The What, Why and Who of the Group

[Guest guest]

Hi Devi,

I'm only here to learn and at that my aspirations are not too high. I

enjoy learning what I can of another religion of another culture, and it

would be so even if your group was run by five men.

I have to admit, I enjoy the presence of strong, Wise and knowledgable

women like Devi, Nora and Om-Prem ( who is I gather two people: one male, and

one female ), and it gives this group a special appeal, at least to me.

It also gives this group a special appeal, at least to me, that at

least some of you group owners are of the culture and religion about which you

teach.

I am like a tourist in a strange land when I come here. I get lost in

all the unfamiliar words and terms. But somehow I get an overall feeling --

a gestalt -- a feeling of the Goddess as She is the continued center of focus

in Her varied manifestations. I enjoy feeling that on a Gut/Intuitive Level.

I enjoy picking up what Wisdom I can, and I have to admit, feeling changed by

the experience.

Thanks for creating this space.

 

Blessings of the Goddess,

Cathie

In a message dated 10/5/2004 8:41:03 AM Mountain Daylight Time,

devi_bhakta writes:

> I do not personally believe (as I've said as nauseum and will continue

> to say) that the gender of the group moderators should be a factor is

> determining whether the group is "legitimate" or not. I am also

> experienced enough to know that what I believe matters to few, and

> will change the minds of even fewer.

>

> That's why our front page contains this "statement of purpose," penned

> by the great Shakta teacher Sri Amritananda Natha Saraswati: "Make

> information available. Let people take it or leave it, think it is

> true or false. All that matters is: Are you convinced that this is the

> way? Let people judge you as they think fit. Tell them: 'Come here if

> you like. Don't come if you don't like. Only try to see for yourself.

> Don't blindly accept what others say.'"

>

> Cathie kindly wrote to Ellen, trying to "defend" this group. We thank

> you. But the legitimacy or otherwise of this group lies not in

> convincing Ellen or anyone else of our value -- it lies in putting

> forth accurate information about an ancient, complex and beautiful

> religious system. It was here for millennia before we were, and it

> will be here millennia after we are gone.

>

> Social and ideological agendas change with the times, and get stale

> and dated very quickly. These are the swirls and eddys on the edges of

> a great river. They rise, swirl, make a commotion -- a great deal of

> noise and foam -- and then the rejoin the river and flow on. Shaktism

> is the river. You are shortchanging yourself if you get so busy

> studying the busy, percolating eddys along the edges that you miss the

> majestic flow of the Whole.

>

> Cathy wrote: ***It is my understanding that this list is run by two

> women. ***

>

> We have five moderators now. Among us are both women and men;

> heterosexual, gay and lesbian; Indian, Asian, African and European;

> and distributed around the globe; three are Srividya initiates in two

> different lineages; one will be soon, one is not interested in

> Srividya. That's astonishingly diverse. We did not plan it that way.

> That is how it evolved. Pretty extraordinary.

>

> Who "runs" the group? We all do. No one is "boss." No one sets an

> "agenda." The group is technically "owned" by an umbrella ID to which

> we all have access. That ID "added" each of us as moderators. Any one

> of us could conceiveably enter the umbrella ID and delete any other

> moderator, or delete the whole group for that matter. The only thing

> that holds us together is love and trust. Some have advised us that

> this is a risky way of doing business. But the thing is, it's not a

> business. If the love and trust are not strong enough to hold us

> together, then we have no right being here under Devi's name.

>

> Cathy told Ellen: *** You've made your point: you want MORE WOMEN

> SHAKTAS ***

>

> The thing is, they exist, and in great number. They are not

> "oppressed"; they are not "used". Perhaps the reason why Ellen is not

> finding them is that her call does not resonate. Eastern feminism

> indeed exists, and is very powerful. But is it not at all similar to

> Western feminism. It is not better or worse -- it is just different.

>

> Shaktism, you see, does not really lend itself to extended discussion

> in a vacuum. Sure, the tossing around of technical terms and dueling

> esoteric tracts and ideologies (of which one wise friend once

> hilariously quipped, "Wow, look at them polishing their yonis and

> linghams!") is interesting for a while. But ultimately it means

> nothing unless you eventually switch off the damned computer and go to

> your pooja room (or pooja corner, or whatever your space is) -- and

> begin the worship. Begin working with japa and other rituals.

> Cultivate bhakti. Read the texts. Hell, learn Sanskrit -- it's not an

> impossible skill for a normal human being to acquire, and it almost

> immediately begins opening new levels of understanding.

>

> Unlike many faiths, which say, "Believe or you will be damned!" ...

> Shaktism says, "Try it, then decide." Work with the techniques. See if

> they deliver what the rishis promise. Find out for yourself who Devi

> is and what Her worship implies and delivers -- rather than fighting

> over what you think it might end up being. Again I refer you to

> Amrita's front page statement: "Try to see for yourself. Don't blindly

> accept what others say."

>

> I do not mean to insult Ellen, or anyone else you comes here with lots

> of opinions and critiques. It makes the board interesting. But until

> you actually try it, it is just absurd to judge it. Shaktism can only

> be understood in the most limited and sterile fashion from the

> outside. To get to the essence, you have to step inside, at least for

> a little while. Otherwise, you're like a music reviewer writing about

> a concert you didn't attend or an album you've never listened to. It

> shows.

>

> Aum MAtangyai NamaH

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I do not personally believe (as I've said as nauseum and will continue

to say) that the gender of the group moderators should be a factor is

determining whether the group is "legitimate" or not. I am also

experienced enough to know that what I believe matters to few, and

will change the minds of even fewer.

 

That's why our front page contains this "statement of purpose," penned

by the great Shakta teacher Sri Amritananda Natha Saraswati: "Make

information available. Let people take it or leave it, think it is

true or false. All that matters is: Are you convinced that this is the

way? Let people judge you as they think fit. Tell them: 'Come here if

you like. Don't come if you don't like. Only try to see for yourself.

Don't blindly accept what others say.'"

 

Cathie kindly wrote to Ellen, trying to "defend" this group. We thank

you. But the legitimacy or otherwise of this group lies not in

convincing Ellen or anyone else of our value -- it lies in putting

forth accurate information about an ancient, complex and beautiful

religious system. It was here for millennia before we were, and it

will be here millennia after we are gone.

 

Social and ideological agendas change with the times, and get stale

and dated very quickly. These are the swirls and eddys on the edges of

a great river. They rise, swirl, make a commotion -- a great deal of

noise and foam -- and then the rejoin the river and flow on. Shaktism

is the river. You are shortchanging yourself if you get so busy

studying the busy, percolating eddys along the edges that you miss the

majestic flow of the Whole.

 

Cathy wrote: ***It is my understanding that this list is run by two

women. ***

 

We have five moderators now. Among us are both women and men;

heterosexual, gay and lesbian; Indian, Asian, African and European;

and distributed around the globe; three are Srividya initiates in two

different lineages; one will be soon, one is not interested in

Srividya. That's astonishingly diverse. We did not plan it that way.

That is how it evolved. Pretty extraordinary.

 

Who "runs" the group? We all do. No one is "boss." No one sets an

"agenda." The group is technically "owned" by an umbrella ID to which

we all have access. That ID "added" each of us as moderators. Any one

of us could conceiveably enter the umbrella ID and delete any other

moderator, or delete the whole group for that matter. The only thing

that holds us together is love and trust. Some have advised us that

this is a risky way of doing business. But the thing is, it's not a

business. If the love and trust are not strong enough to hold us

together, then we have no right being here under Devi's name.

 

Cathy told Ellen: *** You've made your point: you want MORE WOMEN

SHAKTAS ***

 

The thing is, they exist, and in great number. They are not

"oppressed"; they are not "used". Perhaps the reason why Ellen is not

finding them is that her call does not resonate. Eastern feminism

indeed exists, and is very powerful. But is it not at all similar to

Western feminism. It is not better or worse -- it is just different.

 

Shaktism, you see, does not really lend itself to extended discussion

in a vacuum. Sure, the tossing around of technical terms and dueling

esoteric tracts and ideologies (of which one wise friend once

hilariously quipped, "Wow, look at them polishing their yonis and

linghams!") is interesting for a while. But ultimately it means

nothing unless you eventually switch off the damned computer and go to

your pooja room (or pooja corner, or whatever your space is) -- and

begin the worship. Begin working with japa and other rituals.

Cultivate bhakti. Read the texts. Hell, learn Sanskrit -- it's not an

impossible skill for a normal human being to acquire, and it almost

immediately begins opening new levels of understanding.

 

Unlike many faiths, which say, "Believe or you will be damned!" ...

Shaktism says, "Try it, then decide." Work with the techniques. See if

they deliver what the rishis promise. Find out for yourself who Devi

is and what Her worship implies and delivers -- rather than fighting

over what you think it might end up being. Again I refer you to

Amrita's front page statement: "Try to see for yourself. Don't blindly

accept what others say."

 

I do not mean to insult Ellen, or anyone else you comes here with lots

of opinions and critiques. It makes the board interesting. But until

you actually try it, it is just absurd to judge it. Shaktism can only

be understood in the most limited and sterile fashion from the

outside. To get to the essence, you have to step inside, at least for

a little while. Otherwise, you're like a music reviewer writing about

a concert you didn't attend or an album you've never listened to. It

shows.

 

Aum MAtangyai NamaH

[Guest guest]

I have made comments here and there about miscellaneous topics, which I have

a -little- bit of knowledge on, but for the most part, I have been trying my

best (I say try for whether or not I succeeded is your judgment) to keep a

little bit in the shadows, apart from a few questions here and there, until

I learn a bit more about Shaktism...THEN I can start adding a few coins to

the bowl.

 

Though this little ego has been guilty of a few hasty impulses, I try not to

make any absolute judgments on anyone; hence I been keeping quiet on some of

the more dead-heated arguments. When I come to a situation that forces me

to retaliate, I try to react in ways that would require the least amount of

struggling; when I am forced to respond in a vocal manner, I do best to use

tact in my words so that I do not come across as too judgmental or noisy

(again, I had a few moments where I fell to this trap).

 

Long story cut short, I want to take the time that I feel a sense of home

here so far. Everyone is helpful, acknowledges that all religious paths are

valid in their own ways, clarifies any misconceptions, and over all, from

what I can see, understands that humans error and will not get too uptight

over a minor mistake. I am learning quite a bit here, and wish to learn

more in the future. I am also taking the time to read translations of Hindu

scriptures so that I can get the "feel" for the basics (I have not read them

all, but one step at a time ). In the future, when finances are less

tight, I plan to buy more books on Shaktism - until then, though, I will

keep my eyes peeled for highlight topics and read the posts surrounding

them.

 

I thank you all for contributing to the beauty of this group. Hopefully, my

ramble was not a waste. *smiles*

 

Blessings,

>"Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta

>

>

> The What, Why and Who of the Group

>Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:37:03 -0000

>

>

>I do not personally believe (as I've said as nauseum and will continue

>to say) that the gender of the group moderators should be a factor is

>determining whether the group is "legitimate" or not. I am also

>experienced enough to know that what I believe matters to few, and

>will change the minds of even fewer.

>

>That's why our front page contains this "statement of purpose," penned

>by the great Shakta teacher Sri Amritananda Natha Saraswati: "Make

>information available. Let people take it or leave it, think it is

>true or false. All that matters is: Are you convinced that this is the

>way? Let people judge you as they think fit. Tell them: 'Come here if

>you like. Don't come if you don't like. Only try to see for yourself.

>Don't blindly accept what others say.'"

>

>Cathie kindly wrote to Ellen, trying to "defend" this group. We thank

>you. But the legitimacy or otherwise of this group lies not in

>convincing Ellen or anyone else of our value -- it lies in putting

>forth accurate information about an ancient, complex and beautiful

>religious system. It was here for millennia before we were, and it

>will be here millennia after we are gone.

>

>Social and ideological agendas change with the times, and get stale

>and dated very quickly. These are the swirls and eddys on the edges of

>a great river. They rise, swirl, make a commotion -- a great deal of

>noise and foam -- and then the rejoin the river and flow on. Shaktism

>is the river. You are shortchanging yourself if you get so busy

>studying the busy, percolating eddys along the edges that you miss the

>majestic flow of the Whole.

>

>Cathy wrote: ***It is my understanding that this list is run by two

>women. ***

>

>We have five moderators now. Among us are both women and men;

>heterosexual, gay and lesbian; Indian, Asian, African and European;

>and distributed around the globe; three are Srividya initiates in two

>different lineages; one will be soon, one is not interested in

>Srividya. That's astonishingly diverse. We did not plan it that way.

>That is how it evolved. Pretty extraordinary.

>

>Who "runs" the group? We all do. No one is "boss." No one sets an

>"agenda." The group is technically "owned" by an umbrella ID to which

>we all have access. That ID "added" each of us as moderators. Any one

>of us could conceiveably enter the umbrella ID and delete any other

>moderator, or delete the whole group for that matter. The only thing

>that holds us together is love and trust. Some have advised us that

>this is a risky way of doing business. But the thing is, it's not a

>business. If the love and trust are not strong enough to hold us

>together, then we have no right being here under Devi's name.

>

>Cathy told Ellen: *** You've made your point: you want MORE WOMEN

>SHAKTAS ***

>

>The thing is, they exist, and in great number. They are not

>"oppressed"; they are not "used". Perhaps the reason why Ellen is not

>finding them is that her call does not resonate. Eastern feminism

>indeed exists, and is very powerful. But is it not at all similar to

>Western feminism. It is not better or worse -- it is just different.

>

>Shaktism, you see, does not really lend itself to extended discussion

>in a vacuum. Sure, the tossing around of technical terms and dueling

>esoteric tracts and ideologies (of which one wise friend once

>hilariously quipped, "Wow, look at them polishing their yonis and

>linghams!") is interesting for a while. But ultimately it means

>nothing unless you eventually switch off the damned computer and go to

>your pooja room (or pooja corner, or whatever your space is) -- and

>begin the worship. Begin working with japa and other rituals.

>Cultivate bhakti. Read the texts. Hell, learn Sanskrit -- it's not an

>impossible skill for a normal human being to acquire, and it almost

>immediately begins opening new levels of understanding.

>

>Unlike many faiths, which say, "Believe or you will be damned!" ...

>Shaktism says, "Try it, then decide." Work with the techniques. See if

>they deliver what the rishis promise. Find out for yourself who Devi

>is and what Her worship implies and delivers -- rather than fighting

>over what you think it might end up being. Again I refer you to

>Amrita's front page statement: "Try to see for yourself. Don't blindly

>accept what others say."

>

>I do not mean to insult Ellen, or anyone else you comes here with lots

>of opinions and critiques. It makes the board interesting. But until

>you actually try it, it is just absurd to judge it. Shaktism can only

>be understood in the most limited and sterile fashion from the

>outside. To get to the essence, you have to step inside, at least for

>a little while. Otherwise, you're like a music reviewer writing about

>a concert you didn't attend or an album you've never listened to. It

>shows.

>

>Aum MAtangyai NamaH

>

>

>

 

_______________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/