Honoring All Women As Devi: Mission Impossible?

[Guest guest]

A long time ago, when I was first beginning to dabble in Sanskrit, I

attempted to cobble together a translation of a line from the Devi

Mahatmyam, and put it as the quote in my Profile:

 

Vidyah samastah tava devi bheddah striyah samastah sakala jagaatsu

 

"O Devi! All types of knowledge and all women in the world are thy

diverse manifestations."

 

Since then, I have seen better and more technically accurate

translations; but I think that this particular rendering does

capture colloquially the spirit of the text's directive. In fact,

I've actually seen my rendering quoted in other groups, so I guess

at least some people out there found value in it, and for that I am

flattered and grateful.

 

But it's important to note that Devi Mahatmyam is not the only

source that expresses this sort of sentiment toward human women.

It's really kind of ubiquitous in Shakti sadhana. There is an

amazing wealth of authority on this point -- last autumn, for

example, our valued member Arjuna Taradasa was kind enough to offer

his own collection of quotations to this effect – many of them from

rare, otherwise untranslated scriptures, and rendered into English

by Arjuna himself:

 

/message/7654

 

And so I am very interested to hear whether any of our members have

opinions on the *practical* ramifications of this advice: What is

YOUR opinion – as a woman or as a man – on how we are to put this

ideal into practice? I've included some of my personal thoughts on

the subject, in case they help get your gears turning:

 

QUESTION 1: WHAT IF HONORING ONE WOMAN NECESSARILY HARMS ANOTHER

WOMAN?

 

* EXAMPLE A: My wife is a doctor. She recently was involved in an

easement dispute regarding some property adjacent to her office. The

attorney for the other side – a woman about the same age as my wife –

was absolutely nasty. She pulled every dirty trick in the book, lied

in court and in notarized documents; and generally abused my wife's

trust in every way.

 

Now it so happens that I'm a lawyer too. So when I saw what was

going on and that my wife needed help, I stepped in and (legally)

counterattacked. Within a month or two, my wife had won her case;

the other attorney was sanctioned by the court for her misconduct.

SO: Am I a bad Shakta for "attacking" (on paper, anyway) this woman?

Did I compromise or take a step backward in my Sadhana by so acting?

Or does my wife – who is my Shakti, so to speak – take first

priority, and trump the reverence due to this other woman?

 

* EXAMPLE B: A very old friend of mine – we dated back in high

school, and are still pals 20 years later – got involved in a

serious relationship with man about 15 years her senior. He told her

he was divorced; it turned out he was not. The man's wife used the

affair as grounds for divorce.

 

She had my friend followed by a private detective for months,

tracking her every move, interest, and activity; she was subpoenaed

by the wife's attorneys to testify as a hostile witness in the

divorce trial. The wife's lawyers spun and twisted the material –

most of it totally innocent; she's really quite a nice person – to

make her look like the lowest form of life that ever crawled out of

the primordial slime. She's still in therapy, trying to get over the

trauma.

 

Anyway, one day over coffee, I mentioned the Devi Mahatmyam's

directive, and my friend was intrigued – but her final response

was: "I have to say this is a bunch of bull. Women are absolutely

treacherous, especially to one another; they're a hundred times

worse than men. If you were a woman, you'd know exactly what I mean –

to follow something like this would be just plain impossible."

That's verbatim. SO: Is she right? Or, if she's wrong, what is she

missing? How would you go about making her change her mind?

 

* EXAMPLE C: A Web example -- yeah, it even happens via computer. A

disgruntled former member of this group who identifies herself as a

woman began attacking a female moderator of this group -- in e-mail,

IM, and venomous letters to anyone who would listen. Years before,

this same former member had just as brutally attacked the female

moderator of another Hinduism group on . The attacks on both

continue to this day.

 

Forced to choose sides as these attacks escalated, I sided of course

with my sister moderator: After all, I *know* her, we exchange

cards, letters, holiday gifts, pics of our kids. We chat on the

phone frequently. We work together on SS all the time. She's *real*

to me. But as a result of my choice, that former member now charges

that I am a hypocrite because I do not sufficiently honor her as a

woman (again, assuming that she *is* a woman).

 

SO: Is she right? To me, this example brings to mind my first

example, in which I chose my wife's well-being over that of the

woman who was attacking her. But am I approaching this situation in

the wrong way? Again, am I being a "bad Shakta"? If so, how should I

act instead in order to be more true to my stated convictions? What

should I do differently?

 

QUESTION 2: DOES HONORING ALL WOMEN EQUALLY DEVALUE THOSE WOMEN WHO

MOST PURELY PROJECT THE DIVINE FEMININE?

 

If we actively try to honor all women equally – as the letter of the

Shakta law, no exceptions for any reason – don't we cheapen the

regard paid to those who truly radiate Devi's love and compassion?

There are some truly saintly women in this world – kind souls who

really give their all to make the world a better place, to make

people smile, to spread compassion wherever they go. And there are

some angry, hate-filled women whose actions are selfish at best;

actively malevolent at worst. That's the reality of being human –

we're all at different levels. If we honor those who deserve honor

equally with those who -- I guess -- demand honor as a symbol (and

*need* honor as a healing therapy) ... aren't we doing both a

disservice?

 

In my life, my reaction to this – in trying to fulfill the

exhortation of the Devi Mahatmyam – has been (1) to actively honor

those women who seem (to me) to radiate Devi's presence; (2) to

actively look for that radiance in those women who do not obviously

project it; and (3) to pretty much steer clear of women who do not

project Devi (to me) at all. This is not a condemnation, but a

completely *subjective* reaction: I do not deny that this particular

woman might be a wonderful mother, daughter, wife, professional – or

whatever, to whomever. But if her effect on me is to obscure rather

than illuminate Devi's path – then I simply turn away, and leave her

to those who *do* discern Devi there, as I am sure some will.

 

But I do not personally lay laurels at the feet of a woman who (to

me) projects the darkness of ignorance rather than the light of

Devi's Vidya; I do not pretend to feel what I do not feel. I do not

outwardly honor her in the same way I honor one who truly *does*

reflect Devi's ubiquity to me.

 

It's like the concept of the Ishtadevata: The form of the Deity that

causes one devotee to melt with love, may well leave another cold.

That doesn't mean that the Deity isn't there – it simply means that

this paticular form is not your portal. So be it. Why waste time on

what does not work for you? Drive on.

 

Am I wrong? To anyone who feels moved to reply, I very much

appreciate your honest input on these questions.

 

DB

[Guest guest]

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

 

[Devi Bhakta quotes from the Devi Mahatmyam:]

 

Vidyah samastah tava devi bheddah striyah samastah sakala jagaatsu

 

"O Devi! All types of knowledge and all women in the world are thy

diverse manifestations."

 

DB> […] I am very interested to hear whether any of our members have

opinions on the *practical* ramifications of this advice: What is

YOUR opinion – as a woman or as a man – on how we are to put this

ideal into practice? [...]

 

DB> QUESTION 1: WHAT IF HONORING ONE WOMAN NECESSARILY HARMS ANOTHER

WOMAN?

 

DB> * EXAMPLE A: […] The attorney for the other side – a woman […]

pulled every dirty trick in the book, lied in court and in notarized

documents; […] I stepped in and (legally) counterattacked […] the

other attorney was sanctioned by the court for her misconduct. SO: Am

I a bad Shakta for "attacking" (on paper, anyway) this woman?

 

It seems to me we can make a distinction between honoring a woman (or

respecting *any* human's dignity as a person) and blinding accepting

his or her behavior. I believe you can (and I am sure you did!)

honor her as a woman by behaving professionally and with integrity,

and by focusing on facts and not indulging in personal attacks.

 

[…]

DB> * EXAMPLE B: [friend involved as the "other woman" in a nasty

divorce case.]

DB> I mentioned [to this friend] the Devi Mahatmyam's

directive, and my friend was intrigued – but her final response

was: "I have to say this is a bunch of bull. Women are absolutely

treacherous, especially to one another; they're a hundred times

worse than men. If you were a woman, you'd know exactly what I mean –

to follow something like this would be just plain impossible."

 

I rather think SOME PEOPLE can behave in an "absolutely treacherous"

fashion, and that neither gender has exclusive rights to egregiously

nasty behavior.

 

DB> […] if she's wrong, what is she missing? How would you go about

making her change her mind?

 

I expect history is full of examples. But she's hurting. At this

point I'd just listen sympathetically.

 

DB> * EXAMPLE C:[bad behavior online by a woman] that former member

now charges that I am a hypocrite because I do not sufficiently honor

her as a woman (again, assuming that she *is* a woman).

 

More bad behavior, plus an attempt to manipulate you.

 

DB> To me, this example brings to mind my first

example, […]

 

I also see this as a parallel to your first example.

 

DB> QUESTION 2: DOES HONORING ALL WOMEN EQUALLY DEVALUE THOSE WOMEN

WHO MOST PURELY PROJECT THE DIVINE FEMININE?

 

DB> If we actively try to honor all women equally […] don't we

cheapen the regard paid to those who truly radiate Devi's love and

compassion?

 

I see your point, but maybe there's another way to look at this.

Honoring those who purely project the divine feminine is easy. But

don't we honor Devi in at least as great a fashion when we treat

difficult women [people] with compassion and respect?

 

[…]

DB> In my life, my reaction to this – in trying to fulfill the

exhortation of the Devi Mahatmyam – has been (1) to actively honor

those women who seem (to me) to radiate Devi's presence; (2) to

actively look for that radiance in those women who do not obviously

project it; and (3) to pretty much steer clear of women who do not

project Devi (to me) at all.

 

Seems reasonable to me. #3 sounds like a good strategy—-setting

boundaries and refusing to take part in someone else's dysfunctional

dramas…..I think you need to cut yourself some slack here.

 

DB> Am I wrong?

 

No; just hard on yourself :-)

 

As an aside....

I must say, I had a hard time writing "honoring women" in here.

Couldn't we just say "honoring each other"? Perhaps I just don't

understand, but… I have a hard time seeing members of one gender as

more a manifestation of Devi than the members of the other gender.

In particular, I'm thinking of YOU, Devi Bhakta.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Dear Ones,

 

Please do not compare Vyavahar with the scriptures, and never take

any meaning literally. The World is suffering the after effects of

those religions which take their scriptures literally! please we

do not want Hindu religion to be like that.

 

with Love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

[Guest guest]

93

 

We should apply our reason/logic to what we read in Scripture. Usually

Agama has several meanings and in many cases literal understanding is

valid. There are 3 sourses of true knowledge: Sattarka, Sadagama,

Sadguru.

Unfortunately, hindu religion is already "like that". But we should

care about our own life and relationships with God. Problems of

religion is a social matter.

 

A.

 

, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99@y..

..> wrote:

> Hari OM!

>

> Dear Ones,

>

> Please do not compare Vyavahar with the scriptures, and never take

> any meaning literally. The World is suffering the after effects of

> those religions which take their scriptures literally! please we

> do not want Hindu religion to be like that.

>

> with Love & OM!

>

> Krishna Prasad

[Guest guest]

Hello Devi Bhakta:

 

You have received some interesting posts on this topic. I agree with

the poster who said that bad behavior occurs in both genders, and

that upholding integrity in interactions and representations

effectively honors everyone involved, and Devi, no matter what the

circumstance or outcome of the case. I also think that each human

being does incorporate both female and male (Ardhanari), though it's

been religiously ordained and socially constructed to devalue the

female/feminine aspect. So, honoring Devi now is a way of correcting

this longstanding imbalance.

 

At the risk of causing a stir, I want to say that I have been

personally attacked by esteemed male members of this group for

posting words that speak from my heart, whether that is because I am

a woman or not, I don't know. But it's been consistent.

 

It has been said to me on this list that I am "tamasic" and that I

have no spiritual conviction. Recently, I posted quotes from a book

by a Sufi author (from The Hidden Gospel) and 3 esteemed members of

this group disparaged me for my interest and enthusiasm for the book,

personally criticizing my approach to spiritual matters. Even when my

particular understandings are supported by Hindu teachings, yoga

philosophy, and teachers and leaders like Nityananda, Ramana

Maharshi, Gandhi, and others, some male members have had difficulty

with my posts.

 

I'm saying this because I certainly have not felt honored or

respected by these kinds of reactions to my posts. However, I do see

each human being as a manifestation of the Ardhanrishwara/i, and I

recognize that the struggles that take place externally between male

and female, or female and female, or male and male, also take place

internally in each person. I have learned during my time on this list

that when someone attacks or disparages me, they are doing that to

some part of themselves.

 

Om Shaktishivyaikya Rupinyai Namaha

 

Mary Ann

[Guest guest]

[ DB ]* EXAMPLE C:[bad behavior online by a woman] that former member

now charges that I am a hypocrite because I do not sufficiently honor

her as a woman (again, assuming that she *is* a woman).

 

[Msbauju] More bad behavior, plus an attempt to manipulate you.

 

I have always wanted to respond to this post. Been doing a lot of

thinking about this issue. Remembered that during the early days of

the group, we had this discussion before :

 

"What makes a woman a woman?"

[http://www.shaktisadhana.org/Resource/Messageboard/women.html ]

 

 

I went back to that particular message and read them all over again.

Words by

 

[ Shyamjagota ] So you mean to say woman should be allowed to torment

in the name of shaktism ? I dont agree sorry. There has to be a

spiritual discipline which makes a woman --a shakti and lack of which

makes a woman,--a demoness.

 

And

 

[ PenKatali ] I completely agree with Devi Bhakta that we must adore

the Goddess in all women and must never give into the temptation to

demonize women. We have to recognize very clearly how stories of

demonesses have been used to oppress the status of women instead of

exalting their Shakti. We have to look very deeply within ourselves

to make sure we are not repressing the Dark Feminine to where it

turns into attacks on women.

 

I am glad Devi Bhakta brought this issue out again. And I agree with

Ms Msbauju wholeheartedly : "More bad behavior, plus an attempt

to

manipulate you.".

 

In my opinion it is not just manipulation but a * Mockery * to the

whole Shakta Belief System. It is like saying : you cannot do

anything to me no matter how bad I am., I can do and say anything to

you and you are a pashu if you don't take it. You are Shakta.

Shaktas do not hurt a women. To me that is an outright bullying. And

mockery of women, of men, of scriptures.

 

Why do I say this, because when I look at those words again, I feel

something is not right. They does not fit and does not make sense. A

Shakta especially a Shakta woman will * NEVER* say those words, not

only to their fellow Shakta Man but to any Man or Woman. And yes! I

agree with Penkatali when he says we have to look deeply within

ourselves, to question and to rationalize this whole issue and this

is what I see.

 

Devi Bhakta asked : Honoring All Women As Devi: Mission Impossible?"

No it is not. Nothing is impossible. Devi's Spy in Samsara always

get

their mission accomplish no matter how difficult it may be! LOLLLLL.

hmmmmm I think time to talk about The Jedi !!!!!

[Guest guest]

Dear Msbauju, Arjuna, Mary Ann:

 

Thank you for taking the time to address my questions. You all gave

wonderful answers that opened my mind a lot. Thank you. I also had

the honor of an off-board conversation today with a wise and loving

advisor who summed it up for me very succinctly:

 

Your world is the universe reflecting your own anger, fear and self-

doubt back at you. There is really no one but Her and we are all one

within Her – so who is there to be angry at? Who is there to fear?

Who is there to doubt? Only ourselves. And that would be silly,

wouldn't it?

 

Mary Ann intuited this very idea, I think, and expressed it

beautifully: "I have learned during my time on this list that when

someone attacks or disparages me, they are doing that to some part of

themselves." I could not help but notice Mary Ann's dignity and self-

possession in the recent exchanges she refers to; I hope that I can

eventually aspire to emulate even a fraction of her example.

 

For what its worth, I believe I have exorcised this particular asura

from my psyche – or to borrow Nora's expression in her lovely poem

posted yesterday, I have smashed this particular mirror.

 

Now, to address msbauju (my friend who emerges from the West every

now and then to send her love and wisdom), I would reply as follows:

 

You wrote: "I must say, I had a hard time writing "honoring women" in

here. Couldn't we just say "honoring each other"? Perhaps I just

don't understand, but… I have a hard time seeing members of one

gender as more a manifestation of Devi than the members of the other

gender."

 

I think that, for everyday, practical purposes (which is, after all,

what I was asking about), you are 100 percent right. As for the more

esoteric levels of meaning, Aruna knowledgeably pointed toward some

these, and for that I thank him.

 

*** Honoring those who purely project the divine feminine is easy.

But don't we honor Devi in at least as great a fashion when we treat

difficult women [people] with compassion and respect? ***

 

Definitely true. Although we should not expect that our compassion

and respect will be returned in kind – and if provisionally

recognized, it may be as quickly forgotten. That is the hard part.

Such people can affect us only if we care about them. And sometimes

not caring about them is impossible. And therein lies the challenge.

 

*** [However,] we can make a distinction between honoring a woman (or

respecting *any* human's dignity as a person) and blinding accepting

his or her behavior. … SOME PEOPLE can behave in an "absolutely

treacherous" fashion, and neither gender has exclusive rights to

egregiously nasty behavior. … bad behavior, plus an attempt to

manipulate you. ***

 

I like what Mary Ann wrote, that "upholding integrity in interactions

and representations effectively honors everyone involved, and Devi,

no matter what the circumstance or outcome of the case."

 

My learned advisor, in fact, agreed completely with Nora's sentiment:

To use these directives as a stick, to employ them for purposes of

bullying and manipulation, is quite simply to make a mockery of men,

of women, of Shaktism, and of Devi Herself.

 

And finally ... msbauju, thank you for the compliment. :">

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Namaste DB,

 

I like that you brought up this challenge. I think it makes from some

interesting spiritual reflection.

 

I frequently wonder about the way that I see some women treat other

women. Also I find myself very disappointed when I need to make some

decision that will favor either a woman or a man and the woman is

simply not the best choice, and not for reasons of being left behind

culturally, professionally or academically.

 

I feel that this is a challenge that will not find an easy answer in

my lifetime. Then, when I think about how difficult it is to find an

answer, I wonder if I'm asking the right question.

 

I think that I need to ask Devi to show me what She thinks in each

situation. I need to know from Her what is the truth about

interactions between human females and what do I need to know about

that.

 

As for your first example, when I was reading it, I felt that you

acting as ethically as possible, exposing unethical behavior, was

essentially gender neutral. Also, I feel it is possible to honor the

Goddess within the other woman, even as she challenges you and spars

with you. Devi is not always kind. She is a warrior. It's an honor to

fight in this way as ethically and effectively as possible.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Blessings,

 

prainbow

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Dear Msbauju, Arjuna, Mary Ann:

>

> Thank you for taking the time to address my questions. You all gave

> wonderful answers that opened my mind a lot. Thank you. I also had

> the honor of an off-board conversation today with a wise and loving

> advisor who summed it up for me very succinctly:

>

> Your world is the universe reflecting your own anger, fear and self-

> doubt back at you. There is really no one but Her and we are all

one

> within Her – so who is there to be angry at? Who is there to fear?

> Who is there to doubt? Only ourselves. And that would be silly,

> wouldn't it?

>

> Mary Ann intuited this very idea, I think, and expressed it

> beautifully: "I have learned during my time on this list that when

> someone attacks or disparages me, they are doing that to some part

of

> themselves." I could not help but notice Mary Ann's dignity and

self-

> possession in the recent exchanges she refers to; I hope that I can

> eventually aspire to emulate even a fraction of her example.

>

> For what its worth, I believe I have exorcised this particular

asura

> from my psyche – or to borrow Nora's expression in her lovely poem

> posted yesterday, I have smashed this particular mirror.

>

> Now, to address msbauju (my friend who emerges from the West every

> now and then to send her love and wisdom), I would reply as follows:

>

> You wrote: "I must say, I had a hard time writing "honoring women"

in

> here. Couldn't we just say "honoring each other"? Perhaps I just

> don't understand, but… I have a hard time seeing members of one

> gender as more a manifestation of Devi than the members of the

other

> gender."

>

> I think that, for everyday, practical purposes (which is, after

all,

> what I was asking about), you are 100 percent right. As for the

more

> esoteric levels of meaning, Aruna knowledgeably pointed toward some

> these, and for that I thank him.

>

> *** Honoring those who purely project the divine feminine is easy.

> But don't we honor Devi in at least as great a fashion when we

treat

> difficult women [people] with compassion and respect? ***

>

> Definitely true. Although we should not expect that our compassion

> and respect will be returned in kind – and if provisionally

> recognized, it may be as quickly forgotten. That is the hard part.

> Such people can affect us only if we care about them. And sometimes

> not caring about them is impossible. And therein lies the challenge.

>

> *** [However,] we can make a distinction between honoring a woman

(or

> respecting *any* human's dignity as a person) and blinding

accepting

> his or her behavior. … SOME PEOPLE can behave in an "absolutely

> treacherous" fashion, and neither gender has exclusive rights to

> egregiously nasty behavior. … bad behavior, plus an attempt to

> manipulate you. ***

>

> I like what Mary Ann wrote, that "upholding integrity in

interactions

> and representations effectively honors everyone involved, and Devi,

> no matter what the circumstance or outcome of the case."

>

> My learned advisor, in fact, agreed completely with Nora's

sentiment:

> To use these directives as a stick, to employ them for purposes of

> bullying and manipulation, is quite simply to make a mockery of

men,

> of women, of Shaktism, and of Devi Herself.

>

> And finally ... msbauju, thank you for the compliment. :">

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> QUESTION 2: DOES HONORING ALL WOMEN EQUALLY DEVALUE THOSE WOMEN

WHO

> MOST PURELY PROJECT THE DIVINE FEMININE?

>

> If we actively try to honor all women equally – as the letter of

the

> Shakta law, no exceptions for any reason – don't we cheapen the

> regard paid to those who truly radiate Devi's love and compassion?

 

 

Shakta scriptures dont say that all women should be treated

equally as Arjuna pointed out.

Ex: During Kumari worship and Suvasini worship etc, it is clearly

said that one should choose women who are beautiful of good

character and similar qualities. So distinction is maintained in

tantras itself. Hence, one need not be bothered about the innate

tendency to treat different women accordingly.

 

> But I do not personally lay laurels at the feet of a woman who (to

> me) projects the darkness of ignorance rather than the light of

> Devi's Vidya; I do not pretend to feel what I do not feel. I do

not

> outwardly honor her in the same way I honor one who truly *does*

> reflect Devi's ubiquity to me.

 

 

The Mahanirvana Tantra has chapters which describe punishments

for wrong-doings of any women. Likewise smritis stress that women

should be honored and respected at the same time describing various

punishments for various crimes of women.

 

When advaita says Jiva is Brahman, it does not mean to prescribe to

its followers that all jivas(women,men and beasts) should be

worshipped as Brahman. The shakta injunction is also similar in many

ways.

 

Rgds

SA.

[Guest guest]

The idea is not to honor the woman. The idea is to

honor the Divine Light within the woman. This bruns

within every woman whether another person can see

evidence of this in her actions or not. Indeed, a

woman should worship this Flame within herself as well

as in other women, thus strengthening the Flame and

causing her to pay more heed to its meaning and

significance. Thus a woman who has perhaps not

worshipped and honored this flame needs for it to be

honored more than another woman will, so that it will

burn more brightly in her soul. Beautiful women

receive much admiration already from others. Women

with less outward beauty need the respect and

admiration more.

 

Sister Usha

 

=====

Sister Usha Devi

Founder, Divinely Female and worshipper of the Sacred Flame that shines inside

every woman

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

ph/print_splash

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sister Usha Devi for this excellent point. I have

understood that true tantric awareness does not rely on outer beauty

as an indicator of anything.

 

It is still a question, however, how to honor that divine light in

difficult people whose behavior seems to pit people against each

other and hurts oneself and others. It seems necessary to close a

door on such people in one sense so as not to be injured by their

behavior.

 

Mary Ann

 

, Sister Usha Devi

<sisterusha> wrote:

> The idea is not to honor the woman. The idea is to

> honor the Divine Light within the woman. This bruns

> within every woman whether another person can see

> evidence of this in her actions or not. Indeed, a

> woman should worship this Flame within herself as well

> as in other women, thus strengthening the Flame and

> causing her to pay more heed to its meaning and

> significance. Thus a woman who has perhaps not

> worshipped and honored this flame needs for it to be

> honored more than another woman will, so that it will

> burn more brightly in her soul. Beautiful women

> receive much admiration already from others. Women

> with less outward beauty need the respect and

> admiration more.

>

> Sister Usha

>

> =====

> Sister Usha Devi

> Founder, Divinely Female and worshipper of the Sacred Flame that

shines inside every woman

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

> ph/print_splash

[Guest guest]

Sister Usha : Beautiful women receive much admiration already from

others. Women with less outward beauty need the respect and

admiration more.

 

Mary Ann : I have understood that true tantric awareness does not

rely on outer beauty as an indicator of anything.

 

Thank you Sister Usha, and Yes! I agree completely with Mary Ann

outer beauty is not an indicator of anything, what is important to me

is what we perceived ourselves to be.

 

Indeed other beautiful womens gets all the admiration, but we must

make a distinction here. Do we want to be like "Other beautiful

women" or should be ourselves and be what we are, and stood for

what

we believe in?

 

In my opinion it is the women who decides what is beauty and what is

not to her and not others. It is how she carries herself and how she

reacts to situations that truly reflects the innate beauty in her.

She can be the most horrible looking person, but her actions and

behaviors will be the judge of it.

[Guest guest]

Again on this topic, to Devi Bhakta's post regarding dealing with

difficult people (my point and my question are at the end, so go

there if you feel impatient as you read this):

 

It is often said that when one door closes, another opens.

But it is hard to close a door when love is involved. What about

"love conquers all" ? Is that true? If so, how does that work?

 

There is the blessing: "May you be at home in muddy waters,"

like the lotus flower.

 

Then there is the science experiment involving two frogs and 2

pots of water on the stove. One frog is placed in the water at

room temperature, and the water is slowly heated. The frog does

not recognize that the water is becoming hot to the point of

intolerance, and dies as the water comes to boiling. But if you

boil the water first, and put the 2nd frog into the boiling water, the

frog jumps out immediately and lives.

 

But how to make the distinction between remaining in

something difficult - possibly unbearable - or being present with

a higher vibrational frequency in difficult situations and with

difficult people and having the effect of raising the vibrational

frequency of those around you?

 

Eckhart Tolle in the Power of Now says that non-violence is a

concept, an idea we choose to believe in that we impose onto

circumstances as the "right" way to behave. He asks whether it

may not always be right to impose that concept: such imposition

may interfere with staying conscious and present in the moment

and seeing what that brings about.

 

Michael Beckwith at Agape Church in LA says that if you stay

conscious and present (which IS a higher vibrational frequency),

if the situation cannot accommodate the shift to that higher

frequency, you will be propelled out of that situation or

circumstance and into another one. Eckhart Tolle says this, too,

by saying that you and the other person or difficult situation will

separate like oil and vinegar.

 

My point is that the concept of bringing a higher vibrational

frequency to a situation, and the ability to actually embody that

higher vibrational frequency in situations, are two very different

things, and it may be hard to distinguish between them.

My question is: Can it be easy, or become easier? If so, how?

 

Mary Ann

[Guest guest]

>It is still a question, however, how to honor that

>divine light in difficult people whose behavior seems

>to pit people against each other and hurts oneself

>and others.

 

It is her decision whether or not she wants to be

enlightened. The Light shines within her whether she

chooses to heed it or not. All that you can do is to

tell her that the light does exist within her, and

that you honor that light. This will remind her that

it is possible for her to change her ways and embrace

the light. It does not hurt to try.

>It seems necessary to close a door on such people in

>one sense so as not to be injured by their behavior.

 

Never close the door on anyone. Noone is beyond hope,

beyond the reach of love. And how is it possible for

you to be hurt? This cannot happen if your soul is

strong, if your belief in the Light is solid and

unwavering. The converse, however, is true. By cutting

her off and refusing to interact with her, she will

not see the Light within you. She will never

experience the positive influence that you can

provide. You are condemning her to remain the way she

is, never recognizing the Light within herself because

she never sees it in you.

 

Sister Usha

 

=====

Sister Usha Devi

Founder, Divinely Female and worshipper of the Sacred Flame that shines inside

every woman

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

ph/print_splash

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your wisdom. It's really beautiful.

 

It's a very good question of how I (or anyone) can be hurt by

someone else's not knowing something. In practical terms, I can

explain that it could be painful, even fatal, to be in the middle of a

crosswalk if an oncoming driver didn't see that the light was red.

Their not knowing could hurt you, even kill you. So, you cross with

caution, or wait and cross later. In emotional terms, I think it can

be a lot harder to assess what's going on, hence my post about

the frogs in hot water.

 

I like what you're saying:

> Never close the door on anyone. Noone is beyond hope,

> beyond the reach of love. And how is it possible for

> you to be hurt? This cannot happen if your soul is

> strong, if your belief in the Light is solid and

> unwavering. The converse, however, is true. By cutting

> her off and refusing to interact with her, she will

> not see the Light within you. She will never

> experience the positive influence that you can

> provide. You are condemning her to remain the way she

> is, never recognizing the Light within herself because

> she never sees it in you.

 

I think it's just really important to surround oneself with others

who are loving and caring so that you can tell the difference

between a pot of boiling water and a nice, cool drink.

 

Namaste,

Mary Ann