Guest guest Posted December 30, 2003 Report Share Posted December 30, 2003 Namaste, Has anyone considered the similarities between Gauri/Aditi and the Sheila-na-gig motif, please? Gauri/Aditi http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/DEVI/lajjahGauri.html Sheila http://makeashorterlink.com/?W25F42BE6 Jai Ma, m6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2003 Report Share Posted December 30, 2003 Namaste, m6: The sheela-na-gig is a strange Celtic symbol (not to mention a great song by P.J. Harvey), in which a little gargoyle-like creature reaches around her legs and pulls her labia widely apart to blatently display her Yoni. She actually appears on ancient churches in Ireland and other Celtic areas. Her function was to scare away evil spirits -- which gives you a pretty good idea of how traditional Christianity regards the Yoni. Rufus Camphausen, in his book, "The Yoni: Sacred Symbol of Female Creative Power" (see link in Shakti Sadhana book list) discusses this phenomenon, including an 18th-century woodcut of a woman scaring away Satan himself by flashing her genitals (back to the viewer, for propriety's sake). The Prince of Darkness is cowering before this view like Count Dracula in front of a crucifix. What that's supposed to symbolize, I'll leave up to your own interpretation. Having said that, I'd add that the sheela-na-gig motif (like Lajja Gauri) probably predates Christianity by centuries if not millennia. Just as Christianity put its own spin on Goddess symbols like the snake, the apple, and so on, it undoubtedly put its own spin on the sheela; what it might have originally signified, we can only speculate. As I noted in the Lajja Gauri article you link, even later Hinduism put new spins on Lajja, reducing Her from the primal deity, Adita, of the Vedas to a mere "Ashamed Gauri" being put to a purity test by Shiva. That's my instant reaction to your query anyway! DB , "m6" <megalith6@h...> wrote: > Namaste, > > Has anyone considered the similarities between Gauri/Aditi and the > Sheila-na-gig motif, please? > > Gauri/Aditi > > http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/DEVI/lajjahGauri.html > > Sheila > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?W25F42BE6 > > > Jai Ma, > > m6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2003 Report Share Posted December 30, 2003 Namaste Devi Bhakta - , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > Namaste, m6: > > The sheela-na-gig is a strange Celtic symbol (not to mention a great > song by P.J. Harvey), in which a little gargoyle-like creature > reaches around her legs and pulls her labia widely apart to > blatently display her Yoni. She actually appears on ancient churches > in Ireland and other Celtic areas. Her function was to scare away > evil spirits -- which gives you a pretty good idea of how > traditional Christianity regards the Yoni. What you say is true and actually quite ironic, given the Western patriarchal 'down' on womanhood; it is probably correct - her yoni is percieved as something positive and powerful here - not what you'd expect from an institution attributing 'Adam's Fall' to the actions of a female... > > Rufus Camphausen, in his book, "The Yoni: Sacred Symbol of Female > Creative Power" (see link in Shakti Sadhana book list) discusses > this phenomenon, including an 18th-century woodcut of a woman > scaring away Satan himself by flashing her genitals (back to the > viewer, for propriety's sake). The Prince of Darkness is cowering > before this view like Count Dracula in front of a crucifix. What > that's supposed to symbolize, I'll leave up to your own > interpretation. Well, it strikes me as the power of Shakti, of the female again; I am reminded of Shiva falling at the feet of Devi, during her ferocious dancing. Kali's yantra is the mons veneris, after all. > > Having said that, I'd add that the sheela-na-gig motif (like Lajja > Gauri) probably predates Christianity by centuries if not millennia. I have a hunch Gauri and the Sheila-na-gig may be even closer than the shared yoni symbolism: I think there is a common motif here. > Just as Christianity put its own spin on Goddess symbols like the > snake, the apple, and so on, it undoubtedly put its own spin on the > sheela; what it might have originally signified, we can only > speculate. As I noted in the Lajja Gauri article you link, even > later Hinduism put new spins on Lajja, reducing Her from the primal > deity, Adita, of the Vedas to a mere "Ashamed Gauri" being put to a > purity test by Shiva. This is the point at which primal and bourgeois Hinduism part company, I feel; and why we need Shaktism and Tantra as distinct systems and philosophies. > > That's my instant reaction to your query anyway! > > DB Many thanks, Jai Ma - m6 > > , "m6" <megalith6@h...> wrote: > > Namaste, > > > > Has anyone considered the similarities between Gauri/Aditi and the > > Sheila-na-gig motif, please? > > > > Gauri/Aditi > > > > http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/DEVI/lajjahGauri.html > > > > Sheila > > > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?W25F42BE6 > > > > > > Jai Ma, > > > > m6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2003 Report Share Posted December 31, 2003 dear sadhaks/sadhikaas, i have got to hear a lot of thing glorifying a woman here.and the superiority of woman stressed at every time.which is so not pro-tantra someone here told me that "shakti is to be served" and every time one does that he/she reduces a "volcano- of-love" called shakti to a tyrant so is the words like "mother will bring u down" how can a loving mother bring her child down...let him/her down!! the word shakti itself means the capacity to rise at intellectually /emotionaly/and beyond (from ww.tantra-science.com) In tantra every where women if glorified as a part of man and man is glorified as a part of woman ~ ~ ~>the ardhanaarishwar/ardhanaarishwi.the shiva is the aggressive male tatva which gains strength and is softened by the feminine and the soft women tatva gains strength from the aggressive shiva tatva.this may be vice-versa also(though a aggressive women is very romantic and arousing..................lolll i know someone may come heavily upon this jovial statement ).this is always symbolysed in tantra as deep sexual embrace of man and woman. "shiva is pictured below kali"- - - - - - >yes it means kali stands as pure shakti and she is the esscence and shakti of shiva they are inseperable it dosent mean that one has to shout the superiority of kali or shiva with the support of "shiva under kali analogy".how can they be superior or inferior when they are inseperable and in fact one. soham /*\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2003 Report Share Posted December 31, 2003 , "m6" <megalith6@h...> wrote: > Namaste Devi Bhakta - > > Well, it strikes me as the power of Shakti, of the female again; I am > reminded of Shiva falling at the feet of Devi, during her >ferocious > dancing. There are several instances of Devi prostrating to the feet of Shiva too. The tantras claim they are equal. Tantras dont preach that the world should be turned into an Amazon camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Happy New Year, All! This is why I prefer the image of the Ardhanari: both female and male are side by side, none of this "prostrating to the feet of" the other, no need or requirement for "worship" of either. Also, the "sexual embrace" is not stressed in the Ardhanari, which I think makes it a stronger symbol for balance in the form of "inner marriage," that is, stronger than images of the sexual embrace between female and male. I think there is such a taboo on sexuality other than that between male and female because the female aspect has been so degraded in our world. It is seen as degrading or false for men to "take the role of the female" with another man in sexual embrace. It is seen as false or undesireable for a woman to "take the role of a man." This shows too much emphasis on roles based on gender, which limits what individuals are capable of, and limits the evolution of our world, spiritually and otherwise. My two cents, anyway. Om namas Chandikaye (ham) so ham Om namah Shivaya (ham) sa ham --Mary Ann , "aditya" <tantrasiddhi> wrote: > dear sadhaks/sadhikaas, > > i have got to hear a lot of thing glorifying > a woman here.and the superiority of woman stressed at every > time.which is so not pro-tantra someone here told me that "shakti is > to be served" and every time one does that he/she reduces a "volcano- > of-love" called shakti to a tyrant so is the words like "mother will > bring u down" how can a loving mother bring her child down...let > him/her down!! the word shakti itself means the capacity to rise at > intellectually /emotionaly/and beyond (from ww.tantra-science.com) > > In tantra every where women if glorified as a part of man and man is > glorified as a part of woman ~ ~ ~>the > ardhanaarishwar/ardhanaarishwi.the shiva is the aggressive male tatva > which gains strength and is softened by the feminine and the soft > women tatva gains strength from the aggressive shiva tatva.this may > be vice-versa also(though a aggressive women is very romantic and > arousing..................lolll i know someone may come heavily upon > this jovial statement ).this is always symbolysed in tantra as deep > sexual embrace of man and woman. > > > "shiva is pictured below kali"- - - - - - >yes it means kali stands > as pure shakti and she is the esscence and shakti of shiva they are > inseperable it dosent mean that one has to shout the superiority of > kali or shiva with the support of "shiva under kali analogy".how can > they be superior or inferior when they are inseperable and in fact > one. > > soham > /*\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 happy and prosperous new year yo u and all other members, yes i agree with u.but the word "sexual embrace" has always misunderstood by people who see tantra as a means of enjoyment of sexual copulation.yogis and tantrics have always explained it as a representation/symbol of the divine process.which is misunderstood and used according to their convenience. soham "jai gurudev" , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > Happy New Year, All! > > This is why I prefer the image of the Ardhanari: both female and > male are side by side, none of this "prostrating to the feet of" the > other, no need or requirement for "worship" of either. Also, the > "sexual embrace" is not stressed in the Ardhanari, which I think > makes it a stronger symbol for balance in the form of "inner > marriage," that is, stronger than images of the sexual embrace > between female and male. > > I think there is such a taboo on sexuality other than that between > male and female because the female aspect has been so > degraded in our world. It is seen as degrading or false for men > to "take the role of the female" with another man in sexual > embrace. It is seen as false or undesireable for a woman to > "take the role of a man." This shows too much emphasis on > roles based on gender, which limits what individuals are > capable of, and limits the evolution of our world, spiritually and > otherwise. My two cents, anyway. > > Om namas Chandikaye > (ham) so ham > Om namah Shivaya > (ham) sa ham > > --Mary Ann > > > , "aditya" > <tantrasiddhi> wrote: > > dear sadhaks/sadhikaas, > > > > i have got to hear a lot of thing glorifying > > a woman here.and the superiority of woman stressed at every > > time.which is so not pro-tantra someone here told me that > "shakti is > > to be served" and every time one does that he/she reduces a > "volcano- > > of-love" called shakti to a tyrant so is the words like "mother will > > bring u down" how can a loving mother bring her child > down...let > > him/her down!! the word shakti itself means the capacity to rise > at > > intellectually /emotionaly/and beyond (from > ww.tantra-science.com) > > > > In tantra every where women if glorified as a part of man and > man is > > glorified as a part of woman ~ ~ ~>the > > ardhanaarishwar/ardhanaarishwi.the shiva is the aggressive > male tatva > > which gains strength and is softened by the feminine and the > soft > > women tatva gains strength from the aggressive shiva > tatva.this may > > be vice-versa also(though a aggressive women is very > romantic and > > arousing..................lolll i know someone may come heavily > upon > > this jovial statement ).this is always symbolysed in tantra as > deep > > sexual embrace of man and woman. > > > > > > "shiva is pictured below kali"- - - - - - >yes it means kali stands > > as pure shakti and she is the esscence and shakti of shiva > they are > > inseperable it dosent mean that one has to shout the > superiority of > > kali or shiva with the support of "shiva under kali analogy".how > can > > they be superior or inferior when they are inseperable and in > fact > > one. > > > > soham > > /*\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > I think there is such a taboo on sexuality other than that between > male and female because the female aspect has been so > degraded in our world. It is seen as degrading or false for men > to "take the role of the female" with another man in sexual > embrace. It is seen as false or undesireable for a woman to > "take the role of a man." This shows too much emphasis on > roles based on gender, which limits what individuals are > capable of, and limits the evolution of our world, spiritually and > otherwise. My two cents, anyway. Is that supposed to mean that we evolve better "spiritually or otherwise" if everyone in this world becomes a Lesbian or Gay? Can u plz explain the phrase "limits what individuals are capable of"? I barely understand ur obsession with homosexuality and the reason why u have to bring that up time and again in a Shaktism list? Satish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Hello Satish: Thank you for your inquiry, and your honest expression of not understanding me. From my perspective, I see Devi as particularly strong in children, women, and gay people, and I see harsh treatment of each, that is, attempts to control or suppress what is natural by calling it unnatural, as acts against Devi. Thus, I see the need to make men be "manly" (and deny Devi within) as resulting in the prejudice against more free expression of sexual energy. I think this restraint on sexuality prevents our growth spiritually and otherwise because it keeps us entrenched in assumptions that do not allow for the free and loving flow of life energy in all. I hope this explains it better for you. BTW I don't think that everyone would be lesbian or gay if the various churches and other authorities quit proclaiming that sex (and marriage) should only be between man and woman. But I do think that those who are afraid of sexuality in its myriad forms are fearful of that. Why else make it such a taboo thing? Regards, Mary Ann , "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela> wrote: > , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> > wrote: > > I think there is such a taboo on sexuality other than that between > > male and female because the female aspect has been so > > degraded in our world. It is seen as degrading or false for men > > to "take the role of the female" with another man in sexual > > embrace. It is seen as false or undesireable for a woman to > > "take the role of a man." This shows too much emphasis on > > roles based on gender, which limits what individuals are > > capable of, and limits the evolution of our world, spiritually and > > otherwise. My two cents, anyway. > > > Is that supposed to mean that we evolve better "spiritually or > otherwise" if everyone in this world becomes a Lesbian or Gay? > > Can u plz explain the phrase "limits what individuals are > capable of"? > > I barely understand ur obsession with homosexuality and the reason > why u have to bring that up time and again in a Shaktism list? > > Satish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Namaste, Why is sex taboo? Because it cannot be controlled and is subversive, in terms of this generally patriarchal, global authoritarian culture that we are now increasingly living in. Shri Ardhanarishvara reminds us that Divinity is androgynous, how could it be otherwise? The sexual act between a woman and a man could be seen as symbolising this sacred, androgynous state - a 'Tantric consubstantiation', if you will. But physical coitus isn't necessary for this - look at Kundalini Yoga: you can spiritually unite the male and female aspects within a human being by practising this discipline. Otherwise, I shouldn't advise anyone to attempt tinkering with their sexuality for the sake of experimentation: the result is likely to be one extremely confused and unhappy individual. Jai Om - m6 , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > Hello Satish: > > Thank you for your inquiry, and your honest expression of not > understanding me. From my perspective, I see Devi as > particularly strong in children, women, and gay people, and I see > harsh treatment of each, that is, attempts to control or suppress > what is natural by calling it unnatural, as acts against Devi. Thus, > I see the need to make men be "manly" (and deny Devi within) > as resulting in the prejudice against more free expression of > sexual energy. I think this restraint on sexuality prevents our > growth spiritually and otherwise because it keeps us entrenched > in assumptions that do not allow for the free and loving flow of > life energy in all. I hope this explains it better for you. > > BTW I don't think that everyone would be lesbian or gay if the > various churches and other authorities quit proclaiming that sex > (and marriage) should only be between man and woman. But I > do think that those who are afraid of sexuality in its myriad forms > are fearful of that. Why else make it such a taboo thing? > > Regards, > Mary Ann > > > > , "Satish Arigela" > <satisharigela> wrote: > > , "Mary Ann" > <maryann@m...> > > wrote: > > > I think there is such a taboo on sexuality other than that > between > > > male and female because the female aspect has been so > > > degraded in our world. It is seen as degrading or false for > men > > > to "take the role of the female" with another man in sexual > > > embrace. It is seen as false or undesireable for a woman to > > > "take the role of a man." This shows too much emphasis on > > > roles based on gender, which limits what individuals are > > > capable of, and limits the evolution of our world, spiritually > and > > > otherwise. My two cents, anyway. > > > > > > Is that supposed to mean that we evolve better "spiritually or > > otherwise" if everyone in this world becomes a Lesbian or > Gay? > > > > Can u plz explain the phrase "limits what individuals are > > capable of"? > > > > I barely understand ur obsession with homosexuality and the > reason > > why u have to bring that up time and again in a Shaktism list? > > > > Satish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Namaste: I think it is worthwhile to question and repair the effects of living in "this generally patriarchal, global authoritarian culture" you mention, but I don't associate that with "tinkering" with one's sexuality for experimentation purposes. I'm not sure what you mean by that...? I just think that being loving with, in, and about, sexuality and sexual energy is most important. If that could be the rule and practice, there would be so much less pain in the world. -- Mary Ann , "m6" <megalith6@h...> wrote: > Namaste, > > Why is sex taboo? Because it cannot be controlled and is subversive, > in terms of this generally patriarchal, global authoritarian culture > that we are now increasingly living in. > > Shri Ardhanarishvara reminds us that Divinity is androgynous, how > could it be otherwise? > > The sexual act between a woman and a man could be seen as symbolising > this sacred, androgynous state - a 'Tantric consubstantiation', if > you will. > > But physical coitus isn't necessary for this - look at Kundalini > Yoga: you can spiritually > unite the male and female aspects within a human being by practising > this discipline. > > Otherwise, I shouldn't advise anyone to attempt tinkering with their > sexuality for the sake of experimentation: the result is likely to be > one extremely confused and unhappy individual. > > Jai Om - > > m6 > > > , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> > wrote: > > Hello Satish: > > > > Thank you for your inquiry, and your honest expression of not > > understanding me. From my perspective, I see Devi as > > particularly strong in children, women, and gay people, and I see > > harsh treatment of each, that is, attempts to control or suppress > > what is natural by calling it unnatural, as acts against Devi. > Thus, > > I see the need to make men be "manly" (and deny Devi within) > > as resulting in the prejudice against more free expression of > > sexual energy. I think this restraint on sexuality prevents our > > growth spiritually and otherwise because it keeps us entrenched > > in assumptions that do not allow for the free and loving flow of > > life energy in all. I hope this explains it better for you. > > > > BTW I don't think that everyone would be lesbian or gay if the > > various churches and other authorities quit proclaiming that sex > > (and marriage) should only be between man and woman. But I > > do think that those who are afraid of sexuality in its myriad forms > > are fearful of that. Why else make it such a taboo thing? > > > > Regards, > > Mary Ann > > > > > > > > , "Satish Arigela" > > <satisharigela> wrote: > > > , "Mary Ann" > > <maryann@m...> > > > wrote: > > > > I think there is such a taboo on sexuality other than that > > between > > > > male and female because the female aspect has been so > > > > degraded in our world. It is seen as degrading or false for > > men > > > > to "take the role of the female" with another man in sexual > > > > embrace. It is seen as false or undesireable for a woman to > > > > "take the role of a man." This shows too much emphasis on > > > > roles based on gender, which limits what individuals are > > > > capable of, and limits the evolution of our world, spiritually > > and > > > > otherwise. My two cents, anyway. > > > > > > > > > Is that supposed to mean that we evolve better "spiritually > or > > > otherwise" if everyone in this world becomes a Lesbian or > > Gay? > > > > > > Can u plz explain the phrase "limits what individuals are > > > capable of"? > > > > > > I barely understand ur obsession with homosexuality and the > > reason > > > why u have to bring that up time and again in a Shaktism list? > > > > > > Satish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.