Shaktism and Sha'can

[Guest guest]

Dear Erin:

 

[Warning to casual readers: This is long!]

 

Thanks for your detailed answers. Reading all of it has been an

education for me. Your group's work is interesting indeed and I

thank you for taking the time to share it in detail. We appear to be

on slightly different trains, but with similar schedules and stops

and certainly the same destination. *lol*

 

Anyway, it is good to see that we might consider ourselves allies

and fellow travelers; Shaktism (and yes, its various sub-schools,

lineages, offshoots, and permutations, within which I'd have to

include Sha'can) unfortunately remains a minority path in India and

certainly in the world at large. Those of us who share its wisdom in

whatever form ought to stick together. It is not just pretty words

when I say that I believe the fate of the world may ultimately

depend on it, not to mention the peace and fulfillment of millions

of individuals.

 

*** To tell you the truth, it's so based in experience, that it's

difficult to put into words, or encapsulate in just a few words, so

I apologize at the length of this email! ***

 

I understand ;-) ... Please know that your effort was much

appreciated.

 

*** the philosophy can be difficult for Western minds to grasp. ...

many Western practitioners do want to worship Indian goddesses, but

aren't sure how, and don't really know where to begin. There aren't

a lot of authentic teachers of the Shakta path here. … we provide a

middle path that helps to train willing participants in a spiritual

discipline that brings together ancient practices from the Western

path as well as the Eastern path, where we have found that those

paths fit together. ***

 

True enough. Your efforts are surely of value to many, and again I

stress that I seek to understand only; not to criticize. It reminds

me of a concept I learned long ago, when I was learning Russian –

which, like Sanskrit, presents the Western learner with not only a

very different grammar and vocabulary, but also an unfamiliar

alphabet and sound system. As any person who knows more than one

language will understand, it's not just new words that one must

learn; it's new ways of putting words together. My teacher

encouraged me to learn what he called a "middle language" – i.e.

English structured and presented as Russian. Thus the basic "My name

is Viktor" -- menya zovut Viktor -- is remembered as "Of-me they-

call Victor." She has a dog -- u neyo sobachka yest' -- becomes "By-

her a dog is." You see? In this way you begin to reconfigure your

brain to new means of expressing familiar thoughts through familiar

words.

 

In some ways, your explanation of your faith reminds me of a more

complicated kind of middle language –- in fact, your post described

it more than once as a "middle path" -- connecting the known to the

unknown, presenting new ideas and thought patterns in more familiar

cultural terms. As with the "middle language" as a learning tool,

some minds found the concept extremely useful; others found it

superfluous and unnecessary. Neither position was correct or

incorrect; it all depends on the individual.

 

*** To the point, the path we walk is a sort of middle path that

embraces the spiritual-political feminist philosophies of the West,

as well as the spiritual philosophies of Shakta Tantra in the East.

… It is simply one way for Westerners to access Shakta in their own

spiritual language. What we do, in essence, is use the

phenomenological similarities between the two religions to build a

bridge for Westerners to the Shakta path. In fact, much of modern

Wiccan ritual comes from Hermetic ritual, which is an amalgam of

various ritual traditions, including Hindu Tantra. We pick up on

those connecting threads and weave them together. ***

 

I understand, but would argue that what you are offering is an

alternative system, not so much an access point to Shaktism --

because the leap would probably involve "unlearning" many of the non-

Shakta elements of your mix. As your study will have revealed to

you, any Tantric path involves very strictly choreographed ritual

usage, and the Shakta paths are like that too. When you stray from

that, you are creating something different – it may be good, it may

be bad; it may work beautifully, it may be problematic. But it's not

Shakta anymore.

 

For one example, I'd mention some of the ritual mantras and prayers –

I would agree it is important to know what they mean, which could

require translation into English or whatever language. But the

Sanskrit language itself is the "garland of letters" upon which

these formulas depend; its vibrations matter as much as the

devotional content – from the perspective of Tantra. What you are

left with is Bhakti, which is vital and powerful indeed; but

separating it from the Sanskrit is like separating lyrics from

music – they may still have their beauty and meaning, but you're

missing at least half the experience and impact of the whole.

 

*** while we chant in Sanskrit, we also spend a considerable amount

of time unpacking and translating the Sanskrit, and explaining the

ritual components ***

 

Okay, I see. Perhaps this answers my concerns stated above.

 

By the way, an off-board correspondent suggested yesterday that I

was erring altogether by trying to understand your group from a

Shakta perspective. She told me it is straight Neo-paganism, pure

and simple, and that it will only make sense if I look at it from

that angle. Do you believe this is correct?

 

*** in addition, the Hindu tradition (and particularly Tantra) is a

long and extremely complex one, and is very difficult to wrap your

head around from a Western perspective … Much of the understanding

is only gained with time and patience, as well as study and practice

(as anything). ***

 

True indeed. But again – is it really possible to shortcut the

process?

 

*** For [some members of your group], it is the beginning of a long

journey that may lead them to eventually finding a guru and learning

Sanskrit, or perhaps living in India and immersing themselves in the

culture. ***

 

Perhaps so. Have you had any members who have done so?

 

*** we believe that each person has a level of involvement that is

appropriate for them. ***

 

Yes indeed!

 

*** Of course, you and I know that Devi is everywhere, all the time,

in all things, even ourselves, as we are all part of the universal

oneness, but it's the process of training the body and the mind to

pay attention that's the hard part. ***

 

This is very wise and well stated.

 

*** we are here to help guide those who feel drawn to Devi at

whatever level or from whichever perspective they've come from. We

work on providing authentic and accurate information and practice to

these seekers. ***

 

What can I say? It seems like good work.

 

*** In addition, the Western mindset generally requires

authentication of some sort - where did this person study? What

makes them so special? ***

 

I think the Hindu systems require no less, though the focus is on

lineage and reputation rather than academic degrees and recognition

by state agencies.

 

*** if you met Chandra, you would realize that she is ultimately an

enormously humble individual who strives to maintain an egalitarian

structure amongst all who practice in the tradition. ***

 

This is nice to hear. I should reiterate that we have no argument

whatsoever with Chandra. Please see my previous message in response

to Max Dashu.

 

*** She believes (I think rightly) that any teacher learns as much

(if not more) from the student as the student learns from the

teacher ***

 

I agree as well. My guru, Sri Amritananda Natha Saraswati of

Devipuram, states it thus: "Normally we tend to place the guru on a

pedestal, high up above, and think that we have obey or listen to

whatever he or she says. That is not the real meaning. The real

meaning of the guru and sishya relationship is more like a

transmitter and receiver. When I'm talking and you're listening, I'm

the guru and you are the chela or sishya. But when you're talking

and I'm listening, you're the transmitter and I'm the receiver; so

you're the guru and I'm the sishya. See, in advaita, it becomes very

clear that you're not really talking to somebody else when you're

talking to somebody else. You're talking to yourself when you're

talking to somebody else because the talker and listener are one.

You learn to see the oneness of yourself with the other. Therefore,

the talker and the listener become one. In that sense the

relationship between guru and sishya is just a resonance with your

self, being in tune with yourself."

 

*** Chandra explicitly does not hold herself out as a guru. Our

system is egalitarian in nature, and does not require or request

participants to pledge to a guru. ***

 

Thank you for this explanation.

 

*** The system is incredibly complicated and often intimidating to

Westerners. (and in many cases has been devolved into popular yoga

studios and the like that don't really teach the wisdom behind the

practice, just offer the trappings). In particular, many Westerners

feel that if they are not Indian, they cannot be Hindus (and many

Hindu Indians feel the same way about Westerners becoming Hindus - a

popular, though not universal, notion is that one must be born a

Hindu). Our community serves a population that desires to access

this material and learn about it from a qualified teacher, but do

not necessarily wish to become Hindus. We do not convert people to

Hinduism. I think some use us as a jumping-off point to dive deeper

into the material, and others find our tradition to be just the

right thing. Others discover it's not really what they're looking

for, but appreciate the experience. ***

 

All of this sounds reasonable enough. A healthy attitude ;-)

 

*** we are Kaula in the sense that we are part of the

larger "family," and have received the lineage teachings. ***

 

This is a problematic statement from an authentic perspective, but

again I must stress that I am not judging; I am simply listening and

learning. Please know that there are many Kaula lineages.

 

*** we are also feminists, and one focus of ours is embracing the

feminine divine, as well as depathologizing the masculine divine -

all of which is completely and utterly radical in the West. … in

fact, the goddess is hated in much of Western culture …, and is

indicative of the continued subjugation and objectification of women

in our culture. ***

 

This is an interesting perspective. There has been a lot of debate

in this group about whether Shaktism is misunderstood if one

attempts to view it through the filter of modern social/gender

dynamics. My personal opinion is that it's a balancing act. If you

understand Devi too thoroughly in terms of gross/sthana human

gender, then you risk missing more than half the point. However, if

you refuse to come to terms with the fact that Devi is indeed that

Feminine Divine, and that this is a distinction that matters

profoundly, then you risk missing the other half of the point of

Shakta as opposed to the other Hindu systems.

 

*** Many feminists in India, for instance, have rejected their

spiritual traditions because traditional Hinduism (including Tantra)

has propitiated the subjugation of women through strict gender

roles, tradition, goddess imagery, etc. Chandra has worked with

Indian feminists, however, who believe that Devi can be used to

empower women. ***

 

Yes, the relationship of Indian feminism to the role of the feminine

in Hindu cosmology is a good illustration of the difficulty of this

area of "using" religion to promote particular socio-political ends.

Obviously, Madhu Khanna is the pioneer in this area, but I think the

debate is really becoming more interesting and widespread. For

instance, the catalogs of both the "Devi" exhibit in Washington DC a

few years back (edited by Vidya Dehejia), and the more

recent "Woman/Goddess" photography exhibit in Delhi (edited by

Gayatri Sinha), contained a wonderfully thought provoking essays by

a wide range of serious thinkers on such topics. The relevance and

importance of these social aspects are hard (and I would argue

foolish) to ignore – so long as it does not dilute and defuse the

pure, demonstrable "try it and see" power of the authentic tradition.

 

*** Initiation does equal diksha in a sense. … This initiation is

all that is required to be a full member of the tradition. The

gradual process of progression and ordination within the structure

of the organization is again the Western influence. Not everyone

will progress. Not everyone will want to. Those who are sincere, and

who do the inner and outer work, and exhibit the signs that they are

ready to progress to the next level will certainly do so. If

participants do not do these things, and they are not ready, then

they will not receive initiation. We don't believe in simply

initiating people because they feel entitled to it. ***

 

Again, thanks for the explanation.

 

*** I think there have been Western feminists who have borrowed Kali

and other goddesses as symbols of feminine power, without really

delving in, doing the research, and finding the real information,

and the real spiritual teachings behind it all. … It's sloppy

scholarship. And I think there is a lot of sloppy spiritual work

that has been done. ***

 

Quite frankly, as you probably divined, that was my initial

assumption about your group. It is gratifying to hear that you are

aware of these problems and have taken steps to avoid them. I agree

with you, it *is* "sloppy," and it deprives those who believe it of

the much more interesting, much more powerful and beautiful reality

of the system.

 

*** Also, in the Western goddess spirituality movement, there is a

tremendous amount of fear surrounding certain Indian goddesses,

particularly Kali in her various forms, as well as even Durga. ***

 

Wow. This is interesting. I did not know about this.

 

*** I have heard stories from members of our community who have

talked to Indians about Kali puja, and if they are not from certain

areas where Kali is the beloved mother (specifically, Bengal, Assam

or Orissa), they are shunned, or told that "Kali is like when you

take a shit - it's necessary, but it's dirty and you don't look at

it." (that is an exact quote!) I myself was speaking to a Parsi

woman at school a couple of years ago before I learned to be more

judicious with who I told about my practice, and mentioned my

personal interest in Shakta Tantra, and she literally ended the

conversation and ran the other way! ***

 

Yes, there is definitely fear and misinformation in India. Always

has been. In practice, that has served – along with the secrecy,

initiation requirements – as part of the way in which the authentic

tradition is preserved. I would note that it is quite common for

even fully initiated Shakta practitioner – even at the highest

levels – to speak disparagingly or dismissively of the tradition

when conversing with someone from outside it.

 

*** We provide a way for people who may be otherwise afraid to

access Kali, and around here it's difficult to find Shakta

practitioners or even anyone who will acknowledge Kali as a viable

goddess. ***

 

Yes, in India also there are attempts to bring some of these things

into the open, removing fear and revulsion by reasoned discourse and

clear, practical explanations. The feeling is that the time for

secrecy has passed, and that these things should be brought out into

the open as a valuation counterbalance to the destructiveness and

cruelty of the dominant ideologies operative in the world today.

 

Amritananda's Devipuram – the temple featured in our ongoing

Khadgamala Devis series – is, by the way, one of the prime examples

of this trend. Do you know about his efforts? As you might imagine,

however, there is considerable resistance. It is very divisive issue

even within the various Srividya lineages, and certainly in the

larger Hindu community. Thankfully, it is not yet on Christian and

Muslim radar screens, giving the movement some time to breathe and

grow and develop. ;-)

 

*** We have had people of all backgrounds at our pujas, including

Indian Americans, who have expressed gratitude at our treatment and

transformation of the ritual and the energy present. ***

 

That is great to hear.

 

*** as for Ganesha toilet seats and Lakshmi underwear, I think that

a strict policy of non-dualism (such as the Aghoris follow, for

instance) would say that such things are not necessarily bad, but

may remind us that divinity is in every place and every action, even

while sitting on the toilet. … This is a whole OTHER discussion,

however. ***

 

True enough; it is an issue of cultural respect. The assumption

being that the designers and marketers of these items are not

covertly trying to promote advaita. ;-)

 

*** An image of Maa Tara she'd recently acquired was the only thing

left unbroken in her hotel room. She took this as a sign, and went

immediately the next day to a Kali temple to offer thanks for her

safety throughout the ordeal. This is where she met Shyam, who had

been told by his guru that he would someday meet a Westerner that he

would teach the Shakta path to, who would take it to the West.

Through various signs, he recognized Chandra as this person.

Recognizing his offer to teach her as a rare opportunity, she spent

the next several months and years studying with him. ***

 

Wow! What a story! I had no idea.

 

*** At any rate, the reason for Sha'can is that some of us feel the

desire to make Shakta rituals more familiar to our Western minds.

And we find that as we go deeper into it, we lose many of the

Western components, and it becomes purer Shakta/Eastern ritual. As I

said, Sha'can was created as a bridge, and some enjoy going on one

side or the other, and some prefer to stay in the middle. We are

simply there to facilitate that process, and to encourage the

unfolding of the individual, and the deepening of their commitment

to their own path. ***

 

Nicely put. Do I correctly detect that your personal practice leans

more toward the side of pure Shakta? Because, having read all that

you had to say, I feel that your interests and practices may not be

so very different from what we are trying to teach and inform about

here.

 

Warmest regards

 

DB

[Guest guest]

Could you say more about this, or is there

somewhere I could read about it online? BTW,

thanks for responding to my concerns about the

earlier discussion, DB.

 

Max

>Amritananda's Devipuram – the temple featured in our ongoing

>Khadgamala Devis series – is, by the way, one of the prime examples

>of this trend. Do you know about his efforts? As you might imagine,

>however, there is considerable resistance. It is very divisive issue

>even within the various Srividya lineages, and certainly in the

>larger Hindu community.

 

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi again,

 

I'm happy to continue the discussion, and glad for its continued

openness... I'd also like to warn casual readers of the length of this

post, the product of this ongoing discussion.

>

> In some ways, your explanation of your faith reminds me of a more

> complicated kind of middle language –- in fact, your post described

> it more than once as a "middle path" -- connecting the known to the

> unknown, presenting new ideas and thought patterns in more familiar

> cultural terms. As with the "middle language" as a learning tool,

> some minds found the concept extremely useful; others found it

> superfluous and unnecessary. Neither position was correct or

> incorrect; it all depends on the individual.

*snip*

>

> I understand, but would argue that what you are offering is an

> alternative system, not so much an access point to Shaktism --

> because the leap would probably involve "unlearning" many of the non-

> Shakta elements of your mix. As your study will have revealed to

> you, any Tantric path involves very strictly choreographed ritual

> usage, and the Shakta paths are like that too. When you stray from

> that, you are creating something different – it may be good, it may

> be bad; it may work beautifully, it may be problematic. But it's not

> Shakta anymore.

 

I had a long talk with Chandra tonight (who is not a member of this

email list), and we were discussing in depth the Sha'can tradition. It

was good for me, because it helped to further ground me in the

tradition itself, and helped me to more fully understand the depth of

it. The questions I asked her were meant to clarify my understanding,

as well as to help convey to you (and myself) her thoughts on the

matter. Since she is the founder, as well as the one who received

diksha from Shyam, and the one who passes everything down, then it is

her who would have the most to say about it, since she knows Shakta

Tantra most intimately.

 

What she affirmed for me is that Sha'can is in fact pure,

unadulterated Shakta Tantra. What is different is that the entire

process is made more accessible to the Western practitioner. I was

unsure to this point exactly how much was a mixture, and how much was

pure. My background is in Western earth-based traditions, you see, and

so it's difficult for me to know where one ends and the other begins.

I have only been on the Sha'can path for a little over two years, and

so there is much that I have still to learn (I will always be

learning, in fact).

 

What she stressed is that what she teaches is the pure transmission of

Shakta Tantra, of what she was taught through her lineage, through

Shyam Sundar Dash, founder and priest of the Maa Batakali Temple in

Puri. She unrolled for me the beautiful letter scroll he wrote

endorsing and approving her work and teaching in America, as well,

which I hadn't seen before. The initiation she performs is true

diksha, down to the ceremonial and energetic components (which I am

not at liberty to discuss). It is exactly as she was taught to perform

it. Her method of teaching is a bit gentler in some ways for the

Westerner than one would receive in India, however.

 

The primary difference is that the structure of teaching, and the

vehicle of learning, is modified for the Western cultural perspective.

The structure of SHARANYA is not based on heirarchy, as in the

guru-shishya relationship that is so often abused or misinterpreted

(or not so eloquently as put by your guru), but rather a community in

which everyone is valued as equal, and everyone has an equal voice.

Information is readily accessible to those who commit to the path.

Chandra isn't as harsh with us as her teacher was with her, but she

unfolds the wisdom in a way that makes sense to Western minds. This is

where the elements of Western earth-based tradition comes in.

 

And truly, throughout history, when hasn't the tradition adapted

itself to its environment, to the methods that work for that time or

that culture, or that group of learners? How can one make orthodox an

inherently heterodox tradition? Even within India, the six major

systems borrowed from each other and merged into each other. The Gita

itself is an example of the synthesis of various

socio-spiritual-cultural ideas into something new and different.

Before the Bhagavad Gita, women and Sudras were denied any kind of

salvation, for example. What a radical shift!

 

In the same spirit, lacking an indigenous spiritual tradition as

Western feminist women in America, she turned to the Craft (an

indigenous European tradition) as an appropriate bridge between East

and West. What she has created is quite seamless, from my perspective.

The more I study and learn, the better questions I learn to ask, and

the more I learn that Chandra has a deep well of wisdom in the Sakta

Tantric tradition. It is not Sakta Tantra as in Sri Vidya, but it is

Sakta Tantra as in the worship of Kali as the Ultimate, and the

mysteries beyond that.

 

Again, I think anything beyond this explanation would be

superfluous... it really must be experienced to be fully understood.

>

> By the way, an off-board correspondent suggested yesterday that I

> was erring altogether by trying to understand your group from a

> Shakta perspective. She told me it is straight Neo-paganism, pure

> and simple, and that it will only make sense if I look at it from

> that angle. Do you believe this is correct?

>

 

We are not neo-pagan at all. We don't even consider our path to be

pagan. We are Sakta Tantra made accessible to the West. I think an

experience of our puja and teaching circles would put that to rest. We

do outreach at pagan conferences and the like, because there are many

in that community who are interested in our work, and as I mentioned

before, many in that community who are aware of Ma Kali, but who are

afraid of her, or who misappropriate or misinterpret her. Our work is

to educate and inform, and facilitate authentic experience, and to

extend a hand of welcome for those who have been searching for

something like us. Again, our framework for teaching is Western, and

comes from Chandra's family lineage in the Craft, but the content is

pure Sakta Tantra.

> *** in addition, the Hindu tradition (and particularly Tantra) is a

> long and extremely complex one, and is very difficult to wrap your

> head around from a Western perspective … Much of the understanding

> is only gained with time and patience, as well as study and practice

> (as anything). ***

>

> True indeed. But again – is it really possible to shortcut the

> process?

>

 

We don't try to shortcut the process at all. As I said, I have been in

rigorous, deep and continuous study on this path for over two years,

and I still feel as if I am a baby just beginning to take first steps.

I have been working in the earth-based spirituality community for over

a decade, and know that energy and how to communicate with it fairly

well. Sakta Tantra feels like it's part of who I am, like there is a

deep connection there that is familiar and true, but the depths of the

tradition are such that I walk very carefully, and simply have to

trust the process. I know much more than the average person, but the

depth of the tradition is incredibly complex. Learning Sanskrit is

definitely helping the process, as the language itself has certain

depths that can only be understood by learning it. Learning Sanskrit

has, as well, helped my study with Chandra, as she's able to more

easily explicate concepts in the way that can only be done between a

teacher and student who are both familiar with the language. My

learning has been at once deep and steady. But I certainly don't feel

that Chandra has tried to shortcut anything... I don't think any of us

believe it's really possible to shortcut what is an organic process -

each person has their own process of unfoldment and opening, and a

good teacher will facilitate that process with care. Chandra is such a

teacher, and she simply translates Sakta Tantra into an accessible

Western learning framework (a crude way of putting it, I think, but it

will have to do).

 

Let me put it to you this way. If you are Indian (which I presume you

are), then you grow up with a certain set of cultural assumptions and

frameworks. You grow up with a concept of goddess and of other such

things. The Hindu cosmology is immediately accessible to you, because

it's all around you. Therefore, when you begin to learn Sakta Tantra,

certain components don't need explanation, because you take them for

granted.

 

Westerners aren't so fortunate, particularly Americans. We typically

live in a hyper-Christianized environment, and there is no concept of

goddess in the larger world. As Westerners, we turn to history and

tradition in order to access that kind of wisdom and energy, and even

then, it's difficult for many to begin to relate to "god" or "goddess"

as something other than the Judeo-Christian God. So imagine jumping

into Sakta Tantra from that place! What Chandra has done is taken

great care to transmit authentic Sakta Tantra, but through a framework

that works for the Western mind. As we get further along in study, it

becomes necessary to learn Sanskrit, and more and more of what we do

leaves Western practice behind. The framework is Western, the

teachings are pure Sakta. It's difficult to explain or to grasp, but

that's simply what it is.

 

For example, in a recent teaching circle, we began with invoking the

elements in the Western manner, and then after much discussion taught

how to invoke them in Sanskrit, along with drawing the seat (including

the basic mantras), etc. A digestible piece was given. I remember when

I first got that piece - and now, having learned much more and done a

considerable amount of work with the material, I comprehend much more,

and know the full process. Like I said, the framework is Western, but

the content is pure Sakta.

>

> Perhaps so. Have you had any members who have done so?

>

 

That is something you would have to ask Chandra herself. No one has

done so since I began with the organization, but I have only been

working with it since 2002, and we've grown by leaps and bounds since

then. Chandra does lead groups to India each year, and we are working

on creating a support structure to send Rashani in training to India

to experience the perspective shift that happens when you are a

Westerner that travels there.

 

Oh, a note on the word "Rashani." It is a Hindi derivative via

Rajasthan, carried to the West by the Roma people. It means

"priestess." It was consciously chosen to represent the traveling of

the tradition from East to West.

> *** In addition, the Western mindset generally requires

> authentication of some sort - where did this person study? What

> makes them so special? ***

>

> I think the Hindu systems require no less, though the focus is on

> lineage and reputation rather than academic degrees and recognition

> by state agencies.

>

 

Well, that is where there is a big difference between East and West.

In the West, the emphasis is on all of the above. This is why in

Chandra's bio she states all of her qualifications - spiritual,

lineage, academic, federal, etc.

 

>

> I agree as well. My guru, Sri Amritananda Natha Saraswati of

> Devipuram, states it thus: "Normally we tend to place the guru on a

> pedestal, high up above, and think that we have obey or listen to

> whatever he or she says. That is not the real meaning. The real

> meaning of the guru and sishya relationship is more like a

> transmitter and receiver. When I'm talking and you're listening, I'm

> the guru and you are the chela or sishya. But when you're talking

> and I'm listening, you're the transmitter and I'm the receiver; so

> you're the guru and I'm the sishya. See, in advaita, it becomes very

> clear that you're not really talking to somebody else when you're

> talking to somebody else. You're talking to yourself when you're

> talking to somebody else because the talker and listener are one.

> You learn to see the oneness of yourself with the other. Therefore,

> the talker and the listener become one. In that sense the

> relationship between guru and sishya is just a resonance with your

> self, being in tune with yourself."

>

 

Precisely. One of my Western teachers said to me years ago: "May the

Goddess inspire you when you teach, and humble you when you learn.

Without the former, we are lost, and without the latter, we are

fools."

> *** we are Kaula in the sense that we are part of the

> larger "family," and have received the lineage teachings. ***

>

> This is a problematic statement from an authentic perspective, but

> again I must stress that I am not judging; I am simply listening and

> learning. Please know that there are many Kaula lineages.

>

 

I have to stress again that we *are* an authentic lineage. I didn't

understand until today how pure the transmission was. The method and

framework are a little different, but the content is the same.

> This is an interesting perspective. There has been a lot of debate

> in this group about whether Shaktism is misunderstood if one

> attempts to view it through the filter of modern social/gender

> dynamics. My personal opinion is that it's a balancing act. If you

> understand Devi too thoroughly in terms of gross/sthana human

> gender, then you risk missing more than half the point. However, if

> you refuse to come to terms with the fact that Devi is indeed that

> Feminine Divine, and that this is a distinction that matters

> profoundly, then you risk missing the other half of the point of

> Shakta as opposed to the other Hindu systems.

>

 

Our point is precisely that divinity is encompassing of all genders,

and all identifications, all classes, all races, all places of origin.

The community exists to provide access to Devi no matter where you're

from, what you believe, how much money you make, who you date or are

married to, what color your skin is, what gender you are, etc. It is

important especially, however, to use goddess imagery and language in

the West, because she has been so repressed and maligned. It is also

important for us to acknowledge in the goddess community the image of

the god as Shiva, as Ganesha, as Agni, etc. So often in the goddess

spirituality movement in the West, the masculine energy is maligned or

pushed aside. Tantra is in part about recognizing the power of

Shiva-Shakti, the divine dance, which has many layers.

> Yes, the relationship of Indian feminism to the role of the feminine

> in Hindu cosmology is a good illustration of the difficulty of this

> area of "using" religion to promote particular socio-political ends.

> Obviously, Madhu Khanna is the pioneer in this area, but I think the

> debate is really becoming more interesting and widespread. For

> instance, the catalogs of both the "Devi" exhibit in Washington DC a

> few years back (edited by Vidya Dehejia), and the more

> recent "Woman/Goddess" photography exhibit in Delhi (edited by

> Gayatri Sinha), contained a wonderfully thought provoking essays by

> a wide range of serious thinkers on such topics. The relevance and

> importance of these social aspects are hard (and I would argue

> foolish) to ignore – so long as it does not dilute and defuse the

> pure, demonstrable "try it and see" power of the authentic tradition.

>

 

Chandra was admonished by Shyam to use Shakta Tantra to bring peace to

the world. So, this is our work, and for some a sadhana. For us, part

of this work is ecofeminism, it's doing community work in the US and

in India, it's doing outreach and teaching women to appreciate their

bodies and not kill them with eating disorders, it's teaching about

the Goddess as a radical means of transformation in the West.

>

> Quite frankly, as you probably divined, that was my initial

> assumption about your group. It is gratifying to hear that you are

> aware of these problems and have taken steps to avoid them. I agree

> with you, it *is* "sloppy," and it deprives those who believe it of

> the much more interesting, much more powerful and beautiful reality

> of the system.

>

 

Absolutely. I am a firm believer that if you wish to study a certain

path, then you should really commit to it and surrender to it.

Hinduism is incredibly complex, and Sanskrit is similarly complex.

It's a disservice to the tradition to make assumptions without

researching them.

 

That being said, Devi is everywhere, and I have no problem with those

who genuinely love Her and simply express their devotion in simple

ways. For example, some simply ask us how to create an altar to Kali,

and we are happy to give them that simple information, as well as a

simple mantra they can recite with bhakti. Who can withhold Devi? She

is everywhere. If we can plant the seeds of bhakti, and give the tools

to water those seeds, even in a small way, to sincere seekers, then we

have accomplished a great deal. So much moreso for those who choose to

fully follow the path of the Sakta. This is why we publish a lot of

information, and respond in detail to those who email us for

information, or for help on constructing rituals, or on performing

puja.

> *** Also, in the Western goddess spirituality movement, there is a

> tremendous amount of fear surrounding certain Indian goddesses,

> particularly Kali in her various forms, as well as even Durga. ***

>

> Wow. This is interesting. I did not know about this.

>

 

It's surprisingly widespread. The Dark Goddess in all Her forms across

the world has been feared and reviled for millenia, and much of the

work I have done has been to dispel the negative myths and go back to

the original veneration of these powerful goddesses of life, death and

regeneration.

 

> Yes, in India also there are attempts to bring some of these things

> into the open, removing fear and revulsion by reasoned discourse and

> clear, practical explanations. The feeling is that the time for

> secrecy has passed, and that these things should be brought out into

> the open as a valuation counterbalance to the destructiveness and

> cruelty of the dominant ideologies operative in the world today.

>

 

This is precisely what we are doing, and as I mentioned before, Shyam

instructed Chandra to use Shakta Tantra (or "Mother Worship" as he

also calls it) to bring peace and balance to the world. We are careful

to uncomplicate the language surrounding Sakta Tantra in order to

dispel that fear. That being said, there is a certain amount of

silence required, many things I can't speak of, being an initiate.

However, many things are becoming more accessible, and from the

beginning of Tantra it has been said that Tantra is the practice for

the kali yuga, making the divine more accessible to humans.

> Amritananda's Devipuram – the temple featured in our ongoing

> Khadgamala Devis series – is, by the way, one of the prime examples

> of this trend. Do you know about his efforts? As you might imagine,

> however, there is considerable resistance. It is very divisive issue

> even within the various Srividya lineages, and certainly in the

> larger Hindu community. Thankfully, it is not yet on Christian and

> Muslim radar screens, giving the movement some time to breathe and

> grow and develop. ;-)

>

 

Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't been aware of it, and I'm curious to

learn more about it. Chandra has been to the devipuram temple, it

turns out, and we are talking about perhaps visiting when we travel to

India for Ambubachi mela.

>

> True enough; it is an issue of cultural respect. The assumption

> being that the designers and marketers of these items are not

> covertly trying to promote advaita. ;-)

>

 

Heheh. Yes, the point is well taken. I would say, however, that it

could simply be the divine's way of coming into the world, even if

through less than humble means. And who knows who the buyers of the

products are? Even if only some buy them to gain more awareness, and

to practice advaita, then hasn't it become a worthy venture,

regardless of whether the manufacturer intended it or not? The divine

does, after all, work in mysterious ways.

> Wow! What a story! I had no idea.

>

That's what I said when I first heard it. Chandra is my respected

teacher, and all of the learning I've done academically and otherwise

has reinforced the sincerity of her devotion, the authenticity of her

teaching, and the power of her lineage.

>

> Nicely put. Do I correctly detect that your personal practice leans

> more toward the side of pure Shakta? Because, having read all that

> you had to say, I feel that your interests and practices may not be

> so very different from what we are trying to teach and inform about

> here.

>

 

In fact, my practice is mostly pure Sakta. I do have another pull to

ancient British goddesses, and sometimes perform rituals appropriate

for them, and make pilgrimages to their sacred places. But even in

these practices, the awareness that Sakta Tantra has given me colors

all that I do. Half the time, I'm thinking in mantras, when I'm

centered. Of course, this lets me know when I'm off center!

 

At any rate, I think that perhaps our "brands" of Sakta Tantra may be

a bit different in focus (Sri Yantra vs. Kali), but similar in that

they are pure lineages, and in practice, wisdom and devotion.

 

sa'ham,

Erin

 

 

 

--\

-----

erin

www.erinjohansen.com

[Guest guest]

Before the Bhagavad Gita, women and Shudras were denied any kind of

salvation, for example. == wrong. There were Sri Vidya Rishis like Lopamudra who

were not just shudras but “untouchable”. She is the rishi of the famous ut

little known haadi vidya path.

 

 

 

Let me put it to you this way. If you are Indian (which I presume you are), then

you grow up with a certain set of cultural assumptions and frameworks.==> *wink*

*wink* *smile* *smile* *Thank you* *thank you*.

 

 

 

Let me put it to you this way. If you are Indian (which I presume you are), then

you grow up with a certain set of cultural assumptions and frameworks. You grow

up with a concept of goddess and of other such things. The Hindu cosmology is

immediately accessible to you, because it's all around you. Therefore, when you

begin to learn Sakta Tantra, certain components don't need explanation, because

you take them for granted.==> How correct you are!!!!!

 

 

 

I have to stress again that we *are* an authentic lineage. I didn't

understand until today how pure the transmission was. The method and

framework are a little different, but the content is the same.

 

> True enough; it is an issue of cultural respect. The assumption

> being that the designers and marketers of these items are not

> covertly trying to promote advaita. ;-)

>

 

Heheh. Yes, the point is well taken. I would say, however, that it

could simply be the divine's way of coming into the world, even if

through less than humble means. And who knows who the buyers of the

products are? Even if only some buy them to gain more awareness, and

to practice advaita, then hasn't it become a worthy venture,

regardless of whether the manufacturer intended it or not? The divine does,

after all, work in mysterious ways.==> But then the difference between sri vidya

and advaita philosophy is that in sri vidya without studying tomes one

experiences the unity.

 

 

 

At any rate, I think that perhaps our "brands" of Sakta Tantra may be a bit

different in focus (Sri Yantra vs. Kali), but similar in that they are pure

lineages, and in practice, wisdom and devotion.==> There is no difference at all

kali Kula and srikula are but two of many paths. There really is no difference.

 

Erin Johansen <erin.johansen wrote:

Hi again,

 

I'm happy to continue the discussion, and glad for its continued openness... I'd

also like to warn casual readers of the length of this post, the product of this

ongoing discussion.

******************************

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>Also, in the Western goddess spirituality movement, there is a

>tremendous amount of fear surrounding certain Indian goddesses,

>particularly Kali in her various forms, as well as even Durga.

 

This has not been my experience at all, quite the contrary. I have

seen women moving to embrace Kali and all dark forms of Goddess as an

affirmation of the sacred which has been, as you point out, maligned

and denied for millennia in the West. We began this affirmation, and

search, in the early '70s, you can see it articulated slightly later

in Starhawk's Dreaming the Dark, and in countless other publications,

rituals and other events.

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

 

 

[Guest guest]

>There were Sri Vidya Rishis like Lopamudra who

>were not just shudras but “untouchable”. She is

>the rishi of the famous ut little known haadi

>vidya path.

 

Can you tell us more about her? And what does haadi mean?

 

Max

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

[Guest guest]

By the way, I am really enjoying this conversation; I greatly

appreciate the civil interfaith dialog. My thanks and appreciation

to the contributors!

 

Erin wrote:

"What [Chandra] affirmed for me is that Sha'can is in fact pure,

unadulterated Shakta Tantra. [....]

 

What she stressed is that what she teaches is the pure transmission of

Shakta Tantra, of what she was taught through her lineage, through

Shyam Sundar Dash, founder and priest of the Maa Batakali Temple in

Puri. [....]

 

We are not neo-pagan at all. We don't even consider our path to be

pagan. We are Sakta Tantra made accessible to the West. [....]"

 

Do you consider your path to be Hindu? Or is it somewhat removed

from Hinduism? In other words, I understand there is Buddhist Tantra

and there is Hindu Tantra. Is Sha'can's Sakta Tantra in parallel to

those Tantric traditions? Or do you see Sha'can as still being under

the Hindu umbrella?

[Guest guest]

Hi Max,

 

I don't deny that there have been many women who have embraced Kali

and the Dark Goddess as a powerful way to affirm the sacred. However,

my work in the community at large has been greatly colored by a lot of

fear surrounding working with Kali and other Dark Goddesses (but

particularly Kali). I have read this fear manifested in books (Carol

Christ and Yasmine Galenorn immediately come to mind, amongst others),

and in the community (both directly and indirectly, through personal

conversation and stories related to me by students and other

practitioners). Other authors and teachers have attempted to include

Kali as a powerful goddess to honor in the West, but have really

gotten their scholarship wrong, confusing Kali with the kali yuga

(unrelated words, in fact), and other such simple blunders. This, I

think, is more along the lines of blind appropriation, rather than

culturally competent honoring. Of course, anyone who wants to honor

Kali and the Dark Goddess should always be encouraged to do so - it's

just that there is an incredible amount of misinformation and fear out

there, and that colors the work, and leads to misunderstandings.

 

It is always a startling reminder that there are many, many, many

people out there in our community who are not willing or ready to

embrace Her, which is why I think it's important to focus on bringing

this energy forward, in showing Kali as the benevolent, loving mother,

in showing her gentle and compassionate nature. So many women focus

only on her warrior aspect, thinking that's the entirety of her power,

or think that working with Kali is akin to invoking the Tower card (to

make a quick and dirty Tarot reference), and that destruction and

havoc will inevitably follow. Just recently, I gave two talks at

Pantheacon, at which there were several thousand members of the pagan

and earth-based spirituality community, and the general responses I

got were very positive, as well as "my friends were scared about me

coming here!" or "I've always been really afraid of Kali!" or "I

didn't tell anyone I was coming to this, because I was afraid of what

they would think."

 

At any rate, that's my experience from the last 12 years. I think it's

really important to acknowledge both sides of it. Yes, there are those

who love Kali, but there are many, many who fear her, as well.

 

blessings,

erin

 

 

 

 

 

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:09:52 -0800, Max Dashu <maxdashu wrote:

> >Also, in the Western goddess spirituality movement, there is a

> >tremendous amount of fear surrounding certain Indian goddesses,

> >particularly Kali in her various forms, as well as even Durga.

>

> This has not been my experience at all, quite the contrary. I have

> seen women moving to embrace Kali and all dark forms of Goddess as an

> affirmation of the sacred which has been, as you point out, maligned

> and denied for millennia in the West. We began this affirmation, and

> search, in the early '70s, you can see it articulated slightly later

> in Starhawk's Dreaming the Dark, and in countless other publications,

> rituals and other events.

> --

> Max Dashu

> Suppressed Histories Archives

> Global Women's History

> http://www.suppressedhistories.net

>

>

>

 

--

 

 

--\

-----

erin

www.erinjohansen.com

[Guest guest]

>Other authors and teachers have attempted to include

>Kali as a powerful goddess to honor in the West, but have really

>gotten their scholarship wrong, confusing Kali with the kali yuga

>(unrelated words, in fact), and other such simple blunders.

 

This does happen, I agree. The most common error being equation of

Kali with the Celtic crone goddess Cailleach. And I also agree that

many assume that Kali is only a wrathful deity, reproducing

assumptions of the larger (Western) society. But this is less common

in the women's spirituality scene, I have found, than in pagan scene

at large.

 

all best,

Max

>Pantheacon, at which there were several thousand members of the pagan

>and earth-based spirituality community, and the general responses I

>got were very positive, as well as "my friends were scared about me

>coming here!" or "I've always been really afraid of Kali!" or "I

>didn't tell anyone I was coming to this, because I was afraid of what

>they would think."

 

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

 

 

[Guest guest]

[ATTENTION CASUAL READERS: I'VR RUN LONG AGAIN! *lol* NOT QUITE AS

LONG AS BEFORE, BUT LONG NONETHELESS :-p]

 

Hi Erin:

 

I am sorry I took so long to sit down and reply to this in detail. A

lot came up over the weekend that made it hard for my to sit down

and give your excellent and detailed post the time and attention it

deserved. Hope you received my offliner to let you know it was

coming!

 

*** Chandra tonight ... affirmed for me is that Sha'can is in fact

pure, unadulterated Shakta Tantra. What is different is that the

entire process is made more accessible to the Western

practitioner. ... I was unsure to this point exactly how much was a

mixture, and how much was pure. What she stressed is that what she

teaches is the pure transmission of Shakta Tantra, of what she was

taught through her lineage, through Shyam Sundar Dash, founder and

priest of the Maa Batakali Temple in Puri.***

 

Wow. I guess that is that, then. I am surprised, I admit. But if it

is the real thing, then it's the real thing. It is really

interesting to see, because -- if that's the case -- what you're

trying to do is not so different from what we're trying to do:

Provide a forum for an open dialogue about Shaktism, exposing the

myths and rumors and insinuations and fears to the light of day, and

countering misinformation with facts.

 

And while our group is not focused on making Shakta tradition more

accessible to the West (our membership rolls are, I would estimate,

about 75% Hindu Indian, with many more members from further East

rather than further West), I think many of our discussions,

translations, and projects like the Khadgamala Series (and some

other things we have in the works) actual *do* function to make

Shakta more accessible to non-Sanskrit-speaking individuals --

Indian or not, Western or not. At least I'd like to think we do.

 

*** The initiation she performs is true diksha, down to the

ceremonial and energetic components (which I am not at liberty to

discuss). ***

 

Then she is a guru after all, it would appear, at least by the

traditional definition.

 

*** The structure of SHARANYA is not based on heirarchy, as in the

guru-shishya relationship that is so often abused or misinterpreted

(or not, as so eloquently put by your guru), but rather a community

in which everyone is valued as equal, and everyone has an equal

voice. ***

 

Removing the guru from a Hindu system is a more profound change than

simply "traslating it for the Western mind." In a sense, I'd compare

it to taking a graduate course in nuclear physics in which there is

no teacher, just lots of other students at various levels,

exchanging ideas and critiquing one another's work. I am sure one

could learn a lot -- but where's the professor? Or if the professor

is there, but regarded as equal to the students, and therefore less

qualified to grade or direct or correct, can s/he really expect to

get the maximum performance and results for his/her students?

 

Those are honest questions. At the same time, I do want to thank you

for acknowledging that the guru-shishya relationship, properly

understood and used, is very frequently *not* misinterpreted or

abused. Just the evening news tends to give bad news most of the

attention, so it is with the guru-shishya dynamic.

 

Virtually anyone interested in Eastern spiritual systems has read

horrific accounts of such abuse, or known someone who had had a

negative experience to one degree or another. This is precisely why

the most experienced Shakta adepts I've had the pleasure of meeting

all stress that one should never *seek* a guru. That one simply

practices humbly and when they are ready the guru appears. I think

the Western mind in general may be less patient with this idea, and

more aggressive in seeking tangible results. In some ways, this

actually seems to help -- in that Westerners who seriously commit to

the path (despite the extraordinarily countervailing currents of

Western social structures and lifestyles) tend to advance quickly.

On the other hand, the less judicious (or less fortunate) seekers

can wind up in physically and psychologically damaging relationships

and situations.

 

But still, these train wrecks tend to be merely the visible tip, and

not at all representative of the norm.

 

*** Chandra isn't as harsh with us as her teacher was with her, but

she unfolds the wisdom in a way that makes sense to Western minds.

This is where the elements of Western earth-based tradition comes

in. And truly, throughout history, when hasn't the tradition adapted

itself to its environment, to the methods that work for that time or

that culture, or that group of learners? How can one make orthodox

an inherently heterodox tradition?***

 

These are excellent points, and probably the single best argument

for the legitimacy of Sha'can as a valid Hindu Sakta tradition.

 

*** One of my Western teachers said to me years ago: "May the

Goddess inspire you when you teach, and humble you when you learn.

Without the former, we are lost, and without the latter, we are

fools." ***

 

There you go. ;-)

 

*** Before the Bhagavad Gita, women and Sudras were denied any kind

of salvation, for example. What a radical shift! ***

 

Here, I would simply reiterate Kochu's note that this is simply an

inaccurate statement. At no time in history did all Hindu traditions

exclude women and shudras. Some northern Brahminical traditions

(which, simply by virtue of committing their practices to writing

and a time when many systems did not, became by default the "voice

of Hinduism" for Western scholars) did practice such exclusivity,

but over the broad spectrum of Hinduism, this was neither the "norm"

nor an absolute. As you just pointed out above, Hinduism is mind-

bogglingly heterodox -- why pidgeonhole it on the negatives, if not

the positives as well?

 

*** It is not Sakta Tantra as in Sri Vidya, but it is Sakta Tantra

as in the worship of Kali as the Ultimate, and the mysteries beyond

that. ***

 

Full disclosure: This circumstance in itself takes the Sha'can/

Shaktism comparison outside the realm of my knowledge and

experience. For casual readers, I'd explain that the Shakta schools

of Hinduism can be divided, most broadly, into the Sri (bright) and

Kali (dark) paths. Srividya (my tradition) is, obviously, Sri-

focused, though reverence for Kali is expressed and implied at all

levels (as with other aspects of this tradition, it is usually

unwise to attempt drawing very broad dividing lines).

 

*** We are not neo-pagan at all. We don't even consider our path to

be pagan. We are Sakta Tantra made accessible to the West. ...

Again, our framework for teaching is Western, and comes from

Chandra's family lineage in the Craft, but the content is pure Sakta

Tantra. ***

 

Yes, that's obviously the point of confusion from my viewpoint. But

I think you've eloquently gone above and beyond the call of duty in

trying to explain it, and I agree that (again, as in all aspects of

Shaktism) the proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in minute

theoretical hairsplitting (a nod to Kochu and Om Nagarajan for their

excellent exchange on this topic a few days ago).

 

*** We don't try to shortcut the process at all. As I said, I have

been in rigorous, deep and continuous study on this path for over

two years, and I still feel as if I am a baby just beginning to take

first steps. ***

 

You are! And I am too. And so are most all of us are if we're being

intellectually honest. A very experienced sadhak I know, with

decades of focused, intense sadhana under his belt, once told me he

felt that his knowledge equaled approximately a thimbleful of water

from the world's oceans. When I asked how much knowledge he thought

a certain guru of considerable fame might have, the sadhak

replied, "Oh, he is a truly great soul. He might have one or two

handfuls." *lol*

 

*** I know much more than the average person, but the depth of the

tradition is incredibly complex. Learning Sanskrit is definitely

helping the process, as the language itself has certain depths that

can only be understood by learning it. ***

 

I agree.

 

*** If you are Indian (which I presume you are), then you grow up

with a certain set of cultural assumptions and frameworks. You grow

up with a concept of goddess and of other such things. The Hindu

cosmology is immediately accessible to you, because it's all around

you. Therefore, when you begin to learn Sakta Tantra, certain

components don't need explanation, because you take them for

granted. Westerners aren't so fortunate, particularly Americans. We

typically live in a hyper-Christianized environment, and there is no

concept of goddess in the larger world. ... So imagine jumping into

Sakta Tantra from that place! ***

 

I love the term "hyper-Christianized"! *lol* Actually, Prainbow and

I just had a really interesting discussion a few weeks ago, in which

she pointed out that even within a nation as

prototypically "Western" as the U.S., non-Christians feel relatively

free and easy in the liberal Blue States (i.e. coastal, urban,

ethnically deiverse, leaning anti-Bush) and downright embattled and

oppressed in the god-and-country "Jesusland" of the Red States (i.e.

central, rural, ethnically homogenous, leaning pro-Bush). So I'd

say, yeah, depending on where in the "West" you're coming from,

Shaktism could seem a pretty damned exotic proposition. *lol*

 

*** It's difficult to explain or to grasp, but that's simply what it

is. ***

 

I think you're doing a great job of it. ;-)

 

*** ME: the Hindu systems ... focus on lineage and reputation rather

than academic degrees and recognition by state agencies. YOU: Well,

that is where there is a big difference between East and West. In

the West, the emphasis is on all of the above. This is why in

Chandra's bio she states all of her qualifications - spiritual,

lineage, academic, federal, etc. ***

 

Actually I might have been acting as too much the purist on that

assertion. Just checking Amritananda's bio, I see he *does* list his

Masters and Doctorate degrees -- though they're in nuclear physics

rather than comparative religion or Indian studies. *lol* Although,

as someone well versed in Shaktism, I think you'll agree that this

is one of the few world religions in which nuclear physics is

directly relevant to theological doctrine. ;-)

 

*** I have to stress again that we *are* an authentic lineage. I

didn't understand until today how pure the transmission was. The

method and framework are a little different, but the content is the

same. ***

 

Okay, I didn't understand that either. It makes more sense now, if

we are speaking of Sha'can as a valid lineage within Shaktism,

rather than an outside Pagan group expropriating elements of Shakta

imagery and ritual (which was my understanding in my original

postings.) At this point, I guess it would be up to the individual

whether s/he accepts it as such. I know that even with legitimate

gurus in legitimate lineages in India, there are often naysayers who

challenge legitimacy. As Kochu has pointed out, the greatest gurus

in the tradition -- back through the historical commentaries -- tend

to ignore points of disagreement and focus on points of commonality.

There is no use in condemning or disparaging a sincere and loving

path that helps sincere and loving souls find their way.

 

Here I can't help but recall one of my favorite passages from Swami

Vivekanada, who said, "As soon as a man stands up and says he is

right or his church is right, and all others are wrong, he is

himself all wrong. ... So far as they are not exclusive, I see that

the sects and creeds are all mine; they are all grand. ... I do not

deprecate the existence of sects in the world. Would to God there

were 20 millions more, for the more there are, there will be a

greater field for selection."

 

*** It is also important for us to acknowledge in the goddess

community the image of the god as Shiva, as Ganesha, as Agni, etc.

So often in the goddess spirituality movement in the West, the

masculine energy is maligned or pushed aside. Tantra is in part

about recognizing the power of Shiva-Shakti, the divine dance, which

has many layers. ***

 

Yes, this is a sensitive issue. When we were first getting this

group off the ground, we (the moderators) resolved to distinguish it

from other "Hinduism" groups by resolutely focusing on Shaktism --

that is, on Devi (just as you have groups focusing on Shiva or on

Krishna, etc.) Almost immediately, we began to receive accusations

that we were not a "real" Hindu group -- that we were actually

Pagan, because we gave too much prominence to Devi rather than Her

various consorts. My suspicion is that most of these criticisms were

tactical rather than sincere -- more intended to cast aspersions on

the group rather than to enlighten anyone about Hinduism.

 

But the fact is, yes -- Shaktism very much acknowledges and reveres

the Divine Masculine in addition to the Divine Feminine. Satguru

Shivaya Subramuniyaswami (1927-2001), very much a Shaiva, put it

quite clearly: "Shaktism greatly resembles Saivism, both faiths

promulgating, for example, the same ultimate goals of advaitic union

with Siva, and moksha. But Shaktas worship Shakti as the Supreme

Being exclusively, as the dynamic aspect of Divinity, while Siva is

considered solely transcendent and is not worshiped." That's not

quite 100% accurate; as out front page photo indicates, we just

recently celebrated Mahashivaratri Puja. But of course, the focus of

Shaktism is more profoundly upon Devi/Goddess than many or most

Hindus (never mind non-Hindus!) will ever be comfortable with.

 

*** Chandra was admonished by Shyam to use Shakta Tantra to bring

peace to the world. So, this is our work, and for some a sadhana.

For us, part of this work is ecofeminism, it's doing community work

in the US and in India, it's doing outreach and teaching women to

appreciate their bodies and not kill them with eating disorders,

it's teaching about the Goddess as a radical means of transformation

in the West. ***

 

Very interesting. And apt, I think, if that's where your faith takes

you. As I think I noted in an earlier post, Shaktism strikes me as

requiring an enormous amount of engagement with the world, as

opposed to many Shaiva and Vaishnava systems which strive to

minimize such engagements and involvement. I don't see how anyone

who considers her-/himself Shakta could avoid it.

 

*** I am a firm believer that if you wish to study a certain path,

then you should really commit to it and surrender to it. ***

 

YES.

 

*** Hinduism is incredibly complex, and Sanskrit is similarly

complex. It's a disservice to the tradition to make assumptions

without researching them. ***

 

Yes, I completely agree with this too.

 

*** That being said, Devi is everywhere, and I have no problem with

those who genuinely love Her and simply express their devotion in

simple ways. For example, some simply ask us how to create an altar

to Kali, and we are happy to give them that simple information, as

well as a simple mantra they can recite with bhakti. Who can

withhold Devi? She is everywhere. If we can plant the seeds of

bhakti, and give the tools to water those seeds, even in a small

way, to sincere seekers, then we have accomplished a great deal. So

much moreso for those who choose to fully follow the path of the

Sakta. ***

 

Really, that is our philosophy as well. To each according to their

ability.

 

*** Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't been aware of it, and I'm

curious to learn more about it. Chandra has been to the devipuram

temple, it turns out, and we are talking about perhaps visiting when

we travel to India for Ambubachi mela. ***

 

Wow. I'd be interesting in hearing more as your plans unfold!

 

*** In fact, my practice is mostly pure Sakta. I do have another

pull to ancient British goddesses, and sometimes perform rituals

appropriate for them, and make pilgrimages to their sacred places.

But even in these practices, the awareness that Sakta Tantra has

given me colors all that I do. Half the time, I'm thinking in

mantras, when I'm centered. Of course, this lets me know when I'm

off center! ***

 

Nothing wrong in that, is there? Once you have the basics of Shakta

and are past risk of docttrinal blending and confusion, I think that

kind of mental fusion is where the rubber meets the road. If we say

the entire world is Devi, then it's absurd to argue that a non-Hindu

conception of Goddess is somehow *not* Devi. Every people, place,

time and clime finds its own expressions of the Divine. It's just at

the lower levels where such blending can cause a susceptibility to

the sloppy mixing and matching to which both of us object.

 

*** At any rate, I think that perhaps our "brands" of Sakta Tantra

may be a bit different in focus (Sri Yantra vs. Kali), but similar

in that they are pure lineages, and in practice, wisdom and

devotion. ***

 

Hear, hear! ;-) Thank you for your time and patience.

 

Warmest regards

 

DB