Dolls to represent Devi?

[Guest guest]

hello there! I have been lurking for a while but I have a question

that I really want to ask. I am a goddess worshipper and I've been

looking pretty closely at Hindu goddesses lately. I was at a store

that specializes in hindu devotional items and the owner was telling

me that sometimes, on the altar, there is a doll dressed up to

represent a goddess. Then she pulled out all these beautiful doll

clothes and crowns to show me. I was immediately intrigued! I already

use barbies to represent goddesses

 

So, I was wondering if anyone can tell me a little bit more about

this practice. Are there any "do's and don'ts" I need to know about

before I take my barbies down to this store? I was going to dress one

then build an altar for her. Any suggestions?

 

thanks so much!

blessings,

Allison

[Guest guest]

Hiya,

I too would like to know more about this. I have often wondered if we could use

barbie's to represent Goddesses and to have Darshan with. If you find anything

please do post it! Have the best day ever.

Cecilia

[Guest guest]

Barbies cannot be used to represent Shakta divinities.

 

They have specific forms and there are specific materials out of

which the representations are made.

 

Rgds

 

, "Allison" <ajr51594@a...>

wrote:

> hello there! I have been lurking for a while but I have a question

> that I really want to ask. I am a goddess worshipper and I've been

> looking pretty closely at Hindu goddesses lately. I was at a store

> that specializes in hindu devotional items and the owner was

telling

> me that sometimes, on the altar, there is a doll dressed up to

> represent a goddess. Then she pulled out all these beautiful doll

> clothes and crowns to show me. I was immediately intrigued! I

already

> use barbies to represent goddesses

>

> So, I was wondering if anyone can tell me a little bit more about

> this practice. Are there any "do's and don'ts" I need to know

about

> before I take my barbies down to this store? I was going to dress

one

> then build an altar for her. Any suggestions?

>

> thanks so much!

> blessings,

> Allison

[Guest guest]

> Barbies cannot be used to represent Shakta divinities.

>

> They have specific forms and there are specific materials out of

> which the representations are made.

 

Why? The representation is only a representation. It is not the real

Goddess. The real Divine lies in the heart, right? The physical

representation whether in the form of a painting or a figurine or a

yantra or whatever is just a tool, something to help us focus our

concentration while meditating. Right? So who cares what it's made of?

Please understand that I mean no disrepect. I am trying to learn,

that's all.

 

Sister Yvonne

[Guest guest]

Darn! What materials do they have to be made out of? Is this

written in a sacred text or something? Forgive my ignorance, but I am

really interested in how I can construct this altar I am thinking of.

Blessings,

Allison

 

, "Satish Arigela"

<satisharigela> wrote:

> Barbies cannot be used to represent Shakta divinities.

>

> They have specific forms and there are specific materials out of

> which the representations are made.

>

> Rgds

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/04 3:50:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, aw621

writes:

 

> Why? The representation is only a representation. It is not the real

> Goddess. The real Divine lies in the heart, right? The physical

> representation whether in the form of a painting or a figurine or a

> yantra or whatever is just a tool, something to help us focus our

> concentration while meditating. Right? So who cares what it's made of?

> Please understand that I mean no disrepect. I am trying to learn,

> that's all.

>

> Sister Yvonne

>

 

I made a Kali out of doll parts and I still have it I am hopeing one day to

make a lot more Goddess dolls

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, "Yvonne" <aw621@o...> wrote:

> Why? The representation is only a representation. It is not the

> real Goddess. The real Divine lies in the heart, right? The

> physical representation whether in the form of a painting or a

> figurine or a yantra or whatever is just a tool, something to help

> us focus our concentration while meditating. Right? So who cares

> what it's made of?

 

Speaking from the standpoint of an uninitiated heathen Westerner ,

I can see a problem given what Barbie represents in the West. She is

a commercial property designed to make money for her creator

(Mattell) at the expense of women's self-image. The Barbie icon has

helped raise an entire generation of girls to think they must be

pencil-thin (read: anorexic) to be "sexy", and special, and loved.

Barbie represents such an awful, monstrous lie that I can't see

myself ever using her to represent Mayadevi, unless I were playing

at some kind of sick joke.

 

Just my opinion - do with it what thou wilt...

 

In Her Service,

 

KG

 

----

Kensho Godchaser

http://www.KenshoGodchaser.com/

[Guest guest]

Okay, I can see your point concerning Barbie, but how about some

other doll? Or some figurine or a woman-shaped candle or something?

Actually, my preference would be for something you make yourself.

Maybe a candle you pour yourself, or clay you mold yourself, or maybe

something you carve out of wood or soap or something. That would have

personal meaning for you and help you connect to the inner Goddess

better than some jade or alabaster statue you bought mail-order from

somewhere. But that's just my humble opinion.

 

Sister Yvonne

[Guest guest]

, "Yvonne" <aw621@o...> wrote:

> Why? The representation is only a representation. It is not the

real

> Goddess. The real Divine lies in the heart, right? The physical

> representation whether in the form of a painting or a figurine or

a

> yantra or whatever is just a tool, something to help us focus our

> concentration while meditating. Right? So who cares what it's made

of?

>

 

The shastra cares. The shastra is an expression of Her command.

So it is Her command that Her worship should be done in such and

such way. For worship of shakta divinities refer shakta scriptures.

You are not at liberty to do as you like in the shakta system. If

anyone has problem with following shakta principles they may leave

it and follow something else. Different materials have different

spiritual significance(hence specific materials) and each shakti has

a specific form and when invoked one has to invoke that form which

is in ones heart. Hence the representation needs to be like Durga if

you are invoking Durga or Kali if you are invoking Kali. Yantra is

different from paintings and other stuff. Yantra when energised with

mantras has the capacity to magically control the 6 internal

enemies. A figurine or painting is incapable of that.

When invoked the shakta way, the statue/yantra is no longer a

representation. The real goddess manifests in the representation.

 

If you are worshipping your witch/wiccan/shaman or whatever

gods/goddesses with dolls or whatever I dont care what you do.

Devi is a shakta goddess and She should be worshipped according

to shakta ways.

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

, "Allison" <ajr51594@a...>

wrote:

> Darn! What materials do they have to be made out of? Is this

> written in a sacred text or something? Forgive my ignorance, but I

>am

> really interested in how I can construct this altar I am thinking

>of.

 

Namaste,

 

The materials are given in texts like Devi Bhagavatha and maybe

in some other tantras too. Sample materials are clay, panchaloha

(mixture of gold silver copper etc), silver etc. These materials are

important only if one want to do puja using Her mantras etc. If the

intention in making the image is to put it on the altar one can make

the image out of anything they want,making sure it confirms with the

image of durga as seen in pictures or as described in texts dealing

with her worship and maybe and light lamp, burn incense and make

offerings etc.

 

Rgds

> Blessings,

> Allison

>

> , "Satish Arigela"

> <satisharigela> wrote:

> > Barbies cannot be used to represent Shakta divinities.

> >

> > They have specific forms and there are specific materials out of

> > which the representations are made.

> >

> > Rgds

> >

[Guest guest]

Okay, I read this over several times trying to grasp it.

 

Is the Yantra a statue or figurine that is made out of the specific materials

according to shakta scriptures? Also, you said that a specific form of the Devi

has to be invoked but also the form that is in one's heart... that's confusing

to me. I would interpret that to mean that the form that is in my heart could be

different from the form commonly associated with the Devi, perhaps one that

would be more accessible to me.

 

Anyways, thank you for your continuing input

 

blessings,

Allison

 

 

>

> The shastra cares. The shastra is an expression of Her command.

> So it is Her command that Her worship should be done in such and

> such way. For worship of shakta divinities refer shakta scriptures.

> You are not at liberty to do as you like in the shakta system. If

> anyone has problem with following shakta principles they may leave

> it and follow something else. Different materials have different

> spiritual significance(hence specific materials) and each shakti

has

> a specific form and when invoked one has to invoke that form which

> is in ones heart. Hence the representation needs to be like Durga

if

> you are invoking Durga or Kali if you are invoking Kali. Yantra is

> different from paintings and other stuff. Yantra when energised

with

> mantras has the capacity to magically control the 6 internal

> enemies. A figurine or painting is incapable of that.

> When invoked the shakta way, the statue/yantra is no longer a

> representation. The real goddess manifests in the representation.

>

> If you are worshipping your witch/wiccan/shaman or whatever

> gods/goddesses with dolls or whatever I dont care what you do.

> Devi is a shakta goddess and She should be worshipped according

> to shakta ways.

>

> Rgds

[Guest guest]

Thank you very much for answering my question. I repeat that I mean no

disrespect. I am curious and trying to learn.

 

Your answer relates back to the question I asked last week, of whether the

writings of the ancients contain all the wisdom that is worth learning, or

whether people alive today can add to that great body of wisdom. You seem to be

giving the opposite answer to what Devi Bhakta said. Read the scriptures.

Period. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

My Auntie Usha teaches that the ancient writings are important, and we should

learn them and study them. The Divine speaks through them, and we should listen.

But She also lives in our own souls, and we need to listen to her there too.

 

I suppose that there is some value in following ancient recipes on how to do

ceremonies. That way, you get a close personal connection with these wise people

who lived centuries ago. You also get to feel as if you are participating in

something important. And that's fine. I have no problem with that. Thanx for

teaching me.

 

Sister Yvonne

[Guest guest]

> Is the Yantra a statue or figurine that is made out of the specific

materials according to shakta scriptures?

 

No, a yantra is a 2-dimensional drawing representing a particular

form of the divine. There are very specific rules as to how to draw

one. Each part has a particular meaning reflecting the properties of

that particular form of the Goddess. Here is an example:

 

http://alumni.cse.ucsc.edu/~mikel/sriyantra/sri5.html

 

Yvonne

[Guest guest]

, "Allison" <ajr51594@a...>

wrote:

> Okay, I read this over several times trying to grasp it.

>

> Is the Yantra a statue or figurine that is made out of the

>specific materials according to shakta scriptures? Also, you said

that a specific form of the Devi has to be invoked but also the form

that is in one's heart... that's confusing to me. I would interpret

that to mean that the form that is in my heart could be different

from the form commonly associated with the Devi, perhaps one that

would be more accessible to me.

 

 

This is how icon worship is done by shaktas. They get initiated

into a certain mantra. The presiding deity of this mantra has a

specific form, say if it is Tara mantra the shakta will be

meditating on the form of Tara while repeating the mantra. When he

reaches a certain stage**(determined by his teacher) he will be

qualified for external worship, which is when he starts worshipping

her in a yantra or in an icon. This icon in our example will be in

the shape of Tara. Likewise if he has kali mantra he will be

worshipping an image of Kali. As you can see the icon is now an

exact representation of the goddess as is in his heart.

 

Yantra can be drawn on some special leaves or on a cloth or

etched on thin sheets of gold copper silver or on stone.

 

The representation need not always be as a statue. Sometimes she

is invoked in something called kalasha which is essentially a brass

gold, copper or silver picther/tumbler with water in it and a

coconut on top it along with some other things.

 

** At this stage the divinity is firmly established in the heart of

that shakta due to mantra repitition over years. The divinity in his

heart is transferrred to the icon which he is worshipping by using

some other mantras.

 

Principles of Tantra by Arthur Avalon vol 2. has more details on

external worship. I gathered this info from there.

 

Corrections welcome

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

, "Yvonne" <aw621@o...> wrote:

> Your answer relates back to the question I asked last week, of

>whether the writings of the ancients contain all the wisdom that is

>worth learning, or whether people alive today can add to that great

>body of wisdom. You seem to be giving the opposite answer to what

>Devi Bhakta said. Read the scriptures. Period.

 

 

I am not concerned about modern writings. The ways described in

ancient texts are complete. They are eternal coz they speak about

the truth and truth does not change with time. They are enough to

reach the goal. However I dont say that one should not learn from

modern saints and their teachings. They cannot replace the texts but

their teachings can supplement.

 

There are numerous sadhakas who reached the highest goal of

spirituality by following those texts in present times. I personally

need no more proof than that.

> My Auntie Usha teaches that the ancient writings are important,

>and we should learn them and study them. The Divine speaks through

>them, and we should listen. But She also lives in our own souls,

>and we need to listen to her there too.

 

 

We are not perfect beings/souls to hear or understand what our

inner divine says. Our understanding is clouded by the impurities

present in us. Those texts were dictated by beings who are perfect,

and are more articulate, which is why more importance to them.

 

> I suppose that there is some value in following ancient recipes on

>how to do ceremonies.

 

They are the way. One does not write/follow customized

ceremonies/spells in Shakta system as followers of witchcraft do.

 

Rgds.

[Guest guest]

Thank you very much for taking the time to teach me. I am learning a

lot from this, and I am very grateful.

However, with all due respect, I am confused by the following:

> We are not perfect beings/souls to hear or understand what our

> inner divine says. Our understanding is clouded by the impurities

> present in us. Those texts were dictated by beings who are perfect,

> and are more articulate, which is why more importance to them.

 

My understanding (and, again, please correct me if I am wrong) is

that the Divine is not a physical being but rather spiritual entities

that exist within our souls. You say that we are unable to understand

what they teach us. Fine. I can handle this. But then you say that

the ancient text were dictated by perfect beings. This I find

confusing. Two possibilities:

 

1) People of the ancient world were better able than we are at

understanding the inner Divine, or

 

2). At some time in the distant past, the Divine did take the form of

physical beings able to communicate with people in words. Thus they

could dictate precisely what they wanted us to do.

 

Thank you again for your help. Jai Mahakali!

 

Sister Yvonne

[Guest guest]

Hi Yvonne and Satish:

 

Interesting conversation. Since reference has been made to previous

statements of mine, I wanted to step in and briefly clarify my

meaning:

 

Yvonne wrote: "Your answer relates back to the question I asked last

week, of whether the writings of the ancients contain all the wisdom

that is worth learning, or whether people alive today can add to

that great body of wisdom. You seem to be giving the opposite answer

to what Devi Bhakta said. Read the scriptures. Period."

 

Satish replied: "I am not concerned about modern writings. The ways

described in ancient texts are complete. They are eternal coz they

speak about the truth and truth does not change with time. They are

enough to reach the goal. However I don't say that one should not

learn from modern saints and their teachings. They cannot replace

the texts but their teachings can supplement. There are numerous

sadhakas who reached the highest goal of spirituality by following

those texts in present times. I personally need no more proof than

that."

 

Yvonne, I do not think Satish's answer is really so opposite to

mine. His approach is slightly more conservative than mine, but it

is still basically the same idea.

 

You see, the ancient texts set out the foundation of Shaktism. They

define what the system is. The word of the guru (or the writings of

modern saints) supplement their content, but do not fundamentally

alter it. It is more a matter of applying the ancient precepts to

modern situations; updating and demonstrating the relevance of the

foundational materials.

 

Maybe it will be clearer if you think of the Tantras and other

Shakta writings not as "scriptures" (a loaded term for many) but

as – to be blunt – instruction manuals. Because the Tantric method

is very scientific. A scientist in looking to demonstrate certain

phenomena will carefully detail each step in the process. Then if

s/he fails, s/he will be able to go over those notes and isolate

variables that might be changed for a better result next time. When

the desired result is finally achieved, the well-documented

procedure for getting there can be published. Other scientists

interested in the result will test the process (i.e. follow the same

path) to confirm (or disprove) the efficacy of the method given.

When a given method repeatedly produces the desired result for many

different scientists, it is considered scientifically valid and fit

for use in various practical applications.

 

Tantras are like that. Those that have come down to us are the

result of untold centuries of "scientific" trial-and-error.

Countless aspirants have followed these instructions and achieved

Realization. Countless gurus have fine-tuned and perfected the

techniques contained therein, and commented on the more difficult

passages for clarity. So when you ask: "Why do I have to do it that

way instead of my own way?!" The reply is, "Just because it works."

The assumption is that you want to realize Devi. The Tantras

say, "Here's how."

 

You see, Christianity and Islam teach of their respective

faiths, "You must believe and practice this set of precepts, or you

will go to Hell." Shaktism is quite different. It teaches, "Try

this! It works!" There is no blind belief or threat of eternal

damnation necessary: "Just try it, okay? It works. Really."

 

Of course, if you don't *want* to try it, no one's forcing you. If

you try it and don't succeed, you're free to dismiss the whole thing

as bullshit and follow another path. No one's threatening you either

way. And there are lots of other paths. If you want guilt, self-

flagellation, suppression of human needs and desires, "the one and

only right way" – well, plenty of religions offer all that kind of

stuff. In the alternative, if you want Barbie dolls dressed as

goddesses, go for it. Have a ball. For that matter, if you want to

invent an entirely new religion and see if it gets you anywhere,

best of luck. Hope it works. Enjoy yourself.

 

Because all rivers eventually lead to the sea. Shaktism simply

recognizes that some of these rivers twist and turn a great deal

along the way. Some are silted up and sluggish, making progress slow

and difficult work. Some branch off into deceptive estuaries that

look like the main river – until you suddenly reach a dry dead end

and have to turn back and start over. Some rivers are slow and

depressing, and can waste your precious time. Some are polluted and

smell terrible. Some are dangerous and unpredictable, and can wind

up hurting you badly if you don't know what you're doing.

 

Tantra invites us to simply skip the rivers, and go directly to the

Sea.

 

However, I do not agree with Satish (that is, if I understood him

correctly) that the only valid tantras were those written centuries

ago. There are tantras still being written to this day. There are

Upanishads still being written to this day. Great souls are still

meeting Devi and other deities and writing down what they learned in

the exchange for the good of humanity.

 

But they are achieving this through the Tantras, and when they offer

us a "better way", it is not an entirely new invention from scratch.

It is simply a further refinement of the received wisdom; perhaps an

adjustment and update for clarity in a new time and new place.

Because the Truth does not change – it is eternal. And proven

methods for getting at that Truth is eternal. So why re-invent the

wheel? The guru can help you understand the path, and point you the

literature that her or his lineage employs. The guru will also share

her or his own experiences to guide you along the way. And the best

part is that, in the end, you get to experience it all for yourself,

and -- hopefully -- help guide others who are seeking guidance. It's

nothing new. It's already there. It's in you and all around you.

It's just a matter of uncovering it.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my query! I learned a lot from

the responses I think I will try dressing my dolls and see what

the results are. I think the goddess trancends the rituals that we

have devised as humans to reach her. Some rituals do work better than

others because of centuries of trial and error but I would like to

continue the process of discovery. I accept that I am an imperfect

being and my intuition is often clouded (intuition being a connection

to the divine) but I think the best way to improve my intuition is to

act on it and test it.

 

I think I will also talk more to the owner of the store where I

originally encountered the practice of using dolls in worship. I'll

report back with what I find

 

blessings,

Allison

[Guest guest]

, "Yvonne" <aw621@o...> wrote:

> But then you say that

> the ancient text were dictated by perfect beings. This I find

> confusing. Two possibilities:

>

> 1) People of the ancient world were better able than we are at

> understanding the inner Divine, or

 

I dont know. There is more scope for interested ppl in those

times to dedicate their lives to the divine, due to favorable

conditions. That might be a reason.

 

> 2). At some time in the distant past, the Divine did take the form

of

> physical beings able to communicate with people in words. Thus

they

> could dictate precisely what they wanted us to do.

 

 

The divine appears in physical forms even now. There are very

few in India even now who can be considered as some form of the

divine. They were always there at any given period in history to

guide seekers.

 

The following is only an opinion and could be wrong.

On DeviBhakta's reply: I dont think any of these present day

realised ones(or enlightened or whatever ppl may call) dont preach

anything contradictory to established tantric norms. They may revive

some tradition or teaching which is ignored over the years.

Depending on prevailing conditions some become canonized during

their lifetime while some other's teaching may be recognized a few

years or a century or two later, after which their teachings are

treated like a teaching of divine origin.

 

As you have given the anology of scientific procedure, IMHO it

makes quite a bit of sense to view such new relevations with

skepticism or even treat them with opposition untill the tantric

community is somehow conviced.

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

Thanx, Devi Bhakta. That helps a lot. Remember that I grew up

Christian, in a very conservative Lutheran family. I guess to a

certain extent I still think along those lines, as much as I keep

saying I hate my mother's religion. I am still learning that there

are more differences between different religions than simply changing

the name of the deity in the prayers. This idea of a systematic

method of seeking enlightenment is a new concept. There is nothing

like it Christianity, at least not in the Lutheran version, not even

close. Pray and read the Bible, and that's about it. But I am

intrigued by this tantric stuff. Sounds great, and I want to learn

all I can.

 

Sister Yvonne

[Guest guest]

> The divine appears in physical forms even now. There are very

> few in India even now who can be considered as some form of the

> divine.

 

Really? Wow. I assume that you mean that these are humans born in the

usual way and who start out like the rest of us but attain great

wisdom. Is that right? It would be too easy if they all had blue skin

or a third eye or something so that you could recognize them as

divine from the start.

 

Sister Yvonne

[Guest guest]

Please could you explain about the ones who are in India now ? Where do they

live?Hoow yoou know they are divine.

Thank you

Rambha

 

-----Mensaje original-----

De: Yvonne [aw621]

Enviado el: miércoles, 11 de febrero de 2004 0:37

Para:

Asunto: Re: Dolls to represent Devi?

 

> The divine appears in physical forms even now. There are very

> few in India even now who can be considered as some form of the

> divine.

 

Really? Wow. I assume that you mean that these are humans born in the

usual way and who start out like the rest of us but attain great

wisdom. Is that right? It would be too easy if they all had blue skin

or a third eye or something so that you could recognize them as

divine from the start.

 

Sister Yvonne

 

 

 

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

, "Teresa" <rambha@t...> wrote:

> Please could you explain about the ones who are in India now ?

Where do they

> live?Hoow yoou know they are divine.

 

 

Am not sure what you mean by explanation? I dont know where they

live. I have never met them.

 

I was told by my teacher. They are not avataras like Rama or

Krishna. I speak about those who thru their sadhana have become

Devi/Brahman herself. This is my no means accurate(or even

approximate), but such ppl are not more than half a dozen.

 

Rgds

Menaka.

 

> Thank you

> Rambha

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/2004 9:49:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,

satisharigela writes:

 

> If you are worshipping your witch/wiccan/shaman or whatever

> gods/goddesses with dolls or whatever I dont care what you do.

> Devi is a shakta goddess and She should be worshipped according

> to shakta ways.

>

> Rgds

 

I don't worship anything or any one...but I was endeavoring to celebrate a

Goddess form and I did Kali because

 

she is part of a chant we use

 

It goes "Isis, Ishtar, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Kali, Anna (note that the

second

and last Goddess names are most likely misspelled) In my form of spirituality

we are all a form of the Goddess and the

different names are just aspects of the Goddess.

 

I did not mean to offend anyone

blessed be

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

thank you Menaka , we usually speak about matters that we don't really know

and this is confusin,you talking about what your teacher told you and he or

she is talking about someone else and this is the soup of the soup....we

miss the real, the true experience.

Rambha

 

-----Mensaje original-----

De: Satish Arigela [satisharigela]

Enviado el: miércoles, 11 de febrero de 2004 22:00

Para:

Asunto: Re: Dolls to represent Devi?

 

 

, "Teresa" <rambha@t...> wrote:

> Please could you explain about the ones who are in India now ?

Where do they

> live?Hoow yoou know they are divine.

 

 

Am not sure what you mean by explanation? I dont know where they

live. I have never met them.

 

I was told by my teacher. They are not avataras like Rama or

Krishna. I speak about those who thru their sadhana have become

Devi/Brahman herself. This is my no means accurate(or even

approximate), but such ppl are not more than half a dozen.

 

Rgds

Menaka.

 

> Thank you

> Rambha

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links