women and Devi - about our mission ;)

[Guest guest]

93 Greetings!

 

I'm happy to see this matter raised by U. And thanx for appreciation

of my small work .

Just a few comment i want to put now:

1. It is not said to see all women equally! Though it is said that

they are all manifestations of Devi, nowhere it is said that they are

equal. Indeed they are different. So it is not only natural (that mean

it cannot be otherwise) but it is according to Shakta-agama to see

women differently.

For sure beautiful women (not only phisically, but totally) are more

Divinity-revealing than anything else in this world.

Shaktisangama-tantra says that "there is nothing higher than Beauty".

One great sufi saint and mystic philosopher Ibn-Arabi said: "the most

perfect contemplation of God [for a man] in this world is seeing Him

in a woman" )...

2. In any case, Ur beloved women (be she legal wife or not) is

"preferred" - i say this in connection with example given by U. Ur

Shakti is more dear and important than anyone and anything in this and

other worlds! Tantras say that U may leave gods and gurus, but not

leave Ur shakti . Of course shakti mean a woman whom U love, not

conventional wife.

3. In practical cases U have to apply Ur reason and right logic

(sattarka). And always be sincere to Urself, God, Ur shakti and Ur

guru - then U will not go wrong.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Or as Agamas say,

"The only law is Ur own [true!] Will".

 

Love and be loved!

 

Love is the law, love under will.

 

A.

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta

> wrote:

> 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