worship of human beings

[Guest guest]

Every human is an incarnation of God, right?

So can one reach enlightenment by worshipping any ordinary person as

god/goddess?

Does that only work with Avatars, or certain spiritual advanced persons like

ones Guru?

Or does that also work with commpletely ordinary persons?

For instance Indian women in erlier times regarded their husbands as gods, and

then there is also the worship of Devi in form of virginal girls.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Alexandra:

 

I think you've asked a good question. Deepak Chopra has

advised that lovers should consider their beloved as their guru.

In tantra, it is advocated that men worship women. As for

"worship" of gurus, it seems to often lead to some kind of power

abuse, unfortunately. I have read that marriage was designed

along the lines of man's relation to god, and that the spiritual

hierarchy of god over man was brought into marriage and family

to allow men to be god over women and children. Unfortunately,

as with the guru "worship," that has led to problems. I would

guess that the worship of virginal girls was about trying to control

sexuality and/or to maintain the marital/family hierarchy

somehow, but I don't know; I'm unfamiliar with that. Ultimately, I

think that worshipful feelings toward another person may be

about bringing something unconscious in your own being to

light, and as such, can bring enlightenment. After all, the

god/dess you worship in another is but a reflection of yourself. I

am interested to read others' responses to your post.

 

-- Mary Ann

 

, "Alexandra Kafka"

<alexandra.kafka@a...> wrote:

> Every human is an incarnation of God, right?

> So can one reach enlightenment by worshipping any ordinary

person as god/goddess?

> Does that only work with Avatars, or certain spiritual advanced

persons like ones Guru?

> Or does that also work with commpletely ordinary persons?

> For instance Indian women in erlier times regarded their

husbands as gods, and then there is also the worship of Devi in

form of virginal girls.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Alexandre ,

 

The reply is available at kalima2 group . So I need notrepeat it

here . For those interested please have a look there as well .........

 

Jai Maa!!!

[Guest guest]

Dear All:

 

In tantra there is not only worship of male by female; but worship of female by

male and male to male and female to female.

 

Kalaavahana is one such ritual; it may or may not involve sex depending on the

inclinations of the parties.

 

the gender is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with suppression of one gender by

the other.

 

If you read Ramakrishna Pramahamsa's biography you will find him worshipping his

wife as God.

 

But the present social mentality has driven these sublime procedures underround

so there are few who know it and those who know and practice do not do so

publicaly. That is all.

Love

 

 

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste to All:

 

Alexandra asked "So can one reach enlightenment by worshipping any

ordinary person as god/goddess? Does that only work with Avatars, or

certain spiritual advanced persons like ones Guru?"

 

My answer would be that it does not depend on the object of worship,

but on the worshiper. The worshiper who perceives that s/he is

worshiping a person is doing nothing more than that. The worshiper

who perceives that s/he is worshiping Devi (or whatever their

perception of the Deity may be) is doing just that.

 

Mary Ann added that "in tantra, it is advocated that men worship

women."

 

I do not believe that this is correct. In tantra, it is advocated

that humans worship Devi. Again, the devotee who perceives that s/he

is merely worshiping another human being is doing nothing more than

that. Kochu's recent post illuminates this point.

 

*** I would guess that the worship of virginal girls was about trying

to control sexuality and/or to maintain the marital/family hierarchy

somehow, but I don't know; I'm unfamiliar with that. ***

 

If you are unfamiliar, then there is little need to leap to the very

grossest assumptions of motive. When the worshiper is of pure mind

and properly prepared, the worship of virginal girls is the worship

of Devi -- nothing more, nothing less.

 

Certainly, an ugly array of social ills has plagued humankind

throughout history. The study of patriarchy and gender relations is

an important and worthwhile pursuit. However, spirituality works on

several levels, physical, subtle and transcendent.

 

By analyzing any religious ritual as merely the manifestation of a

social ill, you effectively lock yourself on the physical plane --

like the person who perceives s/he is merely worshiping another human

being. In the context of sadhana, it is a spiritual dead end.

 

For 100 years or so, Marxist scholars were sure they could explain

everything in this world as a manifestation of class struggle in the

inevitable movement of humankind toward communism. They were wrong,

of course. Certainly, class struggle is a huge factor in the movement

of history; and certainly patriarchy is a huge factor as well. But

there are myriad other factors as well: Humanity is too complex to be

comprehended through a single dialectical model, even on the physical

plane.

 

And when we move *beyond* the physical plane, such models are more

than just limiting; they become crippling. In Shaki Sadhana, we do

not ignore the social ills of this world. They are to be faced and

confronted; we must do our best to eradicate these drags on humanity,

and reveal the beauty and love of Devi.

 

But in our efforts to make this physical plane a better place, let us

not forget the fundamental truth that there are other planes that

need attending as well.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

"When the worshiper is of pure mind and properly prepared, the

worship of virginal girls is the worship of Devi -- nothing more,

nothing less"

 

When you worship a person, you are not actually worshipping the

physical aspect, but the essence that the person represent.

[Guest guest]

A shy friend sent me the following "clarification" to my post -- it

is completely correct, and my post should be read in light of it:

 

"May I make a small clarification? You see, it is never a human being

worshipping God in Tantra. No human is able or entitled to do so.

That's where Nyasas come in. You make yourself divine before

worshiping; with the Nyasas you become GOD whether a Devi or Deva,

and then you become one with the worshipped – then the worshipper;

worshipped and worship becomes one. So you are in effect adoring

yourself; that is what is said: Antahsthejo bahisteja

aikeekamitaprabhavam. Then what happens is that you become one, and

at that stage you can do anything: YOU ARE GOD. No gender, no

individuality. You are the Universe."

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

To worship Devi you becomes a Devi, only then you will be able to

merge with Devi. Devi and You becomes one, like a Lover.

[Guest guest]

Hello All:

 

Five days ago in post #6414, I included a link to an interview with

Miranda Shaw, who wrote a book called Passionate

Enlightenment: Women in Tantric Buddhism." It is in that book

(and in that interview) that the author reports tantra advocating

the worship of women by men. (I located that interview when I

was looking up pix of the boar-headed goddess somehow.) Her

findings have been contested by other tantric scholars who do

not believe that women were anything more than objects for the

men's pursuits.

 

As for the guess about the worship of virginal women, it is

educated due to my studies of political things, which to me are

not always separate from the spiritual, such as in the sati

custom, which is considered spiritual worship, yet has an

economic/political aspect (and which we have discussed at

length on the message board previously).

 

BTW thank you Kochu for mentioning the other forms of worship

in tantra. Can you please direct me to any materials that tell

about the development of these other forms?

 

Does anyone disagree that in the devotional love of another

person, you are worshiping that which is within, or which is a

reflection of what is within and Divine?

 

-- Mary Ann

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Namaste to All:

>

> Alexandra asked "So can one reach enlightenment by

worshipping any

> ordinary person as god/goddess? Does that only work with

Avatars, or

> certain spiritual advanced persons like ones Guru?"

>

> My answer would be that it does not depend on the object of

worship,

> but on the worshiper. The worshiper who perceives that s/he is

> worshiping a person is doing nothing more than that. The

worshiper

> who perceives that s/he is worshiping Devi (or whatever their

> perception of the Deity may be) is doing just that.

>

> Mary Ann added that "in tantra, it is advocated that men worship

> women."

>

> I do not believe that this is correct. In tantra, it is advocated

> that humans worship Devi. Again, the devotee who perceives

that s/he

> is merely worshiping another human being is doing nothing

more than

> that. Kochu's recent post illuminates this point.

>

> *** I would guess that the worship of virginal girls was about

trying

> to control sexuality and/or to maintain the marital/family

hierarchy

> somehow, but I don't know; I'm unfamiliar with that. ***

>

> If you are unfamiliar, then there is little need to leap to the very

> grossest assumptions of motive. When the worshiper is of

pure mind

> and properly prepared, the worship of virginal girls is the

worship

> of Devi -- nothing more, nothing less.

>

> Certainly, an ugly array of social ills has plagued humankind

> throughout history. The study of patriarchy and gender relations

is

> an important and worthwhile pursuit. However, spirituality

works on

> several levels, physical, subtle and transcendent.

>

> By analyzing any religious ritual as merely the manifestation of

a

> social ill, you effectively lock yourself on the physical plane --

> like the person who perceives s/he is merely worshiping

another human

> being. In the context of sadhana, it is a spiritual dead end.

>

> For 100 years or so, Marxist scholars were sure they could

explain

> everything in this world as a manifestation of class struggle in

the

> inevitable movement of humankind toward communism. They

were wrong,

> of course. Certainly, class struggle is a huge factor in the

movement

> of history; and certainly patriarchy is a huge factor as well. But

> there are myriad other factors as well: Humanity is too complex

to be

> comprehended through a single dialectical model, even on the

physical

> plane.

>

> And when we move *beyond* the physical plane, such models

are more

> than just limiting; they become crippling. In Shaki Sadhana, we

do

> not ignore the social ills of this world. They are to be faced and

> confronted; we must do our best to eradicate these drags on

humanity,

> and reveal the beauty and love of Devi.

>

> But in our efforts to make this physical plane a better place, let

us

> not forget the fundamental truth that there are other planes that

> need attending as well.

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

This is a fascinating thread.

 

In my experience, when I am caught up in loving, in the most intense

experience of love, I try to reach beyond the physical plane, to look

for the Goddess, knowing that as I love another, I am loving Her, as

I accept love, I am accepting Her love.

 

It is only when I am disappointed in love or lonely that I am

mystified. But I trust that She is loving me still. I trust that I

can continue to grow and reach for Her in everything.

 

Having my faith in Her makes it more comfortable to experience great

joy and intense feelings of love.

 

prainbow

 

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> A shy friend sent me the following "clarification" to my post -- it

> is completely correct, and my post should be read in light of it:

>

> "May I make a small clarification? You see, it is never a human

being

> worshipping God in Tantra. No human is able or entitled to do so.

> That's where Nyasas come in. You make yourself divine before

> worshiping; with the Nyasas you become GOD whether a Devi or Deva,

> and then you become one with the worshipped – then the worshipper;

> worshipped and worship becomes one. So you are in effect adoring

> yourself; that is what is said: Antahsthejo bahisteja

> aikeekamitaprabhavam. Then what happens is that you become one, and

> at that stage you can do anything: YOU ARE GOD. No gender, no

> individuality. You are the Universe."

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

>

> By analyzing any religious ritual as merely the manifestation of a

> social ill, you effectively lock yourself on the physical plane --

> like the person who perceives s/he is merely worshiping another

> human being. In the context of sadhana, it is a spiritual dead end.

>

> For 100 years or so, Marxist scholars were sure they could explain

> everything in this world as a manifestation of class struggle

> in the inevitable movement of humankind toward communism. They

> were wrong, of course. Certainly, class struggle is a huge

> factor in the movement of history; and certainly patriarchy is a

> huge factor as well. But there are myriad other factors as

> well: Humanity is too complex to be comprehended through a

> single dialectical model, even on the physical

> plane.

>

> And when we move *beyond* the physical plane, such models are more

> than just limiting; they become crippling. In Shaki Sadhana, we do

> not ignore the social ills of this world. They are to be faced and

> confronted; we must do our best to eradicate these drags on

> humanity, and reveal the beauty and love of Devi.

>

 

Not a woman, I would assume that this is a fairly big issue for

feminist and Tantra. Once you are locked into a dialectic polarity,

it is hard to free oneself. The trick is to see that it is a

structure and then to move away from it expressed.

 

The most significant architect for feminism was Simone De Beauvoir

who wrote the SECOND SEX in the late 1940's. She was one of the

real geniuses in the world at the time whether you agree with her or

not. She took a look at women from both an existential and Marxist

perspective. Her lover was Satre. She identified two things.

First, women were not expressing themselves fully as individuals.

Second, that this was due to a class structure based upon gender.

This world view shaped and continues to shape contemporary Western

world view about women.

 

Personally, I find Post World War II French Existential philosophy

limiting in its views of the life and the cosmos. It asks a lot of

the right questions about existence but it has a framework of the

world as almost if not completely chaotic. God is not a factor.

The world is random. One needs to find ones own order, meaning and

value which is true, however, they saw Marxism as a way to finding

that meaning.

 

This is very limited view of existentialism. Explaining it in five

sentences is too simple. There are many flavors of it. The piece

that I bring here is that when one begins to assume or see that there

is more than the physical reality and that humans are more than

physical bodies, then you have a different view altogether. The

world isn't just black and white, it has grays and colors, too. When

you come to realize one has spirit or soul, then how you look at

yourself and others profoundly changes.

 

Thank you.

Eric

[Guest guest]

Hi Maryn Ann.

 

Here is my response to your comment ...

 

"I would guess that the worship of virginal girls was about trying

to control sexuality and/or to maintain the marital/family

hierarchy somehow, but I don't know; I'm unfamiliar with that."

 

This is not how "kaumari puja" (worship of virginal girls) is viewed

in Tantricism.

 

Devi or goddess is worshipped in her virginal form because as such

she represents pure and untouched creativity not because she is the

negation of sensuality and maternity. She is a pure unruptured vessel

who nevertheless contains within herself the full potential of

creative motherhood.

 

THe kumari (virgin girl) is supposed to exhibit 32 qualities ;( she

is blemishless both physically and spiritually) she is normally

between the ages of 3 and 13 - a girl who has not yet has had first

menstrual period.

 

Aum!!!

[Guest guest]

Gentlemen:

 

I don't agree that bringing consciousness to how social ills may

affect, lead to, or stem from, spiritual practices prevents one from

advancing spiritually. I consider the raising of consciousness,

inner and outer, to be synonymous with / analogous to the

raising of kundalini. There seems to be an assumption

underlying these posts that it isn't possible to be present to both

inner and outer at the same time. Isn't that the very definition of

non-dualism? As within, so without? Or am I misunderstanding

your posts?

 

Mary Ann

 

, "Eric Otto"

<mkultra@f...> wrote:

>

> >

> > By analyzing any religious ritual as merely the manifestation

of a

> > social ill, you effectively lock yourself on the physical plane --

> > like the person who perceives s/he is merely worshiping

another

> > human being. In the context of sadhana, it is a spiritual dead

end.

> >

> > For 100 years or so, Marxist scholars were sure they could

explain

> > everything in this world as a manifestation of class struggle

> > in the inevitable movement of humankind toward

communism. They

> > were wrong, of course. Certainly, class struggle is a huge

> > factor in the movement of history; and certainly patriarchy is a

> > huge factor as well. But there are myriad other factors as

> > well: Humanity is too complex to be comprehended through

a

> > single dialectical model, even on the physical

> > plane.

> >

> > And when we move *beyond* the physical plane, such

models are more

> > than just limiting; they become crippling. In Shaki Sadhana,

we do

> > not ignore the social ills of this world. They are to be faced

and

> > confronted; we must do our best to eradicate these drags on

> > humanity, and reveal the beauty and love of Devi.

> >

>

> Not a woman, I would assume that this is a fairly big issue for

> feminist and Tantra. Once you are locked into a dialectic

polarity,

> it is hard to free oneself. The trick is to see that it is a

> structure and then to move away from it expressed.

>

> The most significant architect for feminism was Simone De

Beauvoir

> who wrote the SECOND SEX in the late 1940's. She was one

of the

> real geniuses in the world at the time whether you agree with

her or

> not. She took a look at women from both an existential and

Marxist

> perspective. Her lover was Satre. She identified two things.

> First, women were not expressing themselves fully as

individuals.

> Second, that this was due to a class structure based upon

gender.

> This world view shaped and continues to shape contemporary

Western

> world view about women.

>

> Personally, I find Post World War II French Existential

philosophy

> limiting in its views of the life and the cosmos. It asks a lot of

> the right questions about existence but it has a framework of

the

> world as almost if not completely chaotic. God is not a factor.

> The world is random. One needs to find ones own order,

meaning and

> value which is true, however, they saw Marxism as a way to

finding

> that meaning.

>

> This is very limited view of existentialism. Explaining it in five

> sentences is too simple. There are many flavors of it. The

piece

> that I bring here is that when one begins to assume or see that

there

> is more than the physical reality and that humans are more

than

> physical bodies, then you have a different view altogether. The

> world isn't just black and white, it has grays and colors, too.

When

> you come to realize one has spirit or soul, then how you look at

> yourself and others profoundly changes.

>

> Thank you.

> Eric

[Guest guest]

Hi Mary Ann:

 

*** I don't agree that bringing consciousness to how social ills may

affect, lead to, or stem from, spiritual practices prevents one from

advancing spiritually. ***

 

I don't either, as I think I made clear in my original reply. In fact

I've been roundly criticized more than once for being "overly focused

on the social aspects" of Shakti Sadhana, at the expense of theory

and esoteric practicalities. Nonetheless, my personal feeling remains

that social consciousness (and more importantly, social action) is an

inseparable part of Shakti Sadhana.

 

[bTW, since I'm grandstanding on the subject anyway, allow me to link

back to a very current, very important social initiative that I hope

some of our members will find it in their hearts to assist:

/message/6425 ]

 

*** There seems to be an assumption underlying these posts that it

isn't possible to be present to both inner and outer at the same

time. Isn't that the very definition of non-dualism? As within, so

without? Or am I misunderstanding your posts? ***

 

I certainly did not work from that assumption (I don't see it in Mr.

Otto's post either, although I will not presume to extrapolate what

his additional views might be). To restate, I not only assume that

nonduality is "possible"; I also assume it to be Absolute Truth. What

varies is merely individual human beings' experiential perceptions of

that Truth.

 

Now: How do we develop these experiential perceptions? Through

sadhana. What is sadhana? A prescribed set of personal beliefs and

rituals engaged in with the object of attaining an experiential

perception of Truth. Are any of these rituals immune from socio-

political analysis? No, you can take 'em apart if you want to, as in

any religion. Does objective socio-political analysis enhance the

subjective efficacy of a received ritual? Not in the least. To move

to the mundane from the sublime, I quote Billy Bragg:

 

The temptation

To take the precious things we have apart

To see how they work

Must be resisted for they never fit together again

 

Does that mean precious things (such as rituals) ought never to be

taken apart, questioned and analyzed? Not necessarily. It all depends

on your position vis a vis the ritual.

 

"Bringing consciousness to how social ills may affect, lead to, or

stem from, spiritual practices" can be a worthwhile cause in one's

daily affairs. It can also make for fascinating social analysis and

scholarly study. But it is emphatically not useful in spiritual

practice -- that is, if you are using that ritual not as a subject of

objective study, but as a devotional tool.

 

If you wish to exclaim something such as, "Shaktism is a patriarchal

travesty, and I am dedicated to exposing that fact!" that is a

different matter. Then you are consciously choosing to approach the

religion as an outsider -- setting it up on a lab table as an object

to be poked and prodded, analyzed and vivisected, and -- if all goes

well -- enlightened and reformed. That's fine too. People have been

doing it for centuries.

 

The crux of the matter, as I see it at least, is a choice is between

accepting, say, a Kumari Pooja, on its own terms -- as a homage to

Devi -- and seeing what effect the ritual has on your heart and soul;

or saying, "Yeah, yeah, whatever, very transcendent. But what you're

*really* doing is perpetuating social injustice, etc etc." Both

positions may be legitimate -- or not.

 

It is a fact that huge numbers of people are not able to achieve

spiritual advancement using certain rituals that others may find

immensely uplifting and helpful. For example, Muslims and Protestant

Christians have a real problem symbolizing religious ideas in

statuary -- they call it idolatry. It makes them profoundly

uncomfortable. None of them are going to get far in, say, a Southern

European Catholic church or a South Indian temple. They're so freaked

out by the ritual, they can't get past the physical plane: "This is

idolatry! This is sinful! Get me outta here!"

 

Does that mean that Muslims and Protestants are unspiritual? Not at

all -- as in any other religious tradition, it depends almost

entirely on the individual. Does it mean that Southern European

Catholic and South Indian temple ritual are sinful? Again, not at

all -- millions have found solace and liberation in these traditions

as well.

 

What it means is, certain rituals don't work for certain people. If

you attend a Tantric Chakra ritual or a Kumari Pooja, and all you can

think is "Exploitation! Oppression! Patriarchy!", then you've

obviously come to the wrong place. It doesn't mean that you're wrong,

or that the rituals are wrong. What it means it that there's a bad

fit between you and that particular ritual.

 

I apologize if a lot of this repeats things I have said before (I

know it does). It is simply my perception and opinion. If it's wrong,

it's wrong. I'll read on, but I don't know I can add significantly

more to the discussion other than additional restatements. So I'll

stop here.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> Gentlemen:

>

> I don't agree that bringing consciousness to how social ills may

> affect, lead to, or stem from, spiritual practices prevents one

from

> advancing spiritually. I consider the raising of consciousness,

> inner and outer, to be synonymous with / analogous to the

> raising of kundalini. There seems to be an assumption

> underlying these posts that it isn't possible to be present to both

> inner and outer at the same time. Isn't that the very definition of

> non-dualism? As within, so without? Or am I misunderstanding

> your posts?

>

> Mary Ann

 

Hello Mary Ann -

 

No, that wasn't my point. My post was to just share some of the

origins of a particular belief system that seems to have built in

limitation. The decisions about those issues are for the individuals

to solve. Once they know where they are coming from, it give them

some tools to evaluate truth and their personal truth.

 

With many spiritual paths or practices is that once the spiritual

aspects are right then the rest follows. Your perspective begins to

shift. What is without is somehow in relationship to that within.

 

Marxism or Existentialism seem limited to just a very narrow view of

reality and power.

 

Thank you.

 

Eric