Shaktism feminism debate update

[Guest guest]

Thank you Satish for the updates.

[Guest guest]

I wanted to reprint here something I was struck by in the book

Encountering the Goddess (called "the Shakta bible" by Devi

Bhakta on the Shakti Sadhana reading list) that pertains to what

Satish refers to as a debate. I personally am in no debate; I

understand a relation between these issues.

 

Thomas B. Coburn wrote in the introduction that one of his

interests in creating this translation of the Devi-Mahatmya is

"a desire to contribute in some way to what is surely one of the

massive revolutions of our day, that is, the way in which we think

and behave with regard to matters of gender. ...I am of the

persuasion that something of great historical moment is afoot

here. ...I am not necessarily the best person to press the case

here, or elsewhere, for the importance of feminist concerns.

What I can admit to, however, is the sense that on this matter, as

elsewhere, careful scholarship has important contributions to

make, both intellectuallly and humanistically. And so I have done

some research...examining the chrystallization of the Hindu

Goddess tradition. The sense has persisted, however, that there

are issues running through this research that would be of

broader interest. This sense has been reinforced by my

students, especially the women, with whom I have shared

excerpts of my own translation of the Devi-Mahatmya. Their

reports of what it did for them--particularly its tremendous

enrichment of their dream-life--have encouraged me in the

currrent undertaking."

 

My personal experience: in a meditation class, I asked a Siddha

Yoga Meditation teacher for a mantra invoking a feminine aspect.

The teacher told me I need not concern myself with the meaning

of the mantra, and to just imagine that Shiva was female when I

said "Om Namah Shivaya." I said that wasn't good enough for

me and that I felt it wasn't fair to Shiva, either. I was given a

mantra invoking Chandika. After beginning to repeat the new

mantra, I had amazing and wonderful dreams. That experience

eventually led me to find this .

 

I am looking forward to devouring the rest of Coburn's book --

and you would laugh at that analogy if you are familiar with the

intro of the book!

 

 

, "satisharigela

<satisharigela>" <satisharigela> wrote:

> shrIH

>

> As per the discussions on this subject in the list,

>

> we did not yet see any reason to think Shaktism and feminism

are

> related in anyway.

>

> The reason being, absence of any commonalities as far as we

see.

>

> Atleast for now, they are unrelated.

>

[Guest guest]

If I may make an observation on this interesting conversation -- I

wonder if Maryann and Satish might not be falling into the same trap

as the blind men and the elephant: In concentrating on just one

aspect of a very large object, it's easy to lose sight of other,

equally true aspects.

 

Now, Shaktism is a very big subject indeed -- much too big for any

one human being to scratch more than a bit of the surface. You may be

intimately familiar with all details of one tradition within

the "Shakta" realm, and be totally unaware of a thousand others. You

may know a breathtaking number of Devi forms -- but that's still only

a fraction of what's out there.

 

And that's fine. All you need is your own foothold, your own lineage,

your own ishtadevi, your own mantra, etc. All the rest is of

intellectual interest. The purpose of any religion is, ultimately, to

help the individual seeker find and merge with the Divine. Shaktism

is no less effective than any other religion in this regard, and it

is much better than many (I'm obviously biased, though).

 

So where does feminism come in? Well, as Satish pointed out, Shaktism

does not *require* feminism at all. It is not necessary to equate the

Divine Feminine with the human feminine or any gender distinction

whatsoever. A famous example is the vast Devi Bhagavatam Purana -- a

huge compendium of stories, tales and hymns, glorifying Devi most

completely, elevating Her as unimaginably superior to all other

deities. And yet, sprinkled liberally throughout, are loads of

observations and asides that make clear the old swami (or swamis) who

penned this work were hardcore misogynists. They may love the

Goddess, but they sure do hate women.

 

And then you have the Devi Mahatmyam, which states outright, "all

women in the world are thy diverse manifestations." Most Tantric

schools teach the same.

 

Maybe the problem is the word "feminism." It's a loaded term for many

people; a buzzword that polarizes opinion before the debate even

begins. People tend to know what they think of feminism (whether

their opinion is educated or even reasonable is anopther matter);

they either like it or they don't. Maybe we should just be asking,

when we elevate a feminine principle to the position of Supreme

Divine, can that have an uplifting effect on women in general? And I

think the answer is clearly, Yes, sure it can! Do all Shaktas need to

be feminists? No. Many extremely advanced Shaktas are certainly not.

But Shaktism certainly accomodates and invites a discussion of the

question in a way that, say, fundamentalist Islam or Christianity do

not.

 

It all depends on what you're looking for in your religion. Satish

said early on that he had basically no idea what feminism is

(although he turned out to know quite a lot), and he's stuck to his

guns. And again, he's right to say feminism has nothing to do with

the principle goal of Shaktism -- which is, again, Self-realization

and merger with the Divine. But Maryann is also right -- and most

scholars (who tend to be interested in religions as objective social

phenomena rather than debating whether they're subjectively "good" or

not) would agree with her: The possible social implications of a

religion focused around the feminine principle -- in a world where

the divine feminine was basically wiped out like a disease elsewhere -

- are enormous and important in a worldly sense, even though they may

be much less so in a purely spiritual sense. As the scholar N. N.

Bhattacharyya noted, "Nowhere in the religious history of the world

do we come across such a completely female-oriented system." So why

not explore what that means? That is, if it interests you.

 

If you'd like to read more on the social implications of Shaktism for

modern women, there is an excellent study available: "Is the Goddess

a Feminist?: The Politics of South Asian Goddesses." It's a 2001

collection of essays by an assortment of Indian and Western scholars,

edited by Kathleen M. Erndl. Info and excerpts can be found at:

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-

/081473619X/qid=1043555759/sr=1-16/ref=sr_1_16/002-7586267-8767214?

v=glance&s=books

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

, "Devi Bhakta

<devi_bhakta>" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> If I may make an observation on this interesting conversation --

I

> wonder if Maryann and Satish might not be falling into the

same trap

> as the blind men and the elephant: In concentrating on just

one

> aspect of a very large object, it's easy to lose sight of other,

> equally true aspects.

 

Thanks, Devi, for your comments. I have been reading The

Chalice and the Blade, and I wonder how many of the Shakti

Sadhana group members have read it. I am wondering: is it

possible to talk or message with other group members who

have read The Chalice and the Blade? Anyone out there who is

interested in this, let me know, or maybe we can coordinate this

through the group...?

 

I've done a little more research, and the earliest use I can find for

the word "feminism" is 1850, and the definition was simply: "The

qualities of women," according to the Oxford Univesal Dictionary,

first published in 1933. In the late 1800s the word got connected

specifically with political/social reform. I like the earlier definition.

I for one am sick of the "argument" about feminism. There would

be no need for feminism in the later meaning if it wasn't for the

hostility toward the qualities of women to begin with. For me,

Shakta is about the feminine as divine.

 

I like what you say, Devi, about elevating the female or feminine

principle, and the effect that can have on women (who have, after

all, been devalued by every major religion since the dominator

model - aka patriarchy - began). Thanks again for your input on

this topic.

 

Om Namas Chandikaye

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

"Maybe we should just be asking, when we elevate a feminine

principle to the position of Supreme Divine, can that have an

uplifting effect on women in general?"

 

 

With all due respect, in asking that question, you miss the point

of shakti sadhana. Shakti Sadhana is not a case of elevating a

feminine principle to the position of Supreme Divine: it is the

case of a spiritual seeker naturally seeing the Supreme as a

feminine principle. There is no elevating occuring, it is natural for

that practitioner: it is his/her intuitive response to seeking the

Divine.

 

Furthermore, whether there is a corresponding uplifting effect on

women (or men) in general is irrelevent. The authentic shakta

spiritual seeker already strives to see all as equal and is not

interested in political movements or other so-called spiritual

paths that exist only because of a false differentiation among

people or that seeks to make one group more privileged than

another or that sees one group as inherently superior to another.

 

The wise shakta knows that making such artificial distinctions

arises only because one already feels estranged from the Divine

and only serves to keep him/her off from union with the Divine.

 

OM Aim Hrim Klim Chamundaye Viche Namaha

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem ji ...

 

*** With all due respect, in asking that question, you miss the point

of shakti sadhana. ***

 

I don't think so; at least not if you take my comment in the context

of my entire post. I took pains to note therein that the ultimate

goal of any religion is *not* socio-economic, but rather to find and

merge with the Divine. Having clarified that, my message was merely

this: While Maryann's question is admittedly not a central question

of Shakti Sadhana as a religious practice, it is a legitimate area of

social inquiry in the temporal sense. It's in the realm of

scholarship rather than practice, yes -- but that merely makes the

question tangential to this forum, not irrelevant.

 

*** The authentic shakta spiritual seeker already strives to see all

as equal and is not interested in political movements or other so-

called spiritual paths that exist only because of a false

differentiation among people or that seeks to make one group more

privileged than another or that sees one group as inherently superior

to another. ***

 

I'm not sure I agree. To take Christianity for an example, it is

entirely possible to practice that religion (as the vast majority of

its adherents do) without paying the slightest bit of attention to

Jesus of Nazareth's social directives: Don't judge people based on

their social class. Turn the other cheek. Help the poor and

marginalized. Don't waste time accumulating wealth. The U.S.'s

militantly Christian president Bush II stands for the opposite of all

these ideals. In fact those ideals are happily ignored by most

people. Why? Because it takes religion out of the Church and into the

Street -- and that's uncomfortable.

 

Again, I stress that I agree with you insofar as social questions are

subordinate to religious questions. But they are not irrelevant. If

one is so inclined, there is nothing "un-Shakta" in allowing oneself

to think about questions like, What do the Devi Mahatmyam and the

Shakta Tantras mean when they say to honor all female beings as

manifestations of the Devi? What are the implications of that? Is it

important? Is it central? Is it optional? How is "honor" done? Etc.,

etc. Granted, not many swamis and religious leaders concern

themselves with such questions -- they are more in the realm of

scholars who are interested in the social manifestations of religion

rather than the transcendent efficacy of religion. And yes, the

practicing Shakta should not allow such questions to grow to the

extent that they dominate and overcome one's actual ritual and

devotional work.

 

But some swamis have taken the time to note (just as Jesus of

Nazareth tried to) that one's social hang-ups *can* affect one's

spiritual progress if one is not careful. For example, Swami Vinit

Muni (1938-1996), in discussing the combined Devi-Shiva form of

Ardhanarishwari, noted that: "The image ... does not merely present a

synthesis of masculine and feminine gender traits, but rather

attempts to portray a fundamental belief in the possibility of

personal transcendence, usually understood as the attainment of

nondual consciousness. …[However,] it can only capture this ideal if

and when the ego of gender -- which at times distorts and privileges

the male half of the image -- has been recognized and [overcome]."

See the Group's Ardhanariswari page

(http://www.shaktisadhana.org/shivanshakti2.html) for more context on

this comment.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Om Omprem ,

 

I agree whole-heartedly with the first part of your post.

 

"Shakti Sadhana is not a case of elevating a feminine principle to

the position of Supreme Divine: it is the case of a spiritual

seeker naturally seeing the Supreme as a feminine principle."

 

But with all due respects to you, thie subsequent sentence in your

post is hard to accept.

 

"Furthermore, whether there is a corresponding uplifting effect on

women (or men) in general is irrelevent."

 

This is a sweeping statement. All religious ( or faiths) are supposed

to have an uplifting effect on all of humanity ( men and women ). If

it does not accomplish this , such a religion is useless.

 

How is spiritual growth possible without the harmonious integration

of the feminine and the masculine components in our Psyche?

 

The faces of the divine feminine is all around us - it is in us and

outside of us. If we fail to comnnect to the divine feminine within

us how can we connect to the divine feminine outside of us?

 

The first person a new born child connects is it's Mother . This is

the 'oneness' and the only 'oneness' the child knows or experiences.

(the mother - the feminine principle) But as the child grows up, it

sstarts differentiating and seperating - " oh, this is my dad. This

is my grand pa. This is my uncle . this is my friend, Peter." etc.

 

But we all need to return to our infancy and start connecting to this

divine feminine all over again - A reunion , so to speak with the

divine feminine in us and around us. All we need are 'spiritual' eyes

that views all of creation as the manifestation of 'prakriti'.

 

In reality, therefore, if a religion fails to address social issues

such as 'widow ' remarriage, 'dowry deaths' , 'female

fanticide' , 'subjugation of women' , 'abuse of women' etc then how

can people in their right minds have any sympathy for such a

religion?

 

You are absolutely right when you say that " The authentic shakta

spiritual seeker already strives to see all as equal"

 

but, not only 'shakta' - this is true position of all realized

souls , whatever faith they practice.

 

But it is wrong however to conclude from the above statement and then

go on to say

 

" and is not interested in political movements or other so-called

spiritual paths that exist only because of a false differentiation

among people or that seeks to make one group more privileged than

another or that sees one group as inherently superior to another."

 

Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi who championed for women's equality and

women's rights often quoted from scriptures to show that a society

which does not treat its womenfolk right can never be a smooth

functioning society. In fact, he was the first national leader who

recruited many females in his 'frEedom 'movement.

 

So, the issue is not whether all are equal ; the issue is why some

are more equal than others? (to paraphrase George Orwell)

 

Any society if it discriminates on the basis of caste, color, creed,

gender etc is subject to criticism.

 

Throughout history, women have suffered in more ways than one. Till

recently, in some parts of the world, women were not even allowed to

exercise their franchise. How long do we have to wait for us to have

a 'woman' president in the white house? does the woman have the right

to 'choose'?

 

These are all not just questions that belonmg to a forum

on 'feminism' - they are relevent to 'shakti sadhana' .. what is the

use of singing the glories of the 'divine feminine ' and not honoring

the 'divine ' feminine around us?

 

Feminism is not about acknowledging that 'women are superior to

men' ; Feminism is about acknowledging the equality of women with men

in every aspect. No less.

 

How can union with the 'divine' occur when there is this kind of

imbalance in one's psyche ?

 

Regards

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your thoughfulful message asimhavahini.

 

In addressing some of the parts of OmPrem's message with which I

disagreed, I neglected to notehow nicely stated the rest of his post

was.

 

This phrase -- "Shakti Sadhana is not a case of elevating a feminine

principle to the position of Supreme Divine: it is the case of a

spiritual seeker naturally seeing the Supreme as a feminine

principle." -- is very eloquent, and I think correct.

 

Do any other members agree or disagree?

[Guest guest]

, "Devi Bhakta

<devi_bhakta>" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Thank you for your thoughfulful message asimhavahini.

>

> In addressing some of the parts of OmPrem's message with which I

> disagreed, I neglected to notehow nicely stated the rest of his

post

> was.

>

> This phrase -- "Shakti Sadhana is not a case of elevating a

feminine

> principle to the position of Supreme Divine: it is the case of a

> spiritual seeker naturally seeing the Supreme as a feminine

> principle." -- is very eloquent, and I think correct.

>

> Do any other members agree or disagree?

 

 

I would like to point out the following from Arthur Avalon's

Shakti and Shakta..It is a little longer..

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

"An American Orientalist critic, in speaking of "the worthlessness

of Tantric philosophy", said that it was "Religious Feminism run

mad," adding "What is all this but the feminisation of orthodox

Vedanta? It is a doctrine for suffragette Monists: the dogma

unsupported by any evidence that the female principle antedates and

includes the male principle, and that this female principle is

supreme Divinity." The "worthlessness" of the Tantrik philosophy is

a personal opinion on which nothing need be said, the more

particularly that Orientalists who, with insufficient knowledge,

have already committed themselves to this view are not likely to

easily abandon it. The present criticism, however, in disclosing the

grounds on which it is based, has shown that they are without worth.

Were it not for such ignorant notions, it would be unnecessary to

say that the Shakta Sadhaka does not believe that there is a Woman

Suffragette or otherwise, in the sky, surrounded by the members of

some celestial feminist association who rules the male members of

the universe. As the Yamala says for the benefit of the

ignorant "neyam yoshit na ca puman na shando na jadah smritah". That

is, God is neither female, male, hermaphrodite nor unconscious

thing. Nor is his doctrine concerned with the theories of the

American Professor Lester Ward and others as to the alleged pre-

eminence of the female principle. We are not here dealing with

questions of science or sociology. It is a common fault of western

criticism that it gives *****material interpretations of Indian

Scriptures and so misunderstands it*****. The Shakta doctrine is

concerned with those Spiritual Principles which exist before, and

are the origin of, both men and women. Whether, in the appearance of

the animal species, the female "antedates" the male is a question

with which it is not concerned. Nor does it say that the "female

principle" is the supreme Divinity. Shiva the "male" is co-equal

with Shivé the "female," for both are one and the same. An

Orientalist might have remembered that in the Samkhya, Prakriti is

spoken of as "female," and Purusha as "male". And in Vedanta, Maya

and Devi are of the feminine gender. Shakti is not a male nor a

female "person," nor a male nor a female "principle," in the sense

in which sociology, which is concerned with gross matter, uses those

terms. Shakti is symbolically "female" because it is the productive

principle. Shiva in so far as He represents the Cit or consciousness

aspect, is actionless (Nishkriya), though the two are inseparably

associated even in creation. The Supreme is the attributeless

(Nirguna) Shiva, or the neuter Brahman which is neither "male"

nor "female". With such mistaken general views of the doctrine, it

was not likely that its more subtle aspects by way of relation to

Shamkara's Mayavada, or the Samkya Darshana should be appreciated.

The doctrine of Shakti has no more to do with "Feminism" than it has

to do with "old age pensions" or any other sociological movement of

the day. This is a good instance of those apparently "smart" and

cocksure judgments which Orientalists and others pass on things

Indian. The errors would be less ridiculous if they were on

occasions more modest as regards their claims to know and

understand. What is still more important, they would not probably in

such cases give unnecessary ground for offense."

 

As usual, all * s are mine :-)

 

Hope this helps

rgds

[Guest guest]

Right on, asimhavahini !!!

 

Much love to you and to all of Shakti Sadhana.

 

Om Namah Shivaya / 'ham

so ham

Om Namas Chandikaye / 'ham

so ham

Om Namah Shivaya / 'ham

so ham

Om Namas Chandikaye...

 

Om Namas Chandikaye / 'ham

so ham

Om Namah Shivaya / 'ham

so ham

Om Namas Chandikaye / 'ham

so ham

Om Namah Shivaya

 

This is a chant I have created in honor of Devi. I plan to record it

and put it on my website. I'll post when it is there, for all those

interested. It would be neat to have sound files of chants

available online. If anyone out there knows of is a site where

such things are available, please let me know.

[Guest guest]

, "satisharigela

<satisharigela>" <satisharigela> wrote:

 

While this passage describes the transcendental aspects of the

Shakta spiritual belief/ideal, it does not address the failure of

human culture to live in accordance with this ideal, which

feminism does address. If Shiva and Shakti are meant to be

pre-gender or beyond gender, why is Shiva usually called "He" ?

Why Shakti "She" ? In fact, why Goddess or God? Those also

denote gender.

> >

> > This phrase -- "Shakti Sadhana is not a case of elevating a

> feminine

> > principle to the position of Supreme Divine: it is the case of a

> > spiritual seeker naturally seeing the Supreme as a feminine

> > principle." -- is very eloquent, and I think correct.

> >

> > Do any other members agree or disagree?

>

>

> I would like to point out the following from Arthur Avalon's

> Shakti and Shakta..It is a little longer..

> ===============================================

> "An American Orientalist critic, in speaking of "the

worthlessness

> of Tantric philosophy", said that it was "Religious Feminism

run

> mad," adding "What is all this but the feminisation of orthodox

> Vedanta? It is a doctrine for suffragette Monists: the dogma

> unsupported by any evidence that the female principle

antedates and

> includes the male principle, and that this female principle is

> supreme Divinity." The "worthlessness" of the Tantrik

philosophy is

> a personal opinion on which nothing need be said, the more

> particularly that Orientalists who, with insufficient knowledge,

> have already committed themselves to this view are not likely

to

> easily abandon it. The present criticism, however, in disclosing

the

> grounds on which it is based, has shown that they are without

worth.

> Were it not for such ignorant notions, it would be unnecessary

to

> say that the Shakta Sadhaka does not believe that there is a

Woman

> Suffragette or otherwise, in the sky, surrounded by the

members of

> some celestial feminist association who rules the male

members of

> the universe. As the Yamala says for the benefit of the

> ignorant "neyam yoshit na ca puman na shando na jadah

smritah". That

> is, God is neither female, male, hermaphrodite nor

unconscious

> thing. Nor is his doctrine concerned with the theories of the

> American Professor Lester Ward and others as to the alleged

pre-

> eminence of the female principle. We are not here dealing with

> questions of science or sociology. It is a common fault of

western

> criticism that it gives *****material interpretations of Indian

> Scriptures and so misunderstands it*****. The Shakta doctrine

is

> concerned with those Spiritual Principles which exist before,

and

> are the origin of, both men and women. Whether, in the

appearance of

> the animal species, the female "antedates" the male is a

question

> with which it is not concerned. Nor does it say that the "female

> principle" is the supreme Divinity. Shiva the "male" is co-equal

> with Shivé the "female," for both are one and the same. An

> Orientalist might have remembered that in the Samkhya,

Prakriti is

> spoken of as "female," and Purusha as "male". And in

Vedanta, Maya

> and Devi are of the feminine gender. Shakti is not a male nor a

> female "person," nor a male nor a female "principle," in the

sense

> in which sociology, which is concerned with gross matter,

uses those

> terms. Shakti is symbolically "female" because it is the

productive

> principle. Shiva in so far as He represents the Cit or

consciousness

> aspect, is actionless (Nishkriya), though the two are

inseparably

> associated even in creation. The Supreme is the attributeless

> (Nirguna) Shiva, or the neuter Brahman which is neither "male"

> nor "female". With such mistaken general views of the doctrine,

it

> was not likely that its more subtle aspects by way of relation to

> Shamkara's Mayavada, or the Samkya Darshana should be

appreciated.

> The doctrine of Shakti has no more to do with "Feminism" than

it has

> to do with "old age pensions" or any other sociological

movement of

> the day. This is a good instance of those apparently "smart"

and

> cocksure judgments which Orientalists and others pass on

things

> Indian. The errors would be less ridiculous if they were on

> occasions more modest as regards their claims to know and

> understand. What is still more important, they would not

probably in

> such cases give unnecessary ground for offense."

>

> As usual, all * s are mine :-)

>

> Hope this helps

> rgds

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

You are dealing with only half of the issue. Feminism is as

divisive and destructive as patriarchy. They both exalt one gender

at the expense of the other. What could be clearer? They are

political grabs for power and are not spiritual practices. They are

antithetical to spiritual practice. No amount of disguise or

descriptive legerdemain can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

 

Your quote of Swami Vinit Muni in discussing the combined

Devi-Shiva form of Ardhanarishwari, "The image ... does not

merely present a synthesis of masculine and feminine gender

traits, but rather attempts to portray a fundamental belief in the

possibility of personal transcendence, usually understood as the

attainment of nondual consciousness. …[However,] it can only

capture this ideal if and when the ego of gender -- which at times

distorts and privileges the male half of the image -- has been

recognized and [overcome]." dealt with only half of the problem.

 

He could just easily ended his commentary after "the attainment

of nondual consciousness". What he omitted when he

continued was the comment that one can only capture this ideal

if and when the ego of gender -- which at times distorts and

privileges the female half of the image -- has been overcome.

 

Feminism is based on distinction. As a spiritual practice it is a

failure. I refer you to the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter XIII: The Yoga of

the Division Between the Field and the Knower of the Field with

commentary by Swami Sivananda:

 

XIII.27. YAAVAT SANJAAYATE KINCHIT SATTWAM

STHAAVARAJANGAMAM;

KSHETRAKSHETRAJNASAMYOGAAT TADVIDDHI

BHARATARSHABHA.

Wherever a being is born, whether it be unmoving or moving,

knowthou, O best of the Bharatas (Arjuna), that it is from the

union between the Field and its Knower.

 

XIII.28. SAMAM SARVESHU BHOOTESHU TISHTHANTAM

PARAMESHWARAM;

VINASHYATSWAVINASHYANTAM YAH PASHYATI SA PASHYATI.

He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, existing equally in all

beings, the unperishing within the perishing.

 

COMMENTARY: Birth is the root cause of the modifications of

change, growth, decay and death. The other changes of state

manifest after the birth of the body. But the Lord is changeless

and He is birthless, decayless and deathless.

 

XIII.29. SAMAM PASHYAN HI SARVATRA

SAMAVASTHITAMEESHWARAM;

NA HINASTYAATMANAA'TMAANAM TATO YAATI PARAAM GATIM.

Because he who sees the same Lord dwelling equally

everywhere does not destroy the Self by the self, he goes to the

highest goal.

 

XIII.30. PRAKRITYAIVA CHA KARMAANI KRIYAMAANAANI

SARVASHAH;

YAH PASHYATI TATHAA'TMAANAM AKARTAARAM SA PASHYATI.

He sees, who sees that all actions are performed by Nature

alone and that the Self is actionless.

 

XIII.31. YADAA BHOOTAPRITHAGBHAAVAM EKASTHAM

ANUPASHYATI;

TATA EVA CHA VISTAARAM BRAHMA SAMPADYATE TADAA.

When a man sees the whole variety of beings as resting in the

One, and spreading forth from That alone, he then becomes

Brahman.

 

COMMENTARY: A man attains to unity with the Supreme when

he knows or realises through intuition that all these manifold

forms are rooted in the One. Like waves in water, like rays in the

sun, so also all forms are rooted in the One.

 

XIII.32. ANAADITWAAN NIRGUNATWAAT PARAMAATMAAYAM

AVYAYAH;

SHAREERASTHO'PI KAUNTEYA NA KAROTI NA LIPYATE.

Being without beginning and devoid of (any) qualities, the

Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O

Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

 

Om Aim Hrim Klim Chamundaye Viche Namaha

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

OM Asimhavahini

 

You stated, "All religious ( or faiths) are supposed to have an

uplifting effect on all of humanity ( men and women ). If it does

not accomplish this , such a religion is useless."

 

A religion's primary and only duty is to provide practices and

guidance for each of its faithful to find the Divine and recognize It

as his or her true Self. If, in the course of doing that, the

community at large becomes a better place, that is a side

benefit, a sort of spirtual perk , that is extraneous to the main duty

of the religion.There are many religions that actively prosletyze

and in doing so lose their connection with the Divine because

they become more interested in the conquest of the resistance

of others to their arguments than in the conquest of their own

egotistical resistance to the Divine. There are many religions that

actively a pursue a policy of 'social justice' only to lose to their

spiritual direction and connection through their confrontational

nature and their disregard for the viewpoints, feelings, and \

Divine origin of those with whom they disagree.

 

Politics and polemics lead one away from the Divine. Life on

earth may become more pleasant for some as a result of

political action but that only makes it more difficult to sever

attachments and come to Cosmic Consciousness.

 

I agree with your next statement, "How is spiritual growth

possible without the harmonious integration of the feminine

and the masculine components in our Psyche?" It is exactly my

point. Feminism polarizes; it does not integrate. Feminism is not

and cannot be spiritual practice for exactly that reason.

 

Because Ghandhi quoted scripture does not mean that his

actions were any less political. He had political agendas and

used scripture to gain credibility and to justify his actions.

 

If you want social action all you have to do is develop and

maintain your connection with the Divine and consequently be

the change that you want to see. People will respond to that.

Everything else is ego and divisive.

 

Om Aim Hrim Klim Chamundaye Viche Namaha

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Hello Mary Ann,

>Om Namas Chandikaye/ 'ham

>so ham

 

If you want to say

 

I am she.

 

That should be

 

sAham

 

(with the capital A representing a long vowel sound.)

 

Om Shantih,

Colin

[Guest guest]

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

<maryann@m...> wrote:

> , "satisharigela

> <satisharigela>" <satisharigela> wrote:

>

> While this passage describes the transcendental aspects of the

> Shakta spiritual belief/ideal, it does not address the failure of

> human culture to live in accordance with this ideal, which

> feminism does address.

 

Yes it does not, and it need not.The reason is that neither

Avalon's book nor Shaktism has anything to do with society or

feminism. Their focus is on the goal(which is Brahman) and the way

to attain that.

 

>If Shiva and Shakti are meant to be

> pre-gender or beyond gender, why is Shiva usually called "He" ?

> Why Shakti "She" ? In fact, why Goddess or God? Those also

> denote gender.

 

The Suta Samhita, a very authoritative text, which Shankaracharya

quotes in some of his works clearly mentions that "devi can be

meditated upon as a male or female or as formless. (i dont recall

the exact verse).

 

"Shakti is symbolically "female" because it is the

productive

principle". to quote Avalon.

 

rgds

[Guest guest]

Hello Colin, and thank you for your note. I thought "so ham" was

just meant to indicate the sound of the breath going in and out.

Are you saying that it also means "I am he" ?

 

, colinr@z... wrote:

> Hello Mary Ann,

>

> >Om Namas Chandikaye/ 'ham

> >so ham

>

> If you want to say

>

> I am she.

>

> That should be

>

> sAham

>

> (with the capital A representing a long vowel sound.)

>

> Om Shantih,

> Colin

[Guest guest]

Hello Mary Ann

>Hello Colin, and thank you for your note. I thought "so ham" was

>just meant to indicate the sound of the breath going in and out.

>Are you saying that it also means "I am he" ?

 

Yes, exactly.

 

Colin

[Guest guest]

Thanks for telling me that. It'll improve the chant to have all of the

possibilities of those mantras exercised within it. If you have any

ideas about the other two mantras as far as gender goes, let me

know. I've heard that saying Shivaaya makes it feminine. But as

for the pronunciation, is the double "aa" a long a sound? Or just

an extended short a? And did you say that hamsa is pronounced

with a long a sound at the end? Like the letter "a" in the English

alphabet? That doesn't seem right. Did I misunderstand?

 

, colinr@z... wrote:

> Hello Mary Ann

>

> >Hello Colin, and thank you for your note. I thought "so ham"

was

> >just meant to indicate the sound of the breath going in and

out.

> >Are you saying that it also means "I am he" ?

>

> Yes, exactly.

>

> Colin

[Guest guest]

Hello Mary Ann,

>Thanks for telling me that.

 

I'm happy to help.

>It'll improve the chant to have all of the

>possibilities of those mantras exercised within it. If you have any

>ideas about the other two mantras as far as gender goes, let me

>know.

>I've heard that saying Shivaaya makes it feminine.

 

It's true that "Shivaa" by itself would be be a feminine name.

 

But, the word Shivaaya in the Sanskrit sentence "Om namah shivaaya" is the

dative case of the _masculine_ noun Shiva(h).

 

Dative case means "to Shiva" or "for Shiva".

 

So, "namah shivaaya" can be translated "Reverence to Shiva".

 

In your chant you also have

 

Om Namas Chandikaye

 

"Chandikaye" would be more accurately written "Chandikaayai". It's the

dative case of the feminine noun "Chandikaa", which is a name of the

Goddess.

 

"namas chandikaayai" can be translated "Reverence to Chandikaa".

>But as

>for the pronunciation, is the double "aa" a long a sound? Or just

>an extended short a?

 

Double "aa" is the same sound sometimes written as "A" or as an "a"

with a

horizontal line on top. It is pronounced like the first vowel sound in

"father".

>And did you say that hamsa is pronounced

>with a long a sound at the end? Like the letter "a" in the English

>alphabet? That doesn't seem right. Did I misunderstand?

 

I don't remember saying another about "hamsa".

 

What I said was that "I am she" is

 

saaham

 

or

 

sAham

 

With the aa or A pronounced as just mentioned.

 

Does this answer your questions?

 

Om Shantih,

 

Colin

[Guest guest]

söndagen den 26 januari 2003 06.21 skrev Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta:

> So where does feminism come in?

 

I am initiated in the line of Vaisnava Bhaktas of Bengal. The preference of

that lineage is to so "God" as both male and female, but with a preference to

the female. ... Just as a background.

 

So looking at "God", you can see both a male God, a female Goddess, or both

together. And it is possible to turn to any of them, or both at the same

time. But that is just one side of it. As individual souls, we tend to be

overcome by the emotion of "God", and thus we easily tend to have either the

"male" mode of the male God, or a "female" mode of the Goddess.

 

Patriarcic religions tend to worship a male God, in a mode of that male god.

It becomes quite spiritually masculine And thus the feminine is seen as

inferior, illusion or even as a threat. There is really nothing wrong with a

spiritually masculine mode, so God is pleased with that too. It is just not

the whole picture.

 

Vaisnava bhaktas can worship either a male God, or a female Goddess, and have

either a male mode or a female mode in their worship. Bengal Vaisnavas

worship Radha and Krishna as "God". But the mode of the worshiper does not

need to correspond to the God/Goddess. So it is possible to worship Krishna

in the "male" mode, influenced by the energy of Krishna, or to worship

Krishna in the "female" mode and influenced by the energy of Radha, in the

mode of Radha. The latter is very common in Bengal Vaisnavism. Something that

is also very hard, or sometimes almost impossible, to understand from those

who only know patriarchic religion.

 

"Male" and "female" here refers to the spiritual energies, or modes, of the

male God or the female Goddess, and not to human males and females. Now,

human males are often influenced by the male mode, and women are seen as a

partial partial incarnation of the female mode, so it can come pretty near.

 

Spiritual feminism, as I see it, means to worship in the female mode. To be so

influenced by the Goddess, Radha, Devi, that you think and act like She does.

But then you can worship "God" as male, or Devi herself. That does not

matter. It is the mode that is imporant.

 

The only problem here appears to be that the world have forgotten what a

female mode is. As malehood has been hailed as the superior mode over

centuries, and female has been seen as inferior or something unwanted, and

thus few know what the mode of Devi (or Radha) actually is. If a person is

measured, s/he is measured according to the male measuring stick, and if the

result comes out to "female", that measuring stick says "less" or inferior.

Fighting for spiritual feminism, for Devi, thus can be quite a lot of going

against the established.

 

A good source of spiritual feminism can be found it the Hindu scriptures,

where there are many descriptions of how elevated females act. At least in

Vaisnava scriptures there are many stories. I particularly enjoy the stories

of Parvati. She is Devi and femininity herself and thus always act in a

feminine way. That can be compared with Shiva who acts in a masculine way,

since he is the source of masculinity. There is even a story how a very

elevated person saw a fault in Parvati, when she acted in a feminine way, and

what happened to him due to that. Just as an example of how dangerous it is

to see femininity as inferior.

 

Prisni

[Guest guest]

måndagen den 27 januari 2003 04.01 skrev asimhavahini

> Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi who championed for women's equality and

> women's rights often quoted from scriptures to show that a society

> which does not treat its womenfolk right can never be a smooth

> functioning society. In fact, he was the first national leader who

> recruited many females in his 'frEedom 'movement.

 

A society that does not treat women good, is offensive to Devi, and thus will

see the more destructive side of Devi. This since women are partial

incarnations of Devi, and offenses towards women is actually offenses towards

Devi. I find this a principle that is easy to understand. See Devi in every

woman, and treat her accordingly, and society will see the blessings instead

of destruction.

 

The Christian, western, world view is heavily influenced by the masculine God

they worship (or worshipped), and thus also get the flavour of masculinity. A

vertical hierarcy, fights about supremacy, to always measure others according

to muscle power (weapons, economy etc.). The western world has very little of

the female qualities and see the qualities of Devi mostly in the negative

way.

 

Prisni

[Guest guest]

måndagen den 27 januari 2003 07.40 skrev Mary Ann

<maryann:

> If Shiva and Shakti are meant to be

> pre-gender or beyond gender, why is Shiva usually called "He" ?

> Why Shakti "She" ? In fact, why Goddess or God? Those also

> denote gender.

 

Maybe I should not say anything here, since this is nearing the point where

Shaktism and Vaisnavism differ, but...

 

Nirguna brahman, means brahman without the material qualities, the gunas. And

as all qualities we know are those material qualities, nirguna brahman means

outside of everything we know. The body, the brain, everything there is

around us, is built from the three gunas. Nirguna brahman is beyond all that,

contains nothing of those qualities. It is something pretty hard to grasp,

since it appears to be almost like nothingness.

 

Vaisnavism deal with spiritual, or transcendental, qualities of nirguna

brahman. That's a concept that is beyond our compehension, and therefore

transcendental. It is said that there are spiritual qualities there. Those

qualities are not the gunas, or the material qualities. They are not opposed

to the gunas, part or, a combination of or contained in the gunas. They are

just different. So nothingness refers to no materia, neither gross, nor

subtle and no material concepts at all. Transcendental qualities are a kind

of nothingness, from a material viewpoint. They can't be described by any

material concept. It is completely outside of the material.

 

If we look at those spiritual "qualities" or energies, there it can be seen as

"God" have two different energies, or polarities. I call them "male" and

"female", just to make them easier to grasp. Those two energies unite and the

offspring of that unition creates the material existence. The material

existence is also patterned on those two energies of male and female, so

everything here is like an echo of that duality. Sexual union in the material

world is a kind of mirroring of the union of the two transcendental energies

when the material existence came into creation. When we look at God, we also

see those two supreme transcendental enegies, and thus that's the origin of

male and female. Shiva is seen as the "God" of the male energy principle, and

becomes he, where Shakti is the female energy principle and becomes She.

 

Did anything make sense there?

 

Prisni

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Prisni ji:

 

Thank you for your three wonderful posts! They are some of the most

balanced, thoughtful and intelligent comments I've read in this

entire "debate." If you have no objection I'd like to gather them

into an HTML document for "Artcles" section of the homepage.

 

For those of you who've not had the pleasure, Prisni contributed a

wonderful essay on Radha which is the centerpiece of our Radha page.

Check it out! http://www.shaktisadhana.org/radha.html (By the way,

I've received so many additions and corrections on our brief

postscript to Prisni's presentation that I'm currently updating the

page to include a lot of serious scriptural discussion of Radha as

the Supreme Divine. I'll announce the change in a day or three, when

I get a chance to proofread and post it.

 

DB

[Guest guest]

dIVine prisni,

 

You write ,,,,

 

If we look at those spiritual "qualities" or energies, there it can

be seen as

"God" have two different energies, or polarities. I call them "male"

and

"female", just to make them easier to grasp. Those two energies

unite and the

offspring of that unition creates the material existence. The

material

existence is also patterned on those two energies of male and

female, so

everything here is like an echo of that duality. Sexual union in the

material

world is a kind of mirroring of the union of the two transcendental

energies

when the material existence came into creation. When we look at God,

we also

see those two supreme transcendental enegies, and thus that's the

origin of

male and female. Shiva is seen as the "God" of the male energy

principle, and

becomes he, where Shakti is the female energy principle and becomes

She.

 

Did anything make sense there?

 

 

f course, every word in your post makes sense in this post as well as

in the other two posts! I must congratulate you on these well written

posts . YES , WE ARE ONLY DISCUSSING ABOUT ENERGIRES -THE DIVINE

ENERGIES OF SHIVA-SHAKTI - not 'gender' in the mundane sense and you

could not have put it more 'beautifully' - the lunar and the solar

energies- the iDa and the pingla...the shakti and the shaktiman!

 

thank you once again for these illuminating posts ...keep those posts

coming!

 

Love

[Guest guest]

Hello asimhavahihi:

 

Thank you for your comments. I would only add that we ought not to

excerpt the comments of others out of context, merely in order that

they will appear to be echoing our own opinions. Let each member

speak for her- or himself.

 

While you correctly quote Prisni, and cite your full agreement with

her, you then draw a conclusion that subtly adjusts changes her full

meaning. You state (the caps are yours): "YES, WE ARE ONLY DISCUSSING

ABOUT ENERGIRES - THE DIVINE ENERGIES OF SHIVA-SHAKTI - not 'gender'

in the mundane sense."

 

In fact, Prisni was trying rather hard (and rather effectively) to

parse exactly where human gender fits into this larger scheme; i.e.,

why this energy is identified (by human minds) with the feminine and

that with the masculine. Rather than simply abstracting the whole

thing beyond direct human experience, Prisni carefully (and

correctly, in my opinion) acknowledges that "Now, human males are

often influenced by the male mode [energy], and women are seen as a

partial partial incarnation of the female mode [energy], so it can

come pretty near." And then she eruditely tackles the social issues

that are at the heart of this discussion. This is ignored in your

post.

 

As far as I have seen, all those who object to exploring the Devi

Mahatmyam's clear association of the Divine and the human feminine

always achieve this by repeating the same old truth -- yes, it's

energy. Nobody disagrees with that. But are we not all manifestations

of that very energy? Is the form that that energy takes completely

arbitrary? Are there no social and human manifestations of religion,

so that we may safely turn our back on the world and worship the

various energies? That's the very opposite of what Mahatama Gandhi

said in another post you made earlier today. I am being difficult, I

know; but I simply want to guard against people trying to win debates

by tossing out answers to questions that are already settled, and

upon which there is no disagreement in the first place.

 

My two paise

 

DB