Male Shaktas Lack Credibility (To Ellen)

[Guest guest]

Listen Ellen.

 

I am going to speak very plainly. I am growing more than

a little bored of your rants here. I've said it before and I will say

it again in case you missed it. People coming from Non-Hindu

backgrounds and spiritual orientations are welcome here. Flaming,

personal insults and petty bickering are not.

 

It may (but more likely may not) interest you to know that some of

the male shaktas on this board (who you are charitable enough to

dismiss as "snobby" and "middle class") happen to worship the Divine

Mother in Her aspect of Kali.

 

It would be nice if you would take even a little time to actually

learn something about Saktism and Tantra before you dismiss things

off handedly. This minimal knowledge might actually lead you to post

something productive on this board.

 

The expicitly stated purpose of this board *is* Sakti Sadhana.

If "you never thought your path was in Shakta" as you state below

(and that would be Saktism for the record, Ellen) then perhaps you

should ask yourself why you are here?

 

 

~SE101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, "Ellen McGowen"

<ellen.mcgowen@w...> wrote:

>

> Dear Cathie

>

> --- SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

>

> >>> Do we have a woman president? No we do not. <<<

>

> As far as I am concerned, the US is now the world's leading imperial

> conqueror and we are pretty much living in the Roman Empire, v 2.0.

> The explosion of new religions in the last century is no accident.

Such

> powers emerge together with the seeds of their own destruction.

>

> But the US does not claim to serve the Goddess; Shakta does.

>

> >>> "How will you remedy this situation where men have dominated

for so long?" <<<

>

> By breaking all the institutions that maintain masculation. Why do

you think

> the "family values" people are so frightened? They know they are

loosing key

> social institutions for maintaining patriarchy.

>

> >>> "By transcending it -- through creating your own utopian realm

where only

> women rule?" <<<

>

> No, I believe in an immanent divine, not a transcendent divine.

E.g Goddess

> is immanent in feminist political activism.

>

> >>> "While you are in that realm, you will become incapable of

effecting changes in the realm you have just transcended, by the

simple virtue of your

> need to be Beyond it." <<<

>

> It is not impossible to have both. The whole aim, as I see it, is

to take

> sacred space and grow it until it is the world.

>

> >>> "If you want to change something, you have to go down into it."

<<<

>

> Or create an alternative if it is too entrenched to change.

>

> >>> "If you want to change something within this religion, study

it, learn it,

> BECOME a Female Guru yourself, and spread a positive message

encouraging

> otherwomen to do so." <<<

>

> That is exactly what Chandra Alexandre is doing, and since she

understands

> women's oppression and mixes in elements from other

traditions, "real men" Shaktas here seem to think it is quite

laughable. They sneer at the notion that

> Shakta should be concerned with women who are "victims of abuse or

has different sexual orientation.". Ma is apparently supposed to be

as heartless as these men. After all, abuse is only an illusion and

it is the victim's fault if she is abused.

>

> Or they see it in terms of simple phallocracy, as in this gem:

>

> "Men has biologically something which woman does not have (or which

> they have only in a primordial form). If they forever become

obsessed

> with not having something which they are not supposed to have, there

> will be very different customs and practices built."

>

> What this says to me is that the alternative path is the way to go,

> especially in the west. IMO, India needs second wave feminism far

more than it needs marginal improvements in Shakta. And no woman

anywhere benefits from a

> philosophy that preaches that babies and kittens are illusions.

These men do not have a clue of what Ma is about, any more than

Catholic theologians speaking for Mary do.

>

> >>> "Start your own version of Shakti," <<<

>

> No, I think Chandra's version is fine. But my path lies elsewhere;

my matron

> Goddess is the Cretan/Old European Serpent Mother. Also, I worry

that Shakta is too dependent on expressing itself through Sanskrit

terminology, and that is an serious impediment for most western women.

>

> In the west the draw is "Tantric sex". Guys will do anything for

sex, even

> learn a few words of Sanskrit if they must...

>

> >>> "You've made your point: you want MORE WOMEN SHAKTA or only

women Shakta,

> but it seems you are shouting into the wind and how will you bring

about

> something that you have no power over?." <<<

>

> Yes, I am shouting into the North wind, blowing down from the

steppes of

> western Siberia, and I hear the sound of horses' hooves.

>

> >>> "By complaining, you are not going to get all the Men to

leave." <<<

>

> I was more interested in getting the women to speak up. I wanted to

see whether they are tamed Athenas who will say whatever Apollo tells

them to say, or whether they are Antigones, who know the Law Below.

But I think I know the answer now.

>

> >>> "It seems to me the only rational course of action is to become

the one you

> are looking for, and those who need to align with your personal

Wisdom, will

> seek you out." <<<

>

> Very true. But I never thought my path was in Shakta, even though I

am very fond of Kali. And I love Her taste in jewelry; especially

that necklace of warlords... er demon lords' heads. The perfect

accessory. Every Goddess should have one. In a way, I am pleased to

learn that Kali is unpopular with snobby (or is that sattavic?)

middle class male Shaktas. It fits. So does everything about her

incomprehensible Avatar, Ramakrishna.

>

> Jai Ma Kali, Jai!

> Ellen