in a spiritual practice. It is > > antithetical to spiritual practice. > > > > OM Namah Sivaya > > > > Omprem > > Dear Omprem, > > First I will say I have deep respect for (most of) your posts. Can't > you just 'consider' the possibility that maryann's definition of > 'feminism' is perhaps different than yours. You are applying your > personal perspective and honestly I think you are being unfair to her > and yourself. f It should be noted that Shri Omprem jumped into the thread after an observation that a certain member is evading answers and is indifferent to any rational dialogue. I feel that it is the only way of trying to tell when the other person is not even listening to what you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 , "asimhavahini <asimhavahini>" <asimhavahini> wrote: > OM omprem > > I find your response to Mary Ann full of value judgements. Do not > project your views on this Lady. She has joined this forum to learn > about Shaktism not listen to your sunday sermon'. To learn? Please go thru previous posts. It will show that the person u r defending wanted to project her views about something and not learn. > If you can not respect women, you do not belong here. To me it > appears you have never experienced real 'love' from a woman and that > is why you have this hatred for 'feminism' and 'females' . Hatred for females? How did u know that a certain member had hatred for females? Why do u think so? I am looking for reasons not plain accusations. And who are we to tell somebody that they dont belong here? Arent you doin the same thing as u are accusing somebody of? regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 I cannot but make an observation. Once a certain member showed up in this forum and brought up the issue of "feminism", the forum became divided, argumentative and combatative. Also, a real yogi does not "hate" anything - but it doesn't mean he does not stand against something. To illustrate what I mean - check Bhagavad-Gita. - <asimhavahini <> Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:37 PM Re: Does Shaktism = Feminism? > OM omprem > > I find your response to Mary Ann full of value judgements. Do not > project your views on this Lady. She has joined this forum to learn > about Shaktism not listen to your sunday sermon'. > > Also, she is not disrespectful. If you are a real Yogi, as you claim > to be, then her quotimg a Bruce Willis song should not 'disturb' you. > For a real yogi, there is nothing 'good' or 'bad' Everyhing is pure , > untainted consciousness . It is called 'equanimity' or 'titiksha.' > > Who are you to ask her to leave the forum? are you one of the > moderators? I pray not. > > I have reaD your posts in the archives and you attack anyone and > everyone who do not 'toe' your Sivananda Line. SIvanaNda's reality is > His 'reality' , not yours. In any case, 'reality' changes every > moment. > > If you can not respect women, you do not belong here. To me it > appears you have never experienced real 'love' from a woman and that > is why you have this hatred for 'feminism' and 'females' . > > I do not want to hear one word from you until you improve your > communication skills specially to the women in this forum. > > I like Mary Ann. She is a true seeker, thirsty for knowledge. > Do not belittle her or any other woman in this forum. > > > > Regards > > > > Please take your low opinions and go to a more appropriate > > forum. > > > > Your tamasic posts lower the tone of this forum and infirnge on > > the vibrations of those who read them. I will not read anything > > further that you have to post here. > > > > OM Namah Sivaya > > > > Omprem > > > > > > > > , "Mary Ann > > <maryann@m...>" <maryann@m...> wrote: > > > , Sandeep > > Chatterjee > > > <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Interested to hear about these convictions, that is ofcourse > if > > > you care to share.:-) > > > > > > > Already have, and will continue to, despite the upset it seems > > to > > > cause > > > > > > > And also who is it that is convinced about those particular > > > convictions? > > > > > > > Who is asking? > > > > > > Yippee ki yi yay! > > > > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 Dear Friends: Aren't we oing afield from discussion to personalities? Lets discuss the topic rationally and unemoionally please. Kochu "Satish <sadaashiva" <sadaashiva wrote:--- In , "Frank Martin <sriprank>" <sriprank> wrote: > , "omprem <omprem>" > > Feminism is divisive. It has no place in a spiritual practice. It is > > antithetical to spiritual practice. > > > > OM Namah Sivaya > > > > Omprem > > Dear Omprem, > > First I will say I have deep respect for (most of) your posts. Can't > you just 'consider' the possibility that maryann's definition of > 'feminism' is perhaps different than yours. You are applying your > personal perspective and honestly I think you are being unfair to her > and yourself. f It should be noted that Shri Omprem jumped into the thread after an observation that a certain member is evading answers and is indifferent to any rational dialogue. I feel that it is the only way of trying to tell when the other person is not even listening to what you say. Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 Hiya Mary Ann, Sorry your response got deleted, hence piggy backing on this one. - Mary Ann <maryann Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:27 PM Re: Does Shaktism = Feminism? , "omprem <omprem>" <omprem> wrote: > OM Mary Ann > > "Who is asking? > > Yippee ki yi yay!" > > > "Yippee ki yi yay" is the phrase used by the Bruce Willis character > in the Die Hard series of movies as he tracked down and killed > the bad guys. I never watched that show. I liked Bruce in The Sixth Sense, though. Did you see that one? That phrase is from a cowboy song. The lyric goes: "Yippee ki yi yay, git along little dogies..." and is sung by cowboys when they are bringing cattle home from the range. I was bringing a point home. -------- Sure. The reverence or the irreverence, is what the recipient attaches to the uttered sounds or in this case to the squiggly signs that appear on the PC screen. In themselves, nothing is reverential or irreverential. ------- The question "who is asking" was meant as a Zen question. ----- Was it? Or was it a neat dodge?:-) Anyway, to the posed question "who is asking", there is no "who" asks, and thus there is no "who" who is around to answer. Just the asking and responding as part of one movement. In the moment. And the moment, has no convictions (which i recall was the original comment). Why not? If the moment is all, about what, (which is not of the moment), will there be need to have a conviction of? Just some two cents... Yaba daba gooopeee goooo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.