Shaktism: Toward a Definition?

[Guest guest]

As with any other religion, we may find it very hard (and I suspect,

totally impossible) to reach full agreement – even among devotees --

on what Shaktism is. Is a Shaiva or a Vaishnava a kind of "honorary

Shaktha" just because she or he worships a God who, their belief

says, contains a female shakti, as one member has claimed? Is every

person born of a female an automatic Shaktha (albeit probably in

denial), as another has suggested?

 

These are pretty ideas, yes, and they provide comfortably all-

encompassing definitions guaranteed to turn huge numbers of

previously unsuspecting devotees of all stripes into instant Shaktas.

And certainly our Group encourages participation by all who consider

themselves Shaktas at any level, or who are sympathetic to the idea

of Shaktism (as are many Shaivas, for example). But do such fuzzy

definitions really tell us anything about the path? About what

distinguishes it as one of the four primary schools of Hinduism?

 

I think perhaps not. And so I offer two definitions, one by an Indian

academic; the other by a Shaiva satguru. Both appear on the front of

the Group's permanent homepage

(http://www.shaktisadhana.org/index.html). And perhaps they will give

us a useful starting point for a more specific discussion:

 

In his History of the Shakta Religion (2nd Ed., 1996), N. N.

Bhattacharyya writes: "Shaktism is a very important religion among

the Hindus of the present day. Those who worship the Supreme Deity

exclusively as a Female Principle are called Shakta. Shakti is

worshiped in various forms and numerous shrines are dedicated to Her

images. The Shaktas conceive their Great Goddess as the

personification of primordial energy and the source of all divine and

cosmic evolution. She is identified with the Supreme Being, conceived

as the Source and the Spring as well as the Controller of all the

forces and potentialities of Nature. Nowhere in the religious history

of the world do we come across such a completely female-oriented

system."

 

Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami (1927-2001), in his "Hindu Lexicon,"

defined Shaktism as: "The religion followed by those who worship the

Supreme as the Divine Mother (Shakti or Devi) in Her many forms, both

gentle and fierce. Shaktism is one of the four primary sects of

Hinduism. In philosophy and practice, Shaktism greatly resembles

Saivism. But Shaktas worship Shakti as the Supreme Being exclusively,

as the dynamic aspect of Divinity, while Siva is considered solely

transcendent and is not worshiped. There are many forms of Shaktism,

with endless varieties of practices which seek to capture divine

energy or power for spiritual transformation."

 

So we have two expert comments – one by a secular scholar, and one by

a Hindu swami. Both seem to feel that Shaktism is a very distinct,

concrete and particular form of Hinduism. Not a hazy backdrop to

other Hindu sects; not a vague, all-encompassing catchall. What do

YOU think? Any comments? Criticisms? Questions? Concerns?

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

, "Devi Bhakta

<devi_bhakta>" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> As with any other religion, we may find it very hard (and I

suspect,

> totally impossible) to reach full agreement – even among

devotees --

> on what Shaktism is. Is a Shaiva or a Vaishnava a kind of "honorary

> Shaktha" just because she or he worships a God who, their belief

> says, contains a female shakti, as one member has claimed? Is every

> person born of a female an automatic Shaktha (albeit probably in

> denial), as another has suggested?

 

I think an agreement can be reached if we look at what Shakta

scriptures(plz refer quote 2 below) say

about Shaktism rather than taking individual opinions.

Same way as we look to books on philosophy of science to find

what science is about rather

than listen to what a group of ppl(who are neither

philosophers nor scientists) feel about it.

> of Shaktism (as are many Shaivas, for example). But do such fuzzy

> definitions really tell us anything about the path? About what

> distinguishes it as one of the four primary schools of Hinduism?

>

> I think perhaps not.

 

I Concur.

>And so I offer two definitions, one by an Indian

> academic; the other by a Shaiva satguru. Both appear on the front

of

> the Group's permanent homepage

> (http://www.shaktisadhana.org/index.html). And perhaps they will

give

> us a useful starting point for a more specific discussion:

 

I opine that we should also include what Sir John Woodroffe

(Arthur Avalon) has to say on this issue.

I beleive many would agree that he is a very reliable authority

on Shakta

doctrine, System and practice.

 

> In his History of the Shakta Religion (2nd Ed., 1996), N. N.

> Bhattacharyya writes: "Shaktism is a very important religion among

> the Hindus of the present day. Those who worship the Supreme Deity

> exclusively as a Female Principle are called Shakta. Shakti is

> worshiped in various forms and numerous shrines are dedicated to

Her

> images. The Shaktas conceive their Great Goddess as the

> personification of primordial energy and the source of all divine

and

> cosmic evolution. She is identified with the Supreme Being,

conceived

> as the Source and the Spring as well as the Controller of all the

> forces and potentialities of Nature. Nowhere in the religious

history

> of the world do we come across such a completely female-oriented

> system."

 

The female principle is used only as a vehicle. The aim of a

Shakta

as many Shakta manuals and Hymns point out is attaining the formless

ultimate which is neither male female or neutral.

(For clarification: See most hymns in praise of Shakti)

>

> Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami (1927-2001), in his "Hindu

Lexicon,"

> defined Shaktism as: "The religion followed by those who worship

the

> Supreme as the Divine Mother (Shakti or Devi) in Her many forms,

both

> gentle and fierce. Shaktism is one of the four primary sects of

> Hinduism. In philosophy and practice, Shaktism greatly resembles

> Saivism. But Shaktas worship Shakti as the Supreme Being

exclusively,

> as the dynamic aspect of Divinity, while Siva is considered solely

> transcendent and is not worshiped.

 

Not worshipped only because the focus is on Shakti.

 

"not worshipped" should not be taken to mean hostility

to

 

Shiva or as suggestive of the belief , "Shakti being

greater than Shiva."

>There are many forms of Shaktism,

> with endless varieties of practices which seek to capture divine

> energy or power for spiritual transformation."

 

Pleas esee the following quote from Arthur Avalon's Shakti and Shakta

 

=================================

1)"The Shakta is so called because the chosen Deity of his worship

(Ishta-devata) is Shakti. In his cult, both in doctrine and practice,

emphasis is laid on that aspect of the One in which It is the Source

of Change and, in the form of Time and Space and all objects therein,

Change itself. The word Shakti is grammatically feminine. For this

reason an American Orientalist critic of the doctrine has described

it as a worthless system, a mere feminization of orthodox (whatever

that be) Vedanta -- a doctrine teaching the primacy of the Female and

thus fit only for "suffragette monists". It is absurd criticism of

this kind which makes the Hindu sometimes wonder whether the Western

psyche has even the capacity to understand his beliefs. It is said of

the Mother (in the Hymn to Her in the Mahakala-Samhita): "Thou art

neither girl, nor maid, nor old. ***Indeed Thou art neither female

nor male, nor neuter. Thou art inconceivable, immeasurable Power, the

Being of all which exists, void of all duality, the Supreme Brahman,

attainable in Illumination alone.***" Those who cannot understand

lofty ideas when presented in ritual and symbolic garb will serve

their reputation best by not speaking of them.

 

2)"Shakta doctrine and practice are contained primarily in the

*Shakta Tantras* and the oral traditions, some of which are secret."

 

=======================================

those * s are mine..

>

> So we have two expert comments – one by a secular scholar, and

one

by

> a Hindu swami. Both seem to feel that Shaktism is a very distinct,

> concrete and particular form of Hinduism. Not a hazy backdrop to

> other Hindu sects; not a vague, all-encompassing catchall. What do

> YOU think? Any comments? Criticisms? Questions? Concerns?

 

Comments: In my limited understanding, a Shakta is concerned with

approaching Shakti with devotion

either with the desire to be liberated or for material gains.

He is not concerned with establishing the supremacy of Shakti over

Shiva(or any other god).

 

corrections welcome.

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

>From a more Western magical perspective, I would also perceive

divine femininity and masculinity as being representations of

fundamental energy manipulation differences, rather than purely

biological values. It is unfortunate that people focus on the

literal interpretation of symbolism, rather than the deeper

meanings.

 

To borrow from Zen Buddhism:

 

"The finger pointing at the moon, is not the moon."

 

.... and the moon is not a finger.

 

Blessings,

 

Ralf

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough reply, Satish. I would

comment as follows:

 

*** I think an agreement can be reached [as to what Shaktism is] if

we look at what Shakta scriptures say about Shaktism rather than

taking individual opinions. ***

 

But then you run into the problem of what Shakta scriptures to

choose. There is, most notably, the South Indian Srividya canon and

its interpretations. There are the rather different scriptures of the

Northern Kashmir Saktism, and still further variations in Nepali

approaches. I am not a scholar who can split hairs on differences of

dogma between these various schools, but I know they are different.

Take the Devi Gita of the Devi Bhagavatam Purana -- it clearly

prefers bhakti approaches to Devi over Tantric approaches.

 

Shall I go on? There are the tremendously strong regional strands of,

say, West Bengal and Orissa. And what about the numberless villages

and country places which have worshiped the Mother from time

immemorial through their gramadevata -- invariably conceived as

feminine.

 

So who's right? Here's a thought: Maybe they're all right -- it just

depends on what approach happens to work for you.

 

*** Same way as we look to books on philosophy of science to find

what science is about rather than listen to what a group of ppl (who

are neither philosophers nor scientists) feel about it. ***

 

Your point is well taken, but it does seem slightly absurd to judge a

form religion -- the deepest form of expression of the individual

soul -- without "listening to what people feel about it." You are

comparing apples with oranges -- science is, by definition, the most

objective area of human inquiry; spirituality is, by definition, the

most subjective area of human inquiry.

 

*** I opine that we should also include what Sir John Woodroffe

(Arthur Avalon) has to say on this issue. I beleive many would agree

that he is a very reliable authority on Shakta doctrine, System and

practice. ***

 

He is a wonderful starting place! Yes, agreed! Search "Woodroffe" in

the message archives and you will learn that I, for one (and

apparently to the irritation of many) am a dyed-in-the-wool Woodroffe

junkie. And yet, I think by conscious decision, he rarely goes far

beyond the surface of his subject.

 

*** The female principle is used only as a vehicle. The aim of a

Sakta as many Shakta manuals and Hymns point out is attaining the

formless ultimate which is neither male female or neutral. ***

 

That matches some, but certainly not all, of Bhattacharyya's findings

in his survey of Shakta practices across India.

 

I realize that it's difficult to argue this subject without referring

to gender; but it's startling to see how many arguments about

Shaktism include people rushing to assert that "the female principle

is only a vehicle" to the Formless. By contrast, I don't think I've

ever seen an argument about Shaivism or Vaishnavism where people feel

compelled to clarify that "the male principle is only a vehicle" as

well. I think that is an interesting social phenomenon.

 

Doubtless, any All-Encompassing Divine Principle necessarily both

encompasses and transcends mere distinctions of gender. But why is

this a point that almost always goes without saying -- except when

speaking of Devi?

 

As I said recently, you could just as well tell a Christian

that "Jesus is only a vehicle" to the formless, or a Muslim

that "Allah is only a vehicle to the formless" or a Pagan that, I

don't know, "Demeter is only a vehicle to the formless." Okay, fine,

I'm willing to say you're perfectly correct -- so now what? The fact

remains that the vehicle is the devotee's vehicle of choice, and

that -- until we merge with the Ultimate -- it *matters.* And since

most of us will live many more lives before completing that merger,

shouldn't we be busy getting on our knees and worshiping Devi, rather

than wasting time trying to rationalize: "Don't worry, she's not

***really*** a girl in the really, really ultimate sense." Again I

ask: Why don't other faiths bring out this reaction in commentators?

 

*** "not worshipped" should not be taken to mean hostility to Shiva

or as suggestive of the belief , "Shakti being greater than Shiva."

***

 

But who's been talking about hostility to Shiva? The defensiveness of

this statement assumes an implied threat that I do not see. Just

because Devotee A conceives God as Shiva, Devotee B conceives God in

the Muslim sense, Devotee C conceives God as Jesus, and Devotee D

conceives God as Devi, should not mean mutual hostility and hatred

(although, unfortunately, it often does). In this Group, I've read

(and written) so many posts in which we rush to assure this member or

that, that we harbor no hostility to Shaiva Hinduism, or toward any

other religious path. How often do you see people in a Shaiva Group

hastening to clarify that they wouldn't *think* of suggesting "Shiva

is greater than Shakti" and loudly affirming their "ultimate"

equality. That kind of thinking just doesn't come up. People are too

far too busy practicing their faith to engage in that sort of

sophistry.

 

*** a Shakta is concerned with approaching Shakti with devotion ...

He is not concerned with establishing the supremacy of Shakti over

Shiva (or any other god).***

 

I repeat: Who here has been "concerned with establishing the

supremacy of Shakti over Shiva (or any other god)"? Why do you care

if they do? Different Christians approach Jesus differently

(Evangelicals! Baptists! Anglicans! Roman Catholics! Eastern

Orthodox! and so on and so on). Some Christians who can't stand other

Christians thinking differently kill one another (as in Northern

Ireland). Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims kill one another for doctrinal

differences of opinion as well. Where does it get them? Whose

spiritual minds are changed by these killings? Damned few, I would

venture.

 

So what's the point of insisting that Shaktas issue pre-assurances to

all that they wouldn't dare -- in their unseemly devotion to Mother --

to give short shrift to Shiva? Why try to rationalize away clear

definitions of the broad and varied Shakta faith by trying to

shoehorn it into a single understanding, or to anchor it to a single

scripture? Different Shaktas approach Shakta differently, in

accordance with their traditions, their training, their personal

predilections, and a million other intangible factors. And you know

what? Goddess bless them.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Hi Ralf:

 

You wrote:

> From a more Western magical perspective, I would also perceive

> divine femininity and masculinity as being representations of

> fundamental energy manipulation differences, rather than purely

> biological values. It is unfortunate that people focus on the

> literal interpretation of symbolism, rather than the deeper

> meanings.

 

I'd definitely agree with this -- that is getting to the essence of

the whole argument.

[Guest guest]

shrIH

Namaste,

 

, "Devi Bhakta

<devi_bhakta>" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough reply, Satish. I would

> comment as follows:

>

> *** I think an agreement can be reached [as to what Shaktism is]

if

> we look at what Shakta scriptures say about Shaktism rather than

> taking individual opinions. ***

>

> But then you run into the problem of what Shakta scriptures to

> choose.

 

There is not much of a problem in my opinion. The choice depends

on which

sampradaya does the initiate belong to.

>There is, most notably, the South Indian Srividya canon and

> its interpretations.

 

These will follow SriVidya/Srikula tantras and will have nothing

to do with other sampradaya books.

 

the shakta tantra saying that" the ways of tantra are many hence

the way the guru prescribes is to be followed" may be remembered.

> There are the rather different scriptures of the

> Northern Kashmir Saktism, and still further variations in Nepali

> approaches.

 

So they will be following tantras related to NKS or Nepali..and

not others ...as simple as that.

 

>I am not a scholar who can split hairs on differences of

> dogma between these various schools, but I know they are

different.

 

ofcourse everyone agrees they are differenent.

> Take the Devi Gita of the Devi Bhagavatam Purana -- it clearly

> prefers bhakti approaches to Devi over Tantric approaches.

 

Can I have an exact reference? AFAIK, Devi Gita does not say

Bhakti is better than tantric approaches.

A non bhakta will never be initiated into Shakta tantras.(Initiation

into shakta tantras requires that he be a bhakta- the type of bhakta

as mentioned in devi gita)

Devi Bhagavatha bein a Purana talks about Bhakti and not about

detailed ritual processes. So there is no conflict betwwen them.

>

> Shall I go on? There are the tremendously strong regional strands

of,

> say, West Bengal and Orissa. And what about the numberless

villages

> and country places which have worshiped the Mother from time

> immemorial through their gramadevata -- invariably conceived as

> feminine.

 

Worshippers of grama devatas are`devotees of shakti, not shaktas.

Regional strands should be followed and can be followed as long as

they are not in conflict with the particular system of shakta which

they are affiliated to.

Also they should make sure they are not in conflict with smritis.

I am not talking about traditions/customs/practices like inviting

Daughter in laws to homes etc for Dusshera.

I am concerned with ritual modes, the ideology/philosophy to be

followed the do and donts.

Villages: Let them follow what is prevalent in their village. What

that has to do with Shakta.(see below on this one-- bhattacharya)

 

Again, when I say Shakta that will include all traditions where

the tenets are written down or orally passed on.

Institutionalized shakta if I may say so.

 

>

> So who's right? Here's a thought: Maybe they're all right -- it

just

> depends on what approach happens to work for you.

 

Please see above.

>

> *** Same way as we look to books on philosophy of science to find

> what science is about rather than listen to what a group of ppl

(who

> are neither philosophers nor scientists) feel about it. ***

>

> Your point is well taken, but it does seem slightly absurd to

judge a

> form religion -- the deepest form of expression of the individual

> soul -- without "listening to what people feel about it." You are

> comparing apples with oranges -- science is, by definition, the

most

> objective area of human inquiry; spirituality is, by definition,

the

> most subjective area of human inquiry.

 

How can we ascertain what the individual feels is right or wrong

or whether it is beneficial or malevolent to his bein.

 

The human mind does not always have the capacity to determine

what is right or wrong for himself which is the reason why we see so

much suffering.

 

Human experience is subjective and unrelaible most of the times

and that is the reason we turn to the revelaed word or scripture for

guidance and inspiration.

 

That is the reason why individual opinion has no value(when

saying what shaktism is about). How will an individual know what

shaktism is about without reading shakta scripture. Will an

intuitive flash occur in somebody's mind when asked " what do u

think about shaktism"? A case where individual opinion will have

value is in such things as " which form of goddess to choose or

which mantra to choose if the guru gives a choice or which form of

shakta system to follow (like Kubjika school, Kash. Shaiva school

kali kula school) and similar things."

 

According to Adi Shankara atleast advaita vedanta is not

subjective but objective.

 

> *** The female principle is used only as a vehicle. The aim of a

> Sakta as many Shakta manuals and Hymns point out is attaining the

> formless ultimate which is neither male female or neutral. ***

>

> That matches some, but certainly not all, of Bhattacharyya's

findings

> in his survey of Shakta practices across India.

 

 

I think Bhattacharya must have lumped up everything

unorthodox /non vedic practice as shakta practices

which shouldnt have been done, which might be the reason for

your above mentioned mismatch.

 

Some observation shows that there is a tendency among some

researchers to dub every unaryan or non vedic practice as shakta

practice which is a folly.

This unnecessary identification of every non -vedic practices

as shakta practices gives the impression that it is impossible to

define what shakta is.

Like village shaktas..regional shaktas..etc..haha..

To repeat: Shakta practices only can be called as Shakta

practices. Village deity practices and similar thingsshould be

called by a different name.

Village deities being females does not make them shakta. Some

viilage deities are males. vaishnavas worship laxmi but for that

reason they cant be called shaktas.

>

> I realize that it's difficult to argue this subject without

referring

> to gender; but it's startling to see how many arguments about

> Shaktism include people rushing to assert that "the female

principle

> is only a vehicle" to the Formless. By contrast, I don't think

I've

> ever seen an argument about Shaivism or Vaishnavism where people

feel

> compelled to clarify that "the male principle is only a vehicle"

as

> well. I think that is an interesting social phenomenon.

 

How about now? The male principle is only a vehicle in Shaivism.

I have no problems saying that.

That happens because when speaking of shaktism ppl immediately

make an attempt to point out( or highlight) the female aspect but

while writing about Shaivism the male aspect is not given as much

attention as the word "female" is given when discussing shaktism.

>

> Doubtless, any All-Encompassing Divine Principle necessarily both

> encompasses and transcends mere distinctions of gender. But why is

> this a point that almost always goes without saying -- except when

> speaking of Devi?

 

See above

 

>

> As I said recently, you could just as well tell a Christian

> that "Jesus is only a vehicle" to the formless, or a Muslim

> that "Allah is only a vehicle to the formless" or a Pagan that, I

> don't know, "Demeter is only a vehicle to the formless." Okay,

fine,

> I'm willing to say you're perfectly correct -- so now what? The

fact

> remains that the vehicle is the devotee's vehicle of choice, and

> that -- until we merge with the Ultimate -- it *matters.* And

since

> most of us will live many more lives before completing that

merger,

> shouldn't we be busy getting on our knees and worshiping Devi,

rather

> than wasting time trying to rationalize: "Don't worry, she's not

> ***really*** a girl in the really, really ultimate sense." Again I

> ask: Why don't other faiths bring out this reaction in

commentators?

 

 

Any Shaivite would agree that Shiva's form is also an

imagination.

It is not that when it comes to Shakti they say her forms are unreal

and they keep mum about Shiva's forms

I saw the Kamika Agama bein quoted as many times as follows

" To help the devotees and Sages that the formless take forms as

Shiva etc.."(Quote not exact--just to coney the idea)

suggesting that shaivites have same sentiments about Shiva's forms.

 

Again if it is a Shaiva group I would have immediately

commented "the male principle is only a vehicle to the formless"

**if** somebody wrote "shaivism is so male oriented", which in

general does not happen.

 

>

> *** "not worshipped" should not be taken to mean hostility to

Shiva

> or as suggestive of the belief , "Shakti being greater than

Shiva."

> ***

>

> But who's been talking about hostility to Shiva? The defensiveness

of

> this statement assumes an implied threat that I do not see.

 

A bit of overcautiousness on my side.

Another reason: When SriVaishnavas say they do not worship Lord

Shiva, they intend to be hostile.

 

I am just trying to see that the statement is not understood in

the same way as srivaishnavas use it

>Just

> because Devotee A conceives God as Shiva, Devotee B conceives God

in

> the Muslim sense, Devotee C conceives God as Jesus, and Devotee D

> conceives God as Devi, should not mean mutual hostility and hatred

> (although, unfortunately, it often does).

 

That is exactly what I am trying to say too.

 

> In this Group, I've read

> (and written) so many posts in which we rush to assure this member

or

> that, that we harbor no hostility to Shaiva Hinduism, or toward

any

> other religious path. How often do you see people in a Shaiva

Group

> hastening to clarify that they wouldn't *think* of

suggesting "Shiva

> is greater than Shakti" and loudly affirming their "ultimate"

> equality. That kind of thinking just doesn't come up. People are

too

> far too busy practicing their faith to engage in that sort of

> sophistry.

 

I am not aware of any exclusive Shaiva groups on internet.

Tirumantiram the Shaiva Siddhanta scripture, and considered one

of the Thirumurai

says that" From Shakti arose Lord Shiva" and " there shall be no

question of shiva greater than shakti"

thus asserting their ultimate equality. what more do we require?

 

>

> *** a Shakta is concerned with approaching Shakti with

devotion ...

> He is not concerned with establishing the supremacy of Shakti over

> Shiva (or any other god).***

>

> I repeat: Who here has been "concerned with establishing the

> supremacy of Shakti over Shiva (or any other god)"? Why do you

care

> if they do?

 

reason: Actually this is supposed to be written in that feminism -

shaktism thread.

It is a general statement and it is not intended to

suggest that the list members or shaktas in general

have such intentions of establishing supremacy.

>

> So what's the point of insisting that Shaktas issue pre-assurances

to

> all that they wouldn't dare -- in their unseemly devotion to

Mother --

> to give short shrift to Shiva? Why try to rationalize away clear

> definitions of the broad and varied Shakta faith by trying to

> shoehorn it into a single understanding, or to anchor it to a

single

> scripture?

 

My intention is not to bring all Shaktas under the jurisdiction

of a single shakta scripture. See some of my above statements.

 

>Different Shaktas approach Shakta differently, in

> accordance with their traditions, their training, their personal

> predilections, and a million other intangible factors.

 

and yes they are supposed to be so. and that is the reason we

have so many tantras.

 

> And you know

> what? Goddess bless them.

 

I never held the view that blessings are only obtained by

adhereing to a single scripture.

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

, "Satish

<sadaashiva>" <sadaashiva> wrote:

> shrIH

> Namaste,

>

> , "Devi Bhakta

> <devi_bhakta>" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> > Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough reply, Satish. I

would

> > comment as follows:

> >

> > *** I think an agreement can be reached [as to what

Shaktism is]

> if

> > we look at what Shakta scriptures say about Shaktism rather

than

> > taking individual opinions. ***

> >

> > But then you run into the problem of what Shakta scriptures

to

> > choose.

>

> There is not much of a problem in my opinion. The choice

depends

> on which

> sampradaya does the initiate belong to. ..."

>

In Meditate: Happiness Lies Within You, Swami Muktananda

wrote:

 

"There was a time when I was addicted to reading the scriptures.

One day I went to see my Guru with a book under my arm. He

said: "Muktananda, come here. What is that?" "It's an

Upanishad," I replied.

"Do you know how this book is made?" he asked me. "It was

made by a brain. The brain may make any number of books, but

a book cannot make a brain. You had better throw it away and

meditate."

 

So I threw the book away and began to meditate. This makes

perfect sense. When the Self is within, why should we look for

knowledge of it somewhere else? As long as we do not realize

the Self within, we cannot find true peace. ...

 

Meditation is universal. It is not the property of any particular sect

or cult. It does not belong to the East or to the West, nor does it

belong to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sufism. Meditation is

everyone's property, just as sleep is everyone's property."

[Guest guest]

Hi Mary Ann

 

You came to us with a book under your arm and read to us:

> In Meditate: Happiness Lies Within You, Swami Muktananda

> wrote:

>

> "There was a time when I was addicted to reading the scriptures.

> One day I went to see my Guru with a book under my arm. He

> said: "Muktananda, come here. What is that?" "It's an

> Upanishad," I replied.

> "Do you know how this book is made?" he asked me. "It was

> made by a brain. The brain may make any number of books, but

> a book cannot make a brain. You had better throw it away and

> meditate."

>

> So I threw the book away and began to meditate. This makes

> perfect sense. When the Self is within, why should we look for

> knowledge of it somewhere else? As long as we do not realize

> the Self within, we cannot find true peace. ...

>

> Meditation is universal. It is not the property of any particular sect

> or cult. It does not belong to the East or to the West, nor does it

> belong to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sufism. Meditation is

> everyone's property, just as sleep is everyone's property."

 

You make a valid point: the different traditions describe

different methods of meditation, and they describe the Reality

of the Universe in different ways, but that Reality, and the

experiences from meditating, have but a single cause.

 

This, to me, is the purpose of learning and discussing different

traditions -- to keep following where they point, correcting our

mistakes in interpretation by comparing one path with another.

We look at where they all point, and when some seem to point in

different locations we can be pretty sure that we have gained

some misconceptions in our study, i.e. that it is merely our

interpretation that points us away from the common understanding.

That, at least, holds when the paths have shown themselves as

enduring over time. :-)

 

Blessings,

 

Ralf

 

 

 

 

====================================================================

"This life is one dream you remember." - Seth

[Guest guest]

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

<maryann@m...> wrote:

>

> In Meditate: Happiness Lies Within You, Swami Muktananda

> wrote:

>

> "There was a time when I was addicted to reading the scriptures.

> One day I went to see my Guru with a book under my arm. He

> said: "Muktananda, come here. What is that?" "It's an

> Upanishad," I replied.

> "Do you know how this book is made?" he asked me. "It was

> made by a brain. The brain may make any number of books, but

> a book cannot make a brain. You had better throw it away and

> meditate."

>

> So I threw the book away and began to meditate. This makes

> perfect sense. When the Self is within, why should we look for

> knowledge of it somewhere else? As long as we do not realize

> the Self within, we cannot find true peace. ...

>

> Meditation is universal. It is not the property of any particular sect

> or cult. It does not belong to the East or to the West, nor does it

> belong to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sufism. Meditation is

> everyone's property, just as sleep is everyone's property."

 

 

Beyond all the 'ism's' lies the Self. By saying "I am a catholic" or

a "Shavite" who is this "I"? These are vehicles but at a certain

point one must realise that they themselves have limitations.

 

Bhagavan Nityananda's favorite saying was "Sab Mitt". "All is dust".f

[Guest guest]

Hi Frank, you wrote:

> Beyond all the 'ism's' lies the Self. By saying "I am a catholic" or

> a "Shavite" who is this "I"? These are vehicles but at a certain

> point one must realise that they themselves have limitations.

>

> Bhagavan Nityananda's favorite saying was "Sab Mitt". "All is dust".

 

But it is dust that we shape into the reality we experience, yes?

By learning to make those statements consciously:

"I am a man." really meaning "I have shaped this dust into the shape

of a man and see through it's eyes, type through it's fingers."

we learn to recognise the Will of our true Self -- for it is that

which made the big choices.

 

Blessings,

 

Ralf

 

 

====================================================================

"You do not HAVE a soul; you ARE a soul." - Seth/Jane Roberts

[Guest guest]

Hi Devi Bhakta, you replied:

>> From a more Western magical perspective, I would also perceive

>> divine femininity and masculinity as being representations of

>> fundamental energy manipulation differences, rather than purely

>> biological values. It is unfortunate that people focus on the

>> literal interpretation of symbolism, rather than the deeper

>> meanings.

> I'd definitely agree with this -- that is getting to the essence of

> the whole argument.

 

First let us look at whether or not we take deity to be symbolic

or actual, and whether that makes a difference. I am going to

use Shiva as the 'male' and Shakti as the 'female' terms.

 

If I say that Shiva and Shakti are deities, I impose my meaning

of deity on them, limiting them to my understanding. Generally

we also understand that we can not understand any deity fully,

that it is beyond us.

 

If I say that Shiva and Shakti symbolise aspects of a deeper

reality, and recognise that this reality is also beyond me, is

this different from saying that they are God and Goddess in

a Universe?

 

My view is, no. Antropomorphised or not, while we recognise

our boundaries, either definition is valid.

 

 

Taken as symbols of two aspects of the All That Is, or as two

manifestations, the question I would ask is: How do they differ?

 

I understand Shiva as representing the existence of balance:

death/life; light/dark; male/female; and others, not just in

duality.

 

I understand Shakti as representing the action of choice: Now

alive, now dead; now light, now dark; this lifetime male, the

next female.

 

I understand Brahman as representing the existence of Shiva

and Shakti: All That Is is balanced and active at the same

time.

 

And, finally, I understand Atman as representing a point that

originates from Brahman, subject to Shiva, acting as Shakti.

 

 

Then what is Shaktism? It is practicing creation to understand

the reality of duality, and it relies on awareness of the now.

 

Blessings in Love and Light,

 

Ralf

 

 

 

====================================================================

"You do not HAVE a soul; you ARE a soul." - Seth

[Guest guest]

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

<maryann@m...> wrote:

> >

> In Meditate: Happiness Lies Within You, Swami Muktananda

> wrote:

>

> "There was a time when I was addicted to reading the scriptures.

> One day I went to see my Guru with a book under my arm. He

> said: "Muktananda, come here. What is that?" "It's an

> Upanishad," I replied.

> "Do you know how this book is made?" he asked me. "It was

> made by a brain. The brain may make any number of books, but

> a book cannot make a brain. You had better throw it away and

> meditate."

 

My coments1: Unbaked, incomplete learning!! Who is that who said

that the upanishad is made by a brain? That only goes to show that

he doesnt even know the fundamentals of hinduism.

 

Comment 2: Only those ppl who reached a certain stage in

spirituality can do away without scriptures.Not you, not me. If one

keeps following such advice they will perish in the field of

spirituality. I wish you will discover why. It is impossible to write

in an elist everything from fundamentals.

>

> So I threw the book away and began to meditate. This makes

> perfect sense. When the Self is within, why should we look for

> knowledge of it somewhere else? As long as we do not realize

> the Self within, we cannot find true peace. ...

 

A better thing would be to abandon who ever said that.

>

> Meditation is universal. It is not the property of any particular

sect

> or cult. It does not belong to the East or to the West, nor does

it

> belong to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sufism. Meditation is

> everyone's property, just as sleep is everyone's property."

 

 

Agreed. How does one know how to meditate .Will someone know how to

meditate when they were born

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

You quoted Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami, "But Shaktas

worship Shakti as the Supreme Being exclusively, as the

dynamic aspect of Divinity, while Siva is considered solely

transcendent and is not worshiped."

 

Are we to infer from this that Shaktas worship the means but not

the end. Why is this? Do they not believe that they are

transcendent? Or, that they have no chance of realizing their

transcendency?

 

This is not meant to be provocative. It is just that these questions

occurred to me while reading your post.

 

 

Jaya Maa

 

Omprem

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta

<devi_bhakta>" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> As with any other religion, we may find it very hard (and I

suspect,

> totally impossible) to reach full agreement – even among

devotees --

> on what Shaktism is. Is a Shaiva or a Vaishnava a kind of

"honorary

> Shaktha" just because she or he worships a God who, their

belief

> says, contains a female shakti, as one member has claimed?

Is every

> person born of a female an automatic Shaktha (albeit probably

in

> denial), as another has suggested?

>

> These are pretty ideas, yes, and they provide comfortably all-

> encompassing definitions guaranteed to turn huge numbers of

> previously unsuspecting devotees of all stripes into instant

Shaktas.

> And certainly our Group encourages participation by all who

consider

> themselves Shaktas at any level, or who are sympathetic to the

idea

> of Shaktism (as are many Shaivas, for example). But do such

fuzzy

> definitions really tell us anything about the path? About what

> distinguishes it as one of the four primary schools of

Hinduism?

>

> I think perhaps not. And so I offer two definitions, one by an

Indian

> academic; the other by a Shaiva satguru. Both appear on the

front of

> the Group's permanent homepage

> (http://www.shaktisadhana.org/index.html). And perhaps they

will give

> us a useful starting point for a more specific discussion:

>

> In his History of the Shakta Religion (2nd Ed., 1996), N. N.

> Bhattacharyya writes: "Shaktism is a very important religion

among

> the Hindus of the present day. Those who worship the

Supreme Deity

> exclusively as a Female Principle are called Shakta. Shakti is

> worshiped in various forms and numerous shrines are

dedicated to Her

> images. The Shaktas conceive their Great Goddess as the

> personification of primordial energy and the source of all divine

and

> cosmic evolution. She is identified with the Supreme Being,

conceived

> as the Source and the Spring as well as the Controller of all

the

> forces and potentialities of Nature. Nowhere in the religious

history

> of the world do we come across such a completely

female-oriented

> system."

>

> Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami (1927-2001), in his

"Hindu Lexicon,"

> defined Shaktism as: "The religion followed by those who

worship the

> Supreme as the Divine Mother (Shakti or Devi) in Her many

forms, both

> gentle and fierce. Shaktism is one of the four primary sects of

> Hinduism. In philosophy and practice, Shaktism greatly

resembles

> Saivism. But Shaktas worship Shakti as the Supreme Being

exclusively,

> as the dynamic aspect of Divinity, while Siva is considered

solely

> transcendent and is not worshiped. There are many forms of

Shaktism,

> with endless varieties of practices which seek to capture divine

> energy or power for spiritual transformation."

>

> So we have two expert comments – one by a secular scholar,

and one by

> a Hindu swami. Both seem to feel that Shaktism is a very

distinct,

> concrete and particular form of Hinduism. Not a hazy backdrop

to

> other Hindu sects; not a vague, all-encompassing catchall.

What do

> YOU think? Any comments? Criticisms? Questions?

Concerns?

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPremji:

 

You ask: "You quoted Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami,

'But Shaktas worship Shakti as the Supreme Being

exclusively, as the dynamic aspect of Divinity, while

Siva is considered solely transcendent and is not

worshiped.' Are we to infer from this that Shaktas

worship the means but not the end."

 

I think the wording of this question begs a certain

answer. Shaktas believe that Shakti encompasses Shiva

just as Shaivas believe that Shiva encompasses Shakti.

Whether you believe that He is Her masculine aspect,

or She is His feminine aspect, Shaivism and Shaktism

are simply opposite sides of the same coin. If we

agree that the Ultimate Divine is all-encompassing and

beyond human comprehension or definition, then we must

certainly know that It will gladly offer whatever

aspects of Itself a given aspirant needs to advance.

 

To say that Shaktas worship the means rather than the

end creates an unnecessary dualism. A Shakta would say

that she or he worships both the means *and* the end.

The Shaivite believes Devi is worshiped as a means of

reaching Shiva. The Shakta believes that if Devi is

achieved, Shiva comes as part of the package.

 

You could argue that these are just two different ways

of saying basically the same thing. You'd be right.

But the same observation applies to all religions in

the world, which use names, images, tales, moral

codes, scriptures and all of the other tools of

spirituality to someone reach That which is beyond all

name and understanding -- and yet is vast enough to

embrace and transcend *all* names and understandings.

 

I'd welcome other viewpoints.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

 

 

Why is this? Do they not believe that they

> are

> transcendent? Or, that they have no chance of

> realizing their

> transcendency?

>

> This is not meant to be provocative. It is just that

> these questions

> occurred to me while reading your post.

>

>

> Jaya Maa

>

> Omprem

>

>

> , "Devi Bhakta

> <devi_bhakta>" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> > As with any other religion, we may find it very

> hard (and I

> suspect,

> > totally impossible) to reach full agreement – even

> among

> devotees --

> > on what Shaktism is. Is a Shaiva or a Vaishnava a

> kind of

> "honorary

> > Shaktha" just because she or he worships a God

> who, their

> belief

> > says, contains a female shakti, as one member has

> claimed?

> Is every

> > person born of a female an automatic Shaktha

> (albeit probably

> in

> > denial), as another has suggested?

> >

> > These are pretty ideas, yes, and they provide

> comfortably all-

> > encompassing definitions guaranteed to turn huge

> numbers of

> > previously unsuspecting devotees of all stripes

> into instant

> Shaktas.

> > And certainly our Group encourages participation

> by all who

> consider

> > themselves Shaktas at any level, or who are

> sympathetic to the

> idea

> > of Shaktism (as are many Shaivas, for example).

> But do such

> fuzzy

> > definitions really tell us anything about the

> path? About what

> > distinguishes it as one of the four primary

> schools of

> Hinduism?

> >

> > I think perhaps not. And so I offer two

> definitions, one by an

> Indian

> > academic; the other by a Shaiva satguru. Both

> appear on the

> front of

> > the Group's permanent homepage

> > (http://www.shaktisadhana.org/index.html). And

> perhaps they

> will give

> > us a useful starting point for a more specific

> discussion:

> >

> > In his History of the Shakta Religion (2nd Ed.,

> 1996), N. N.

> > Bhattacharyya writes: "Shaktism is a very

> important religion

> among

> > the Hindus of the present day. Those who worship

> the

> Supreme Deity

> > exclusively as a Female Principle are called

> Shakta. Shakti is

> > worshiped in various forms and numerous shrines

> are

> dedicated to Her

> > images. The Shaktas conceive their Great Goddess

> as the

> > personification of primordial energy and the

> source of all divine

> and

> > cosmic evolution. She is identified with the

> Supreme Being,

> conceived

> > as the Source and the Spring as well as the

> Controller of all

> the

> > forces and potentialities of Nature. Nowhere in

> the religious

> history

> > of the world do we come across such a completely

> female-oriented

> > system."

> >

> > Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami (1927-2001), in

> his

> "Hindu Lexicon,"

> > defined Shaktism as: "The religion followed by

> those who

> worship the

> > Supreme as the Divine Mother (Shakti or Devi) in

> Her many

> forms, both

> > gentle and fierce. Shaktism is one of the four

> primary sects of

> > Hinduism. In philosophy and practice, Shaktism

> greatly

> resembles

> > Saivism. But Shaktas worship Shakti as the Supreme

> Being

> exclusively,

> > as the dynamic aspect of Divinity, while Siva is

> considered

> solely

> > transcendent and is not worshiped. There are many

> forms of

> Shaktism,

> > with endless varieties of practices which seek to

> capture divine

> > energy or power for spiritual transformation."

> >

> > So we have two expert comments – one by a secular

> scholar,

> and one by

> > a Hindu swami. Both seem to feel that Shaktism is

> a very

> distinct,

> > concrete and particular form of Hinduism. Not a

> hazy backdrop

> to

> > other Hindu sects; not a vague, all-encompassing

> catchall.

> What do

> > YOU think? Any comments? Criticisms? Questions?

> Concerns?

> >

> > Aum Maatangyai Namahe

>

>

 

 

=====

* Please visit the Shakti Sadhana Homepage at http://www.shaktisadhana.org

* Please join the Shakti Sadhana Group at

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

, "Satish <sadaashiva>"

<sadaashiva> wrote:

> ---

> My coments1: Unbaked, incomplete learning!! Who is that who said

> that the upanishad is made by a brain? That only goes to show that

> he doesnt even know the fundamentals of hinduism.

>

> Comment 2: Only those ppl who reached a certain stage in

> spirituality can do away without scriptures.Not you, not me. If one

> keeps following such advice they will perish in the field of

> spirituality. I wish you will discover why. It is impossible to write

> in an elist everything from fundamentals.

>

> >

> > So I threw the book away and began to meditate. This makes

> > perfect sense. When the Self is within, why should we look for

> > knowledge of it somewhere else? As long as we do not realize

> > the Self within, we cannot find true peace. ...

>

> A better thing would be to abandon who ever said that.

 

 

Dear Satish,

 

 

These original'words' were spoken by Nityananda Swaimi a great

Avadhoota originally from Kerala who later settled in Ganeshpuri in

Thana District near Mumbai. The Avadhoot's experience the world as

Chittishakti and have no need for the scriptures. Perhaps you do

and there is nothing wrong with that but simply they don't and there

is nothing wrong with that either. Below is a link to the Nityananda

website in khanagad in kerala. f

 

http://www.swaminityanandbhagwan.com/

[Guest guest]

Namaste Devi Bhakta,

>As with any other religion, we may find it very hard (and I suspect,

>totally impossible) to reach full agreement – even among devotees --

>on what Shaktism is.

 

I'd suggest that the definition of just about any word depends on who is

using it, and in what context.

 

Certainly the words shakta and shaktism have been used in different senses

by well respected people.

 

Woodroffe mentions that Swami Vivekananda described Italian Catholics as

Shaktas, because of their devotion to Mary. The implication is that (at

least for Vivekananda, at least in certain contexts) Shakta can mean anyone

who honours the feminine principle.

>In his History of the Shakta Religion (2nd Ed., 1996), N. N.

>Bhattacharyya writes: "Shaktism is a very important religion among

>the Hindus of the present day. Those who worship the Supreme Deity

>exclusively as a Female Principle are called Shakta...

 

The quote you've given comes at the beginnning of Bhattacharyya's important

book.

 

How are we to take this quote...

 

An authoritive statement of the one and only way the word Shakta should be used?

 

Or, a working definition, intended to give his readers an initial idea of

the book's scope? (E.g. If you were looking for information about devotion

to Mary, this is not the book for you.)

 

In the rest of the book, Bhattacharyya uses the word shakta in ways which

don't necessarily match the exact words of the opening definition.

 

While Bhattacharyya doesn't mention Italian Catholics as Shaktas, he does

mention Sri Ramakrishna as a Shakta saint. Now, it is well know that Sri

Ramakrishna was a devotee of Mother Kali. He is said to died with Kali's

name on his lips. But did he "worship the Supreme Deity exclusively as a

Female Principle"? No, he worshipped _inclusively_, giving honour to every

sacred path, image and name.

 

Devi Bhakta, I know you've said before that not everyone can follow Sri

Ramakrishna in this regard. But that is _not_ the point I'm making. I'm

simply pointing out that Bhattacharyya goes beyond what he himself

initially says about the word Shakta.

 

Surely, then, his initial words about what Shakta means are in the category

of a working definition, and not in the category of an authoritive

statement.

 

Having said all this, it is the prerogative of yourself and Nora, as

moderators of this group, to say what is on-topic and what isn't. In doing

so, you can apply whatever definition of Shakta/Shaktism you feel is

appropriate, and you can apply it as strictly or as flexibly as you feel is

appropriate. If you wish to take Bhattacharyya's words more seriously than

he himself seems to take them, it is entirely up to you.

 

Om shantih,

Colin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Colin ...

 

Thank you for a thoughtful and practical contribution

to a conversation that seemed to be reaching an

uncomfortably emotional pitch.

 

I've read Bhattacharyya cover to cover once, but

closely and carefully. I began reading it again after

pulling it out to grab that excerpt, and I will read

it with your copmments in mind. Your views have

proven, in my experience, to be uniformly evenhanded

and perceptive.

 

*** The implication is that (at least for Vivekananda,

at least in certain contexts) Shakta can mean anyone

who honours the feminine principle. ***

 

I think this is fair. This is the "working definition"

I've always had more or less in mind for the Group,

although I understand that, strictly speaking, one

might limit the term to only initiatory traditions.

That kind of limitation, however, could not be easily

applied to a public forum.

 

 

*** In the rest of the book, Bhattacharyya uses the

word shakta in ways which don't necessarily match the

exact words of the opening definition. ... I'm simply

pointing out that Bhattacharyya goes beyond what he

himself initially says about the word Shakta.***

 

That's an astute observation. I'll keep an eye open

for it as I reread the volume.

 

*** it is the prerogative of yourself and Nora, as

moderators of this group, to say what is on-topic and

what isn't. In doing so, you can apply whatever

definition of Shakta/Shaktism you feel is appropriate,

and you can apply it as strictly or as flexibly as you

feel is appropriate. If you wish to take

Bhattacharyya's words more seriously than he himself

seems to take them, it is entirely up to you. ***

 

I don't want to exclude newcomers by applying too

narrow a definition, not do I wish to alienate

experienced Shaktas by applying too broad a standard.

Do you think there is a middle ground upon which both

can meet, to learn and to teach?

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

=====

* Please visit the Shakti Sadhana Homepage at http://www.shaktisadhana.org

* Please join the Shakti Sadhana Group at

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Devi Bhakta,

 

I'm pleased and encouraged that my posting was of interest to you, and I

very much like your words "middle ground". I think people of different

levels (and different kinds) of experience are already meeting through this

group, which can make the discussions at times difficult, yet interesting

and valuable too.

 

Goddess bless you,

Colin

>Namaste Colin ...

>

>Thank you for a thoughtful and practical contribution

>to a conversation that seemed to be reaching an

>uncomfortably emotional pitch.

>I don't want to exclude newcomers by applying too

>narrow a definition, not do I wish to alienate

>experienced Shaktas by applying too broad a standard.

>Do you think there is a middle ground upon which both

>can meet, to learn and to teach?

>

>Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Satish and I corresponded separately from the message board

on this issue, and Satish asked me last week for permission to

forward this correspondence to the message board. I agreed.

Due to time constraints, Satish couldn't post it, so I'm posting it

now with his permission.

 

Shri Mary Ann,

 

Thank you for providing the me info on the spirityal

dimension of feminism.

 

It would be great if you can permit me to forward

this to the shakti-sadhana list.

 

Regards and thanx

Satish.

 

--- maryann wrote:

> on 1/15/03 9:19 PM, satish at sadaashiva

> wrote:

>

> > I would be thankful if u can provide me links to

> the

> > spiritual dimension of feminism.

 

[Mary Ann replied:]

> At the end of the hatha yoga class I take regularly

> in Malibu, my teacher

> directs us to look down toward our hearts. That is

> the only link I can

> suggest that could introduce you to the spiritual

> dimension of feminism.

> Look to your heart.

 

[satish wrote:]

> "As for burning widows on pyres: The hindu law books

> give that as an option to the widow. The widow is

> free

> to choose if she wants to get burnes on the pyre or

> not to get burned."

 

[Mary Ann wrote:]

> Why would she choose to burn? Has she been accorded

> no value without her

> husband, or no value to anyone but her husband?

 

[satish wrote:]

> "Shaktism is far too

> complex. Only with the grace of Shakti and Shiva can

> one grasp Shakta philosophy."

 

[Mary Ann wrote:]

> I think this may be true of feminism, too, and I am

> not trying to annoy you.

>

> Om Shanti

>

[Guest guest]

Well thank you Mary Ann and Satish for sharing that conversation. I

really look forward and I am sure other members too, would like to

see the ongoing conversation [ not the personal ones of course ] but

at least we can learn something from this exchanges.

 

[satish wrote:]

" I would be thankful if u can provide me links to the

spiritual dimension of feminism"

 

Yes! I would love to read on this too.

 

"Shaktism is far too complex. Only with the grace of Shakti and Shiva

can one grasp Shakta philosophy."

 

I tends to agree with Satish. Talking about religion is like talking

about the Ocean. Should we just jump in and swim and enjoy the

beautiful sea. Shaktism is part of that ocean. The Ocean itself is so

huge and so deep. There's the deepest ocean that no man have ever

been.

 

[Mary Ann wrote:]

Why would she choose to burn? Has she been accorded no value without

her husband, or no value to anyone but her husband?

>From what I gathers [ any body can correct me if im wrong ] Shakta do

not advocate Sati/Widow burning. Women who perform Sati, as they

remarked "Will Go to Hell"

[Guest guest]

, "Nora

<ashwini_puralasamy>" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> [satish wrote:]

> " I would be thankful if u can provide me links to the

> spiritual dimension of feminism"

>

> Yes! I would love to read on this too.

 

Here are a couple of web links:

 

http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/interviews/int_199803

31.shtml

 

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/spirit.html

 

I thought Satish was being sarcastic to me with his question.

(Maybe I misunderstood?) So, Nora, your post caused me to

look for some actual web links to material that might help make

this "link" for you, and anyone else who is interested.

 

I did a basic internet search for feminism + spirituality. I read the

info at the first link, which I liked for the most part. (It mentions

Gandhi, who is a source of inspiration to me. Another list

member brought Gandhi up recently in this discussion, too.) The

page at the second link contains a bibliography on feminism and

spirituality that might be of interest to you.

>

> [Mary Ann wrote:]

> Why would she choose to burn? Has she been accorded no

value without

> her husband, or no value to anyone but her husband?

>

> From what I gathers [ any body can correct me if im wrong ]

Shakta do

> not advocate Sati/Widow burning. Women who perform Sati, as

they

> remarked "Will Go to Hell"

 

Satish also told me that in medieval times, it wasn't a choice the

widow had, at least in some places. That such a law and

practice was ever created is remarkable unto itself, and that it's

still in existence is even more remarkable imho.

[Guest guest]

Nora wrote:

> Talking about religion is like talking

> about the Ocean. Should we just jump in and swim and enjoy the

> beautiful sea. Shaktism is part of that ocean. The Ocean itself is so

> huge and so deep. There's the deepest ocean that no man have ever

> been.

 

I see talking about the Gods, about deity, about the nature

of the Universe as being like talking about the Ocean.

 

Talking about religion is like talking about swimming:

 

"I swam just along the surface, and the water was warm."

"I swam deeply, and the water was cold."

"When I keep my body long while swimming, I go faster."

 

It is this which attracts me to these mailing lists. How does

everyone really practise Shaktism? What do you get from it?

 

Love,

 

Ralf

[Guest guest]

, "Nora

<ashwini_puralasamy>" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

>

> [Mary Ann wrote:]

> Why would she choose to burn? Has she been accorded no value without

> her husband, or no value to anyone but her husband?

>

> From what I gathers [ any body can correct me if im wrong ] Shakta do

> not advocate Sati/Widow burning. Women who perform Sati, as they

> remarked "Will Go to Hell"

 

 

from HPI archieves

 

Return to the Table of Contents

September/October 2000

COMMENTARY

Don't Shackle Freedom

One woman challenges ban on sati temples as regulating people's beliefs

 

Madhu Kishwar, editor of Manushi magazine and a champion of the

oppressed in India, offers her analysis of a proposed government ban

on "sati temples," some ancient, which commemorate instances of women

burning themselves to death on their husband's funeral pyre. This rare

event, illegal since British times, still occurs from time to time,

mostly in the state of Rajasthan. Madhu opposes any ban on sati

temples, argueing that such laws will not change the circumstances

that lead to sati, but may instead encourage other laws attempting to

regulate religious belief and practice.

 

By Madhu Kishwar, Delhi

 

It has been a long-standing demand of feminist reformers to not only

use strong measures to curb new satis from happening, but to also

declare ancient sati temples illegal and shut them down. They feel

sati temples glorify the sati cult, thus beckoning women to follow

suit. I feel that it is indeed necessary to use all manners of

persuasion to stop women from killing themselves, whether by way of

ordinary suicide or sati. However, trying to close sati temples by

force has the potential of setting into motion a very dangerous

downward spiral.

 

Firstly, for all the so-called glorification of sati in certain

regions, we have not witnessed anything resembling a sati epidemic.

With all the sati temples in Rajasthan, extremely few women offer

themselves for immolation, including those who might bow in reverence

before a sati shrine. After Roop Kanwar's immolation in 1987, there

have been no more than a few cases of attempted self-immolations by

widows in India. Most were averted by timely intervention. Even before

the anti-sati act was passed, a very small number of women killed

themselves on their husband's pyres within the last several decades.

 

Taking an authoritarian route to social reform is mostly

counterproductive. Today, one group demands the closure of sati

temples because they violate the values of one community. Tomorrow

another group might demand the closure of all Kali temples because

they might see Her worship as idealizing vengeful aspects of

femininity. Some others might want Krishna temples declared illegal

because he was a polygamist. Still others might want Ram temples

banned because he subjected his wife to a cruel test of her virtue by

fire. There is indeed no end to this game of any self-declared group

of social reformers seeking to discipline others into "approved"

behavior and making them worship only certain "approved" Deities.

 

One of the great strengths of our civilization is that people are free

to choose their own Gods, their own modes of worship. New icons are

constantly invented without need for sanction from any hierarchical

authority. Each village has its own preferred pantheon of Gods and

Goddesses, with varied sets of qualities for which they are deified.

For instance, Ram is valued because he was supposedly perfection

incarnate. Likewise, Krishna is revered despite the fact that he

deceived and played tricks on everyone, including his mother, lovers,

wives, friends and enemies as part of an elaborate leela, or play.

There are Goddesses like Parvati who are approached as benign mothers,

symbols of happy conjugality and wifely devotion. Then, there are

ferocious Chandi-Durga type Goddesses who strike fear in the hearts of

devotees because any man who tried taming or desecrating them invited

death in the most brutal manner.

 

Even Mahoba region has very recently created such an icon. To quote

Smeeta Mishra Pandey in The Indian Express: "It was in March last year

that I had visited Mahoba chasing yet another tale: The story of Ram

Shree, the village woman who along with her brother and father killed

her relatives. Shree was the first woman to have been given a death

sentence after Independence. I found that villagers spent their

evening narrating tales about Ram Shree. They often debated whether

Ram Shree did the right thing. Shree had apparently killed her

relatives because they had tortured her and beaten her up mercilessly.

Women wondered why the court had any say in the happenings in their

village. In no time, Ram Shree become a living legend. When the

Supreme Court swapped her death sentence for life imprisonment, taking

pity on her one-and-half-year-old daughter, the villagers believed the

Goddess had come to her rescue." In time a temple to Ram Shree may

well come into existence.

 

The coexistence of Ram Shree legends shows that the culture of this

region allows for diverse ideals and icons to be celebrated

simultaneously. The same people who worship Sita or Roop Kanwar as

symbols of wifely devotion are also capable of valorizing Durga-like

behavior by ordinary village women. In Mahoba town, a Radha Krishna

temple coexists with a school and a sati temple built in the

1930s--all in the same small complex.

 

In the Hindu tradition, there is no sharp divide between Divine and

human. On the one hand, Gods come to Earth as varied human avatars to

share the trials and tribulations of ordinary human beings. On the

other, human beings can easily achieve divine status by living

extraordinary lives and displaying inspiring qualities. Numerous

village Gods and Goddesses in India are creations of this latter

process. Deification, though, is not confined to the human form of

creation. We sanctify various living and nonliving beings--cows,

trees, elephants, snakes, mice, monkeys and even rivers, stones,

mountains, earth, sun, moon and winds. At the same time, in some

states, like Tamil Nadu, there are temples where popular film stars

are enshrined as Deities.

 

Those who have tried to cure us of polytheism and make us subservient

to the dictates of monotheistic faiths have inflicted a great deal of

violence on our people throughout this last millennium. Let us not

become willing agents for carrying that legacy forward to the next.

 

As long as sati shrines coexist with Durga and Yogini temples, as long

as Parvati is not forced to repress her Kali form, as long as none of

our Gods dare claim perfection and demand the banishment of others, we

will continue to value tolerance, dissent, diversity and respect for

different ways of doing and living and to have regard for the diverse

species that inhabit this Earth and life forces that coexist in this

universe. As long as our people feel free and empowered to choose

their own Gods and Goddesses, they will respect the choices of others

as well.

 

Those who wish to arrogate to themselves the right to subject other

people's modes of worship to an arbitrarily determined qualifying

criteria--no matter how well intended--can easily veer towards

Stalinist forms of repression or trigger off counterdemands for more

censorship. If I demand a ban on sati worship through coercive means,

others can very well demand a ban on Manushi because it advocates

stigma-free divorce. To safeguard my own freedom, I have to respect

that of others.

 

However, as emphasized earlier, the call for state intervention is

valid when there is evidence of force being used to make someone adopt

a pernicious tradition, or when violence is committed in the name of

religion and social custom. Invoking laws to deal with crime is

perfectly legitimate, but using the danda ("stick;" the authority) of

the police, and threatening imprisonment to force a change in cultural

values, inevitably leads to backlash.

 

Real reform lies in creating viable options which are easily

accessible and help women move out of dependence. We have to have

faith that the vast majority of people tend to act in self-affirming

ways when circumstances don't constrict their choices. But nihilistic

acts, such as sati, come easily to defeated people whose life is a

long, arduous struggle without hope. ½¼

 

Madhu Kishwar, New Delhi, is editor of Manushi, India's leading

magazine on human issues, especially women's rights. She is an erudite

activist working effectively to raise the quality of life in India.

 

For subscription rates or letters to the editor, write to: Manushi,

c/202 Lajpat Nagar 1, New Delhi, 110024 India, e-mail:

madhu, or Manushi c/o Manavi, PO Box 614,

Bloomfield, New Jersey 07003.

 

Return to the Table of Contents

Return to Hinduism Today Home Page

[Guest guest]

"I thought Satish was being sarcastic to me with his question. (Maybe

I misunderstood?) So, Nora, your post caused me to look for some

actual web links to material that might help make this "link" for

you, and anyone else who is interested"

 

Thank you Mary Ann. I am actually now looking and reading on the

materials provided here in the links. Please do not take it as

sarcastic. Im just trying to see things from your point of view, so

that I can get a better understanding.

 

"Satish also told me that in medieval times, it wasn't a choice the

widow had, at least in some places. That such a law and practice was

ever created is remarkable unto itself, and that it's still in

existence is even more remarkable imho"

 

When we have Goddess Sati as our Devi of the week, I did a short

write up on the practices of Sati : historical, about the scriptures

etc. Supposedly to post it in the group, but somehow never made it to

the message board. I will try to this time around

[Guest guest]

Hi All: Frank Martin posted an interesting article from 2000 about

Sati temples and worship. I had no idea this practice was

referred to as a form of worship.

 

Here is the text of another article I found online today at:

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=688

3.

 

This recalls a point raised earlier on the message board about

the intersection of religion, politics and law.

 

September 13, 2002

 

Indian Feminists Protest Court Ruling For Sati Devotees

Indian feminists are protesting a recent Rajasthan court ruling

allowing devotees to pray at temples dedicated to women who

have committed sati. The ancient Hindu practice, which requires

a widow to throw herself onto her husband's burning funeral

pyre, was banned in major Indian cities under British rule in

1829, and was banned all across India 15 years ago. Women's

rights activists are accusing the court of exalting the ancient

custom, and said that they will challenge the ruling in India's

Supreme Court.

 

Late last week the state high court permitted devotees to

worship at two temples in Rajasthan after temple managements

petitioned to protect the rights of the devotees. Kavita Srivastave

of the People's Union for Civil Liberties stated that the

management's petition was "an effort to revive the practice [of

sati] in the name of worshipping." Although sati cases are rare,

temple tributes of the act in rural Rajasthan still attract crowds of

devotees. The most recent case of sati occurred last month

when a 65-year-old old woman burned herself to death on her

husband's pyre.