Shaktism feminism debate update

[Guest guest]

"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."

 

The above could be considered somewhat scathing since not only in the

Chapter entitled 'And then Gandhi came' in his book , 'Discovery of

India' has Nehru said that it was Gandhiji who introduced morality in

politics, but many, both admirers and critics alike, never denied a

spiritualist role for the mahatma.

I wish I knew more to convince myself that you are right here as

perhaps elsewhere when you quote verbatim from religious books.

love and godbless.

dasan

P.S.Incidentally, I have seen this spelling of Gandhi among Parsi

names, although I know it must have been a typo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, "omprem <omprem>"

<omprem> wrote:

> 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]

, colinr@z... wrote:

> Hello Mary Ann,

> "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".

 

This explains why it was spelled this way in the stuti someone

posted last week on the message board. I wasn't sure if they

were posting it phonetically, or if it was accurate spelling of the

Sanskrit words.

> What I said was that "I am she" is

>

> sAham

>

> With the aa or A pronounced as [in "father"]

>

> Does this answer your questions?

>

Yes, and thank you for the info!

 

Namaste,

Mary Ann

[Guest guest]

HI PRISNI: I PUT MY COMMENTS IN CAPS SO YOU CAN EASILY

SEE THEM.

 

, Prisni

<pgd-prisni@a...> wrote:

> 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.

>

 

I UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE; BELOW I BEGIN TO QUESTION

OR DIVERGE.

> 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

 

I QUESTION WHETHER MALE AND FEMALE ARE

TRANSCENDENTAL ENERGIES. THEY ARE A RESULT OF

EMBODIMENT, AND PART OF THE GUNAS, IT SEEMS TO ME,

JUST BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE SAID. WHY ARE MALE AND

FEMALE CONSIDERED TRANSCENDENTAL?

[Guest guest]

Prisni said: "Sexual union in the material world is a kind of

mirroring of the union of the two transcendental energies ..."

 

Maryann replied: "I QUESTION WHETHER MALE AND FEMALE ARE

TRANSCENDENTAL ENERGIES. THEY ARE A RESULT OF EMBODIMENT, AND PART OF

THE GUNAS, IT SEEMS TO ME, JUST BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE SAID. WHY ARE

MALE AND FEMALE CONSIDERED TRANSCENDENTAL?"

 

I think Prisni got it right by saying "mirroring" -- the idea is that

the human body is a microcosm of the Divine Macrocosm. That is why

one can find what is without by looking within. The two "poles" of

humanity are female and male, or so we say the two poles of the

divine are Female and Male. Shaktism is distinguished by its doctrine

that the Kinetic, Creative Energy of Devi is worshiped as the

critical aspect of the Divine, rather than Shiva, who is considered

(if I may borrow a term from electrical theory) merely the Static

Ground upon which She acts. Necessary? Yes. Divine? Yes. But not the

object of our particular approach to devotion.

[Guest guest]

fredagen den 31 januari 2003 03.36 skrev Mary Ann

<maryann:

> I QUESTION WHETHER MALE AND FEMALE ARE

> TRANSCENDENTAL ENERGIES. THEY ARE A RESULT OF

> EMBODIMENT, AND PART OF THE GUNAS, IT SEEMS TO ME,

> JUST BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE SAID. WHY ARE MALE AND

> FEMALE CONSIDERED TRANSCENDENTAL?

 

The problem with all spiritual topics is that there is often a quite big

amount of base spiritual knowledge needed to understand the conclusions that

appear quite simple. None of the "hindu" philophical conclusions are actually

simple, but they all come from very deep thought by possibly philosophers

under many generations.

 

The "Vedic" model often deals with a kind of stepwise refinement with a

certain model, which causes another model in a more grosser sense. So when we

take something that has come from something subtler, it has to be understand

in which direction this is going. Although it can be accurate to say that God

must be both male and female, since everything exist in God, it is a kind of

backward way of seeing it. The Vedic version is opposite. The qualities, like

male and female, that we can see in humans, are there before they emanate

from God. They exist in some kind of state in God, and therefore we also have

them. Brahman includes all qualities, all forms, everything. Everything we

see and deal with is a kind of shadow projection from something that is more,

that is beyond the obvious. So the question is not if male and female are

transcendental, but what are male and female actually a projection of? What

are the original qualities that causes we to se men and women, and that

causes everything to be sexually divided like that?

 

Shakta theory (and please correct me if I am wrong here. It is a

simplification), see the original state as Shakti-Siva, with the female

quality coming from Shakti and the male from Siva. Vaisnavas see the same as

Radha-Krishna. Exactly how Shakti-Shiva/Radha-Krishna are transcendentally

situated is maybe harder to understand. Fortunately we don't need to get to

deep into that, if we can be satisfied with accepting that it is so. A

certain amount of faith is needed here. As we learn more and more about the

philosophy, we should be able to verify the things that we accepted on faith

in the beginning. Maybe the "Vedic" model is unique in that everything can be

understood, if we just dive into it deep enough. There is just no limit.

 

The Vaisnava (Vedic?) model can be simplified into three different levels.

 

The grossest level is the gross materia consisting of earth, water, fire, air,

ether. These elements are more philosophical building blocks, but from a

different viewpoint that level consists of atoms, molecules, chemicals,

matter, and is the world as western scientists of today see it. Ether is the

matter of space or vaccum. There is just no thing as nothingness.

 

The next subtler level is the "subtle materia". It kind of corresponds to the

gross materia and is interrelated. The elements are mind, intelligence and

material ego. This to some degree corresponds to psychology, but scientists

otherwise does not accept its existence. Still, this matter follow as strict

natural laws as the gross matter. It is here that the "paranormal" phenomenon

takes place. Obviously, this matter does not exist in space (ether), since

that is a grosser matter.

 

These two levels are called "material" or even illusory. It is the only levels

we as incarnated humans relate to. We can deal with it, think about it,

reason about it, and do all kinds of things that we do. It is probably just a

matter of time before scientist start to acknowledge the subtle matter.

 

Still nothing in these spheres are transcendental.

The third level, of which the other two are a subset, is the transcendental

level in Vaisnava philosophy. It is beyond matter. It is not matter. The

gunas are only valid within the realm of matter. So the transcendental is

beyond the gunas. Everything material emanates from the transcendental level,

is a kind of shadow of something on this level. As the subtle material level

corresponds to the gross material level, the transcendental level corresponds

to the subtle material. It is another step of subtiliy. If you can't see the

subtle level clearly, you have no chance of seeing the transcendental level.

 

The problem of understanding the transcendental is that we normally understand

with our mind and intelligence. But since those two are material elements,

quite obviously it is not possible to understand what's beyond the material

with the mind and intelligence. It appears hopeless.

 

The help, in Vaisnava philosophy, comes with the jiva. The jiva (or atman) is

the part of us that is transcendentally situated. By learning how to see from

the level of jiva, we can see the transcendental. The road to there might go

through rejectance of all the senses, including the inner senses, to see what

is left. It is something that need to be developed, since normal material men

and women just don't see on this level. So therefore there are spiritual

processes meant to develop transcendental vision. But without it,

transcendental matters need to be accepted on faith. Like a blind person

cannot see and need to accept on faith what seeing persons describe. If the

blind person somehow one day start to see, that day first will an

understanding of the seeing world come, and a stop of having to accept on

faith. So there is a need of a spiritual process to develop transcendental

vision, to be able to understand. Until that everything will be unclear.

Fortunately, it is not a matter of seeing - not seeing, but it is a gradual

process. First transcendental vision comes in small glimpses of understanding

that one can't figure out where they come from. But as one progresses on a

spritual process, the visions become clearer and stronger.

And just as if a seeing person suddenly is able to see, life does not end with

that vision, but life might instead start with that, spiritual life does not

end with enlightment, but starts with it. Enlightment means that we are

originally blinded in darkness, and suddenly there is light and we can start

to see what is really there.

 

Prisni

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

You said, "the human body is a microcosm of the Divine

Macrocosm. That is why one can find what is without by looking

within. The two "poles" of humanity are female and male, or so

we say the two poles of the divine are Female and Male.

Shaktism is distinguished by its doctrine that the Kinetic,

Creative Energy of Devi is worshiped as the critical aspect of the

Divine, rather than Shiva, who is considered (if I may borrow a

term from electrical theory) merely the Static Ground upon which

She acts. Necessary? Yes. Divine? Yes. But not the object of our

particular approach to devotion."

 

Allow me to make two comments:

 

First, to clear up this confusion about male-female,

gender-energy, in the pranamaya kosha there are three main

nadis - ida, pingala and sushumna. The energy or prana that

flows in Ida tends to slow down body and mental functions. It is

cooling, referred as the 'moon breath' and is considered by

some to be feminine in nature (let's not get sidetracked with a

debate on this potential issue). The energy or prana that moves

through Pingala tends to speed up the body functions. It is

heating, referred to as the 'sun breath' and is considered by

some to be masculine in nature. These energies tend to move in

opposite directions (something like the debate that is going on

here). The prana is Ida is Tamasic, the prana is Pingala is

Rajasic. But through intense purification practices, the direction

of flow of these pranas changes and they start to flow toward

each other. They meet and merge to form a new energy or prana.

This energy is Sattvic.

 

The name of prana in Ida is Tha: The name of the prana in

Pingala is Ha. The union or yoga of the two pranas is Hatha

Yoga. The prana resulting from the union of the two pranas is

called Kundalini and is taken up through the Sushumna

revealing ever more subtle spiritual awareness as it progresses

up through the main chakras.

 

So male and female refers to neither gender nor energy, nor

even to separatation. it is a way to characterize the functions of

prana. Prana is prana but when prana perfoms a specialized

task it is given a specific name - but it is still the same prana. To

argue about male-female is to argue about nothing. Arguing is

just a play of the ego and has not reference to reality.

 

Second, when you refer to Shiva as "merely the Static Ground

on which She acts", you trivialize Shiva while upgrading She.

This type of insecurity is rife in religious/spiritual discussions:

One defends their path by labeling other paths as less.

 

It is perhaps a natural thing to do because a chosen path has

resonance within and prompts poetic and other creative

expressions that more fully portray that path. But the path that is

not one's own is somewhat alien to the psyche and thus

somewhat misunderstood. A path that is not one's own does not

resonate deeply enough to stir the psyche and the various

modes of creative expression with the result that descriptions of

it are superficial, incomplete and perhaps disparaging.

 

It might have been better for you to have described Shaktism in

its own right and not defensively in relation to something else.

You could have said simply that the worship of Shiva is "not the

object of our particular devotion."

 

As it is, an argumentative Shaivite could counter your description

by saying. "Why would one a worship kinetic,creative energy

when one could just as easily worship the source and ground of

that energy?" A Jnana Yogi could say, "Why worship Shakti or

Shiva when one could move beyond all names and forms and

worship their ground, Brahman."

 

But the wise would say, "Let each worship according to their

ability and to how the Divine chooses to appear to them".

 

 

Loka Samasta Sukhino Bhavantu

 

May the whole world attain peace and harmony

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

..omprem write...

 

As it is, an argumentative Shaivite could counter your description

> by saying. "Why would one a worship kinetic,creative energy

> when one could just as easily worship the source and ground of

> that energy?" A Jnana Yogi could say, "Why worship Shakti or

> Shiva when one could move beyond all names and forms and

> worship their ground, Brahman."

>

> But the wise would say, "Let each worship according to their

> ability and to how the Divine chooses to appear to them".

>

divine post! and the mukta-jivi or siddha purusha will say....

 

" let us worship the atma in you which is the same in me"

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Omprem!

 

I really enjoyed your post. Particularly where you said:

 

 

" a chosen path has resonance within and prompts poetic and other

creative expressions that more fully portray that path. But the path

that is not one's own is somewhat alien to the psyche and thus

somewhat misunderstood. A path that is not one's own does not

resonate deeply enough to stir the psyche and the various modes of

creative expression with the result that descriptions of it are

superficial, incomplete and perhaps disparaging. "

 

That is so beautiful! I love the word resonance, and resonate in

this context, prompting poetic expression...yes! Sometimes when I

read poems of the worship of the Goddess I am so moved,

comparatively when I read other liturgy I have the sensation of just

missing something, of a search not yet answered. I love that feeling

of something "stir(ing) my psyche" deeply.

 

This is what draws me to Her, this is what I crave when I do not

practice my faith. It is so hard in this culture that I live in to

find enough to feed my soul. That is why I feel protective about my

perspective and sometime so alienated when people start talking

about Shaktism or the worship of the Goddess as though it were the

same as Christianity or some abstract concept of, I don't know, say

solar wind. (This is not some subtle insult, I'm sure you

understand.)

 

I *need* my Goddess. Without Her I feel as though I am starving in a

world where there is no food for me. I feel orphaned, cynical and

grasping. Clearly I am a better person when I seek and accept Her in

my life.

 

And thank you also for this:

 

"But the wise would say, "Let each worship according to their

ability and to how the Divine chooses to appear to them"."

 

Bright Blessings,

 

prainbow

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Prisni, for your detailed, and clear explanation. I think

I understand what you are saying. I can understand that maybe

this is so: whatever embodies itself as male and whatever

embodies as female exists prior to embodiment, and selects

either male or female form in embodiment. We see this in many,

most, and maybe all species of flesh and blood. Other flesh and

blood species, however, to my knowledge, do not build elaborate

belief systems of worship or denigration of the two gendered

forms. It is the human tendency to build belief systems around

the genders that I question. I had thought that in the eastern

traditions you write of here, there was a belief that a

transcendental energy takes male form, and another

transcendental energy takes female form, which does not seem

transcendental at all, but the beginning of the construction of a

belief system of worship/denigration, or elevating one over the

other. From reading your post, I see that this tendency to elevate

one over the other may not necessarily be a result of believing

that there is transcendental energy that embodies itself as either

gender. However, the limits placed on the genders by society

and culture and some scripture seem far too limited, which is

why I have the notion that there is a belief that one

transcendental energy takes male form, and another takes

female form. From your post, I'm not sure this isn't true. I am

more inclined to think that there are many transcendental

energies that converge and select embodiment (or that the

selection of male and female is not actually significant to the

energy/energies), and that each individual body has many inner

qualities that are free from gender stereotype until society and

culture and scripture do their work of constructing beliefs based

on gender, thereby limiting the individuals from reaching greater

spiritual realms here in embodiment.

[Guest guest]

lördagen den 1 februari 2003 05.28 skrev Mary Ann

<maryann:

> Other flesh and

> blood species, however, to my knowledge, do not build elaborate

> belief systems of worship or denigration of the two gendered

> forms. It is the human tendency to build belief systems around

> the genders that I question. I had thought that in the eastern

> traditions you write of here, there was a belief that a

> transcendental energy takes male form, and another

> transcendental energy takes female form, which does not seem

> transcendental at all, but the beginning of the construction of a

> belief system of worship/denigration, or elevating one over the

> other.

 

I see where you are aiming. It is a kind of problem for many westener, that

there is already a conception of reality, and then the attempt to understand

hindu thought according to that conception. To that I can just say that it is

not possible. Hindu thought is beyond western conception. It is not a belief

system more than western science is a belief system. It is a system of

describing reality and different from western thought. And from there it can

be discussed if it is good in describing reality or bad.

 

Here I like to bring up the two systems of seeing material elements, as earth,

water, fire, air, ether compared to the system as seeing material elements as

molecyles, atoms, subatomic particles and so on. There is often a tendency to

think that one way of describing it is correct, and the other faulty. I

rather want to see it as two different systems for description. Both are

similarly valid, it just depends on what you want to use the system for. If

you want to create a chemical industry, the western system is superior. But

if you want to understand reality, the hindu system is superior. None of the

system is a "belief". It is two different systems of describing reality.

> However, the limits placed on the genders by society

> and culture and some scripture seem far too limited, which is

> why I have the notion that there is a belief that one

> transcendental energy takes male form, and another takes

> female form.

 

The transcendental energies, as viewed by us, in our current state, appears to

us as "female" or "male". It is not that the transcendental energies take

embodiment, or form. It is our perception of them that creates the genders as

we know them. The forms we perceive are illusory. The genders in itself are

illusory in the way we see them. Illusory means, "not what it seems". Like

when you see an illusionist (magician) at stage. You can see him disappear in

a puff of smoke and being replaced with a lion, see rabbits appear from thin

air, get swords stuck into his assistent and similar kinds of things. But

that is illusory, since what happens it not what it appears. No one gets

wounded by sharp swords stuck into her. It is a show to cheat us. Similarly

the material world is illusory. Not that it does not exist, but the way we

see it. We are cheated to believe it looks like we see it, and we also tend

to want to see it as we do. That is where western science goes wrong. It

tries to explain reality in terms of the illusion, not in what can be beyond

the illusion. It tries to explain how a rabbit appears from thin air, never

asking the question where our perception failed, and where the rabbit

actually came from (the magicians sleeve, maybe?).

> From your post, I'm not sure this isn't true. I am

> more inclined to think that there are many transcendental

> energies that converge and select embodiment (or that the

> selection of male and female is not actually significant to the

> energy/energies), and that each individual body has many inner

> qualities that are free from gender stereotype until society and

> culture and scripture do their work of constructing beliefs based

> on gender, thereby limiting the individuals from reaching greater

> spiritual realms here in embodiment.

 

You are free to create your own model of reality if you want to. I am not

going to have a battle with you about it. What I present is the model of

reality as I have been taught, coming from generations of philosophers in

India. But actually, it is more than that. When looking at the magicians

stage show, and is being told how the magician disappears in a puff of smoke,

where he goes, and where the lion was before, you can actually see it

yourself, and verify it to be true. If you just know where to look and how to

look. So Indian philosophy says where to look and how to look to see what is

behind the illusion. It is not something made up to be a belief for the sake

of that. It is a system that changes your perception. Just as you need a

change of peception to see the magicians cheating. And once you have learned

to see in the new way, you are not in illusion about that anymore.

 

Prisni

[Guest guest]

OM Asimhavahini

 

OM Asimhavahini

 

"...the mukta-jivi or siddha purusha will say.... " let us worship

the atma in you which is the same in me

 

Not only is the same 'atma' in each person but the 'atma' is, in

reality, Brahman reflected in each and all. Through sadhana our

consciousness rises above Maya, moves beyond names and forms, and

brings us to the understanding that it is the same 'atma' in all,

then to the understanding that the 'atma'is Brahman, and finally to

the understanding that we are Brahman.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem ji:

 

Thank you as always for your patient and pertinent comments. As is so

often the case, I do not think we are in fundamental disagreement.

You write:

 

*** when you refer to Shiva as "merely the Static Ground on which

She acts", you trivialize Shiva while upgrading She. This type of

insecurity is rife in religious/spiritual discussions: One defends

their path by labeling other paths as less. ***

 

I must apologize for creating that impression (the word "merely"

probably did the damage); it was not my intention to trivialize Shiva

or Shaivism. I often (as you know) get into trouble here due to what

I perceive as my technical duty as a moderator of the Group; i.e. to

constantly point up the raison d'etre of the Group, which is

primarily a discussion of the Shakta path. I do this at the expense

of offending those who believe my focus on Shaktism implies a sort of

blindness to this rest of Hinduism. Check out this choice snippet of

hate mail I received on Messenger just yesterday (caps in

original):

 

"U CANNOT STAND UP TO SOME PEOPLE LIKE SATISH, OMPREM AND COLIN BEC

THEY R AS KNOWLEDGEBLE AS U IF NOT MORE. AND U ONLY LIKE TO BULLY

WOMEN WHILE APPEARING TO BE A DEVI BHAKTA. U HAVE PROBLEMS ACCEPTING

STATEMENTS FROM WOMEN WHOSE OPINIONS DIFFER FROM URS. WHY DO U

MISINTERPRET EVERYTHING? YR ENGLISH IS PERFECT, YR WRITING STYLE

WONDERFUL, YR POWERS OF PERSUASION GREAT BUT YR LOGIC? ... LEAVES

ROOM TO BE DESIRED! LOL! ... PLS DO NOT MAKE HINDUISM INTO PAGANISM!

THAT'S ALL!"

 

Yikes! So I guess it's pretty clear that I'd better back off and

stress (yet again, yet again!) that my advocacy of Shaktism does not

imply a belief that it is the "right" system, or that the other great

schools of Hinduism (or any other religion, for that matter --

*including* Paganism; although I do not consider myself a Pagan, I do

not share my correspondent's seeming disdain for that path)

are "wrong" or even in any way inferior to Shaktism. I do not believe

that, and I would be a fool if I did. As the scriptures affirm, "The

names are many, but the God is One." More specifically, I believe

that any Shakta must accept Shiva, just as any Shaiva must accept

Shakti. The difference, to vastly oversimplify, is in the emphasis.

 

*** It might have been better for you to have described Shaktism in

its own right and not defensively in relation to something else. You

could have said simply that the worship of Shiva is "not the object

of our particular devotion." ***

 

Yes, agreed. And again, I apologize for any express or implied insult

in my previous posting on the subject.

 

*** As it is, an argumentative Shaivite could counter your

description by saying. "Why would one a worship kinetic,creative

energy when one could just as easily worship the source and ground of

that energy?" A Jnana Yogi could say, "Why worship Shakti or Shiva

when one could move beyond all names and forms and worship their

ground, Brahman." ***

 

Absolutely true again. (And eloquently stated.)

 

*** But the wise would say, "Let each worship according to their

ability and to how the Divine chooses to appear to them". ***

 

Ah! Thank you. That is my feeling, behind all of the details of

debate, and I will try to be "wiser" in my future expressions of it.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

DB

[Guest guest]

Hello Prisni: Thank you again for your thoughts and information

in response to my posts. You write very clearly, and make it easy

to understand the concepts you describe. I felt a perceptual shift

today in pondering your post. I have been exploring how societal

laws actually contain spiritual beliefs. I've been looking at what

you call the Hindu "model of reality" and wondering, if the model

is sound, or is what it claims to be, why has the practice in Hindu

society been to elevate male over female? That has been my

question, ultimately, which has not been answered in this

debate (maybe it is unanswerable?). I find Hindu spiritual

concepts worthy of exploration, and I seek greater freedom from

the power imbalances enacted in society and relationships. That

has been my focus in exploring these issues. I have thought it

possible to locate and address the places where there is a

break between the model (spiritual conceptions) and the

practice (behavior in the external world), and to repair or heal that

break, the way such repair is possible through yoga to unite

places in the human body that have been out of communication

with each other due to tension, misalignment, etc. causing poor

oxygenation and poor circulation. Healing this break MAY result

in a new model, ultimately, however, that isn't something I want

to do battle with you over, and I appreciate your not wanting to do

battle with me.

 

Namaste,

Mary Ann

 

, Prisni

<pgd-prisni@a...> wrote:

> lördagen den 1 februari 2003 05.28 skrev Mary Ann

> <maryann@m...>:

> > Other flesh and

> > blood species, however, to my knowledge, do not build

elaborate

> > belief systems of worship or denigration of the two gendered

> > forms. It is the human tendency to build belief systems

around

> > the genders that I question. I had thought that in the eastern

> > traditions you write of here, there was a belief that a

> > transcendental energy takes male form, and another

> > transcendental energy takes female form, which does not

seem

> > transcendental at all, but the beginning of the construction of

a

> > belief system of worship/denigration, or elevating one over

the

> > other.

>

> I see where you are aiming. It is a kind of problem for many

westener, that

> there is already a conception of reality, and then the attempt to

understand

> hindu thought according to that conception. To that I can just

say that it is

> not possible. Hindu thought is beyond western conception. It is

not a belief

> system more than western science is a belief system. It is a

system of

> describing reality and different from western thought. And from

there it can

> be discussed if it is good in describing reality or bad.

>

> Here I like to bring up the two systems of seeing material

elements, as earth,

> water, fire, air, ether compared to the system as seeing

material elements as

> molecyles, atoms, subatomic particles and so on. There is

often a tendency to

> think that one way of describing it is correct, and the other

faulty. I

> rather want to see it as two different systems for description.

Both are

> similarly valid, it just depends on what you want to use the

system for. If

> you want to create a chemical industry, the western system is

superior. But

> if you want to understand reality, the hindu system is superior.

None of the

> system is a "belief". It is two different systems of describing

reality.

>

> > However, the limits placed on the genders by society

> > and culture and some scripture seem far too limited, which

is

> > why I have the notion that there is a belief that one

> > transcendental energy takes male form, and another takes

> > female form.

>

> The transcendental energies, as viewed by us, in our current

state, appears to

> us as "female" or "male". It is not that the transcendental

energies take

> embodiment, or form. It is our perception of them that creates

the genders as

> we know them. The forms we perceive are illusory. The

genders in itself are

> illusory in the way we see them. Illusory means, "not what it

seems". Like

> when you see an illusionist (magician) at stage. You can see

him disappear in

> a puff of smoke and being replaced with a lion, see rabbits

appear from thin

> air, get swords stuck into his assistent and similar kinds of

things. But

> that is illusory, since what happens it not what it appears. No

one gets

> wounded by sharp swords stuck into her. It is a show to cheat

us. Similarly

> the material world is illusory. Not that it does not exist, but the

way we

> see it. We are cheated to believe it looks like we see it, and we

also tend

> to want to see it as we do. That is where western science goes

wrong. It

> tries to explain reality in terms of the illusion, not in what can be

beyond

> the illusion. It tries to explain how a rabbit appears from thin

air, never

> asking the question where our perception failed, and where

the rabbit

> actually came from (the magicians sleeve, maybe?).

>

> > From your post, I'm not sure this isn't true. I am

> > more inclined to think that there are many transcendental

> > energies that converge and select embodiment (or that the

> > selection of male and female is not actually significant to the

> > energy/energies), and that each individual body has many

inner

> > qualities that are free from gender stereotype until society

and

> > culture and scripture do their work of constructing beliefs

based

> > on gender, thereby limiting the individuals from reaching

greater

> > spiritual realms here in embodiment.

>

> You are free to create your own model of reality if you want to. I

am not

> going to have a battle with you about it. What I present is the

model of

> reality as I have been taught, coming from generations of

philosophers in

> India. But actually, it is more than that. When looking at the

magicians

> stage show, and is being told how the magician disappears in

a puff of smoke,

> where he goes, and where the lion was before, you can

actually see it

> yourself, and verify it to be true. If you just know where to look

and how to

> look. So Indian philosophy says where to look and how to look

to see what is

> behind the illusion. It is not something made up to be a belief

for the sake

> of that. It is a system that changes your perception. Just as you

need a

> change of peception to see the magicians cheating. And once

you have learned

> to see in the new way, you are not in illusion about that

anymore.

>

> Prisni

[Guest guest]

söndagen den 2 februari 2003 05.02 skrev Mary Ann

<maryann:

> I've been looking at what

> you call the Hindu "model of reality" and wondering, if the model

> is sound, or is what it claims to be, why has the practice in Hindu

> society been to elevate male over female?

 

Why do men want to dominate women? They want to have command over Shakti, and

they think by dominating the partical expansion of Shakti, in the form of the

wife, or women in general, they get that command. They use their superior

physical force to enforce that domination.

 

But Shakti has her own tricks. Every man that want to dominate her, will also

fall victim for her. By sexual desire, he will fall victim for the same

partial expansion in the form of a beautiful woman. He will be completely

controlled by her.

 

A philosophical explanation of why men are dominating in the world?

I don't know. If I was a guru, I would have to know and give an answer, but

fortunately I am not, so I can say that I don't know. :-)

 

Maybe one way of seeing it, which is quite technical, is that the supreme is

sometimes seen as having three potencies, sat, chit and ananda; eternality,

knowledge and bliss. In Vaisnava philosophy those potencies are also called

sandhini shakti, chit shakti and hladini shakti, which here clearly indicates

that they are energies. Another name for hladini shakti is "internal

potency". Radha is a manifestation of that hladini shakti, or internal

potency, and Radha is Durga, and is Shakti, which is the female potency.

 

Looking at it this way, the female potency is internal, and the male external,

so it makes some kind of sense that men dominate externally and women

internally if it is just the nature of those energies.

 

In all those subject matters, it is possible to make unlimited complications.

And I am sure if anyone searches the net on "satchit", "hladini" or

something similar, there are a lot of deep philosophical excursions

available. But I like to simplify thing, even if it sometimes gets a little

bit naive. This even though that I suspect that what I write is not always

considered simple.

 

Prisni

[Guest guest]

Dear Prisni:

 

I wasn't asking the question of why men dominate. I had only

questioned the validity of the Hindu claim of their model of reality

as being true, better, etc. in the face of the actions of individuals

in relationships and in society, which do not show the success

of the model.

 

Just as Gandhi said that woman must shed her "inferiority

complex," man must shed his "superiority complex," in order to

balance the inner and outer.

 

Science has shown that women's brains have more active

synapses, that the two brain hemispheres are in contact and

working together more than in men's brains, which are

left-hemisphere dominant. As man begins to look within and

connect with his own right brain hemisphere, he will stop

wielding power negatively in the world through subjugation of

woman (the qualities that reside in the right hemisphere of the

brain are those that are usually called "feminine"), and as

woman begins to wield her power in ways that are respectful to

herself and to others in the world (not in negative ways sexually

or otherwise), a new balance will develop. Each individual being

has its own responsibility in this balancing act, and each can do

the inner work of it independent of the other if need be. This is

where being the change we want to see in others comes in.

Then we can all "head" into even higher and deeper realms so

far only dreamed of!

 

Namaste,

Mary Ann

 

 

, Prisni

<pgd-prisni@a...> wrote:

> Why do men want to dominate women? They want to have

command over Shakti, and

> they think by dominating the partical expansion of Shakti, in the

form of the

> wife, or women in general, they get that command. They use

their superior

> physical force to enforce that domination.

>

> But Shakti has her own tricks. Every man that want to dominate

her, will also

> fall victim for her. By sexual desire, he will fall victim for the

same

> partial expansion in the form of a beautiful woman. He will be

completely

> controlled by her.

>

> A philosophical explanation of why men are dominating in the

world?

> I don't know. If I was a guru, I would have to know and give an

answer, but

> fortunately I am not, so I can say that I don't know. :-)

>

> Maybe one way of seeing it, which is quite technical, is that the

supreme is

> sometimes seen as having three potencies, sat, chit and

ananda; eternality,

> knowledge and bliss. In Vaisnava philosophy those potencies

are also called

> sandhini shakti, chit shakti and hladini shakti, which here

clearly indicates

> that they are energies. Another name for hladini shakti is

"internal

> potency". Radha is a manifestation of that hladini shakti, or

internal

> potency, and Radha is Durga, and is Shakti, which is the

female potency.

>

> Looking at it this way, the female potency is internal, and the

male external,

> so it makes some kind of sense that men dominate externally

and women

> internally if it is just the nature of those energies.

>

> In all those subject matters, it is possible to make unlimited

complications.

> And I am sure if anyone searches the net on "satchit",

"hladini" or

> something similar, there are a lot of deep philosophical

excursions

> available. But I like to simplify thing, even if it sometimes gets a

little

> bit naive. This even though that I suspect that what I write is not

always

> considered simple.

>

> Prisni

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

Thank you for your clarification. You are quite right that we are not

in fundamental disagreement. In fact, I think that we are not in

disagreement at all: it is just that we each have different ways of

personally relating to the Divine and yet can understand and

respect the path of the other.

 

As with all things the devil is in the details: here, too, when one of

us, or any of the members is writing his/her thoughts they must

be careful to show respect for the spiritual/religious thoughts of

others. I know you have this respect so I appreciate your

comments.

 

It is unfortunate that you as moderator have to be exposed to

such negative energies evidenced by the email you posted. It, of

course, need not even be said that not one of the attitudes which

the diatribe attributed to you is correct (but I will say it anyway).

 

 

Your ethical stance is the highest. You strive endlessly for

balance and objectivity. You honour Devi and all expressions of

the Divine. You have shared personal history with me which

shows your Sattvic nature more than this forum allows. I include

you among my friends. In addition to all of this, your

performance of your role of moderator is the best that I have

seen of any internet club or group.

 

I would ask that all members to please not take advantage of the

anonimity of the internet to give rise to your inner demons. You

have no anonimity from the Divine. Karma builds with each

ego-based action. Discipline yourself. Think positivity about

yourself and others. See the Divine in everyone (including

yourself) and everywhere. Act as the Divine - be loving.

 

Loka Samasta Sukhino Bhavantu

 

May the whole world attain peace and harmony

 

Omprem

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta

<devi_bhakta>" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Namaskar OmPrem ji:

>

> Thank you as always for your patient and pertinent comments.

As is so

> often the case, I do not think we are in fundamental

disagreement.

> You write:

>

> *** when you refer to Shiva as "merely the Static Ground on

which

> She acts", you trivialize Shiva while upgrading She. This type of

> insecurity is rife in religious/spiritual discussions: One

defends

> their path by labeling other paths as less. ***

>

> I must apologize for creating that impression (the word

"merely"

> probably did the damage); it was not my intention to trivialize

Shiva

> or Shaivism. I often (as you know) get into trouble here due to

what

> I perceive as my technical duty as a moderator of the Group;

i.e. to

> constantly point up the raison d'etre of the Group, which is

> primarily a discussion of the Shakta path. I do this at the

expense

> of offending those who believe my focus on Shaktism implies

a sort of

> blindness to this rest of Hinduism. Check out this choice

snippet of

> hate mail I received on Messenger just yesterday (caps

in

> original):

>

> "U CANNOT STAND UP TO SOME PEOPLE LIKE SATISH,

OMPREM AND COLIN BEC

> THEY R AS KNOWLEDGEBLE AS U IF NOT MORE. AND U

ONLY LIKE TO BULLY

> WOMEN WHILE APPEARING TO BE A DEVI BHAKTA. U HAVE

PROBLEMS ACCEPTING

> STATEMENTS FROM WOMEN WHOSE OPINIONS DIFFER

FROM URS. WHY DO U

> MISINTERPRET EVERYTHING? YR ENGLISH IS PERFECT,

YR WRITING STYLE

> WONDERFUL, YR POWERS OF PERSUASION GREAT BUT

YR LOGIC? ... LEAVES

> ROOM TO BE DESIRED! LOL! ... PLS DO NOT MAKE

HINDUISM INTO PAGANISM!

> THAT'S ALL!"

>

> Yikes! So I guess it's pretty clear that I'd better back off and

> stress (yet again, yet again!) that my advocacy of Shaktism

does not

> imply a belief that it is the "right" system, or that the other great

> schools of Hinduism (or any other religion, for that matter --

> *including* Paganism; although I do not consider myself a

Pagan, I do

> not share my correspondent's seeming disdain for that path)

> are "wrong" or even in any way inferior to Shaktism. I do not

believe

> that, and I would be a fool if I did. As the scriptures affirm, "The

> names are many, but the God is One." More specifically, I

believe

> that any Shakta must accept Shiva, just as any Shaiva must

accept

> Shakti. The difference, to vastly oversimplify, is in the

emphasis.

>

> *** It might have been better for you to have described

Shaktism in

> its own right and not defensively in relation to something else.

You

> could have said simply that the worship of Shiva is "not the

object

> of our particular devotion." ***

>

> Yes, agreed. And again, I apologize for any express or implied

insult

> in my previous posting on the subject.

>

> *** As it is, an argumentative Shaivite could counter your

> description by saying. "Why would one a worship

kinetic,creative

> energy when one could just as easily worship the source and

ground of

> that energy?" A Jnana Yogi could say, "Why worship Shakti or

Shiva

> when one could move beyond all names and forms and

worship their

> ground, Brahman." ***

>

> Absolutely true again. (And eloquently stated.)

>

> *** But the wise would say, "Let each worship according to

their

> ability and to how the Divine chooses to appear to them". ***

>

> Ah! Thank you. That is my feeling, behind all of the details of

> debate, and I will try to be "wiser" in my future expressions of it.

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

>

> DB

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPremji:

 

Your post came as a welcome pleasure; I am glad to hear that you

understand where I'm coming from on the Shakta/Shaiva dichotomy. You

personal compliments humble me; now I must strive to deserve them!

But I was very glad that the ugliness of the e-mail exchanges you

were drawn into in the wake of the difficult decisions of the weekend

did not send you packing. The object of the "negative energies" you

mention always seems to be to divide and conquer -- to sow enmity

among friends; doubt among believers; despair among those who hope;

confusion among those seeking clarity. Despite all of that, our

decision as moderators to act as we did was the most difficult I have

made since the inception of this Group. I hesitate to claim Devi's

guidance, and yet I do hope that Her hand is assisting us in

navigating these dangerous waters, and that She will guide us through

the trials and triumphs that are undoubtedly yet to come. Your

continuing presence encourages me to believe that She just might.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

, "omprem <omprem>"

<omprem> wrote:

> OM Devi Bhakta

>

> Thank you for your clarification. You are quite right that we are

not

> in fundamental disagreement. In fact, I think that we are not in

> disagreement at all: it is just that we each have different ways of

> personally relating to the Divine and yet can understand and

> respect the path of the other.

>

> As with all things the devil is in the details: here, too, when one

of

> us, or any of the members is writing his/her thoughts they must

> be careful to show respect for the spiritual/religious thoughts of

> others. I know you have this respect so I appreciate your

> comments.

>

> It is unfortunate that you as moderator have to be exposed to

> such negative energies evidenced by the email you posted. It, of

> course, need not even be said that not one of the attitudes which

> the diatribe attributed to you is correct (but I will say it

anyway).

>

>

> Your ethical stance is the highest. You strive endlessly for

> balance and objectivity. You honour Devi and all expressions of

> the Divine. You have shared personal history with me which

> shows your Sattvic nature more than this forum allows. I include

> you among my friends. In addition to all of this, your

> performance of your role of moderator is the best that I have

> seen of any internet club or group.

>

> I would ask that all members to please not take advantage of the

> anonimity of the internet to give rise to your inner demons. You

> have no anonimity from the Divine. Karma builds with each

> ego-based action. Discipline yourself. Think positivity about

> yourself and others. See the Divine in everyone (including

> yourself) and everywhere. Act as the Divine - be loving.

>

> Loka Samasta Sukhino Bhavantu

>

> May the whole world attain peace and harmony

>

> Omprem