How Much Non-Shakta Speculation Do We Need in This Group?

September 30, 2005

Namaste Devi Bhakta.

Thank you very much. Just adding my 2 cents. Hope it was helpful, as you also

made some excellent points that needed to be said as well.

Best,

Janardana Dasa

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

Namaste Janardana Dasa:

You make some very important points -- someone needed to say it, and

you did so with more eloquence and clarity than I've ever apparently

been able to muster. I thank you for that.

As moderators of the group, it is my and Nora's and Kochu's

occasional role to remind everyone that this *is* a Shaktism group,

and that Shaktism is, as you say, "simply an age-old tradition of

worship," that -- as such -- it needs (like any system) to be

accepted (or, of course) rejected largely on its own terms. It is

not a New Age pastiche; it is not a set of symbols to be applied

however a given member may see fit. It is what it is.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong if people want to pick

and choose elements of Shakta that they like, and brush off those

that do not appeal to them. But this is not the forum for such

mixing and matching. Because once this kind of activity begins, the

object of discussion soon ceases to be Shaktism any more. It may be

something very nice indeed, or it may be unadulterated horse manure.

But it is not Shaktism -- and to discuss it in this group as if it

were is both misleading and confusing (not to mention just plain

selfisnh and rude) for members who presumably came here to discuss

and learn about the topic of the group.

For better or (probably) worse, people nowadays adapt Hindu words,

images and concepts as they wish for whatever personal journey of

discovery they may dream up. But the resulting narrative of such

explorations inevitably amounts to little more more than a New Age

blog -- a loosey-goosey spiritual diary of little interest or use to

anyone but the person who is writing it. As has been pointed out,

there are lots of that are appropriate to such

ruminations. Shakti Sadhana, I will repeat, is not one of them.

Hinduism and the myriad religious systems it encompasses are not

violent philosophies, implicitly and explicitly. Hindus in general

(and Shaktas in particular) do not burn dissenters or lop off their

heads or try to convert them. So long as a given system arising

within the tradition is logically consistent with the overall flow

and texture of Hinduism, it is accepted. If it is not, it is still

not considered heresy -- it is considered simply irrelevant, and it

soon disappears in the eternal flow of time. Im the meantime,

however, as you note, Hindus are obliged to "grin and bear it" as an

endless parade of motley characters make and announce various

educated and (more typically) uneducated leaps of assumption. In

many ways, this group has become a microcosm of this process.

Hinduism has no Sharia law and no fatwas; no Inquistion, no

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And though this is

generally a good thing, it does -- as you note -- leave Hinduism

uncommonly open to attempts, well-meaning or not, to "transpose/

impose Western views, thinking, symbolism and interpretation on the

sacred as expressed through the eternal Vedas."

It takes much time, effort and seriousness of purpose (especially

for the Western aspirant, as you observe) to assimilate and gain an

experiential understanding of the cosmic worldview arising from the

Vedas and taught by generations of Hindu sages. But if one fails to

do make such an effort -- i.e. if one fails to meet Hinduism, even

halfway -- the resultant mental meanderings will be not only

intellectually lazy philosophical nonsense; it may also be deeply

offensive to those who are Hindu by birth or by profound, committed

choice -- by far, the vast, largely silent majority of members in

this group. In their infatuation with their newfound hypotheses,

such "spiritual tourists" are often emotionally oblivious to the

offense they may be causing to people who actually believe and

practice the religion that they are only toying with.

So you are right. It creates a conundrum. There are many Hindu

saints dealing with it even today -- Ammachi being a prime example

of a real Shakta who considerably simplifies her message massively

for a Western audience, who is explicitly non-denominational,

placing unconditional love and acceptance above all else. It is a

very nice experience for those who encounter her, and perhaps offers

them a hint of the beauty and complexity of the religious system

from which she sprang. I have noticed that Sri Amritananda Natha

Saraswati of Devipuram is similar, just nodding and smiling

nonjudgmentally while some devotee spouts mixed-up New Age silliness

at him. For such aspirants, a blessing and a hug is enough -- a seed

sown that will eventually sprout, either in this life or some other.

But for those who are serious about Shaktism here and now, the hugs

and smiles soon give way to the intense discipline of sadhana and

eventual initiation into one of the ancient lineages of that faith,

where speculation (why?) isn't nearly as important as practice

(how?) and results (what?).

And guess what? This group is about Shaktism. Occasional hugs and

smiles are welcome, but ignorant abuse of the deities and symbolism

should be tolerated only for so long as it is clear that the person

knows no better and means no harm. But eventually, as much as we

might want to respect and allow the idiosyncratic meanderings of

some otherwise likeable member of the group, we must remember that

there are probably about 1,500 people here who are are a lot more

interested in the real thing. If we test their patience and good

nature too often, if we waste their time and fill their email boxes

with irrelevant blather, then we quite frankly have no business

portraying ourself as a Shakta discussion group.

aim mAtangyai namaH

Traditions Divine

Visit your group "" on the web.

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

September 30, 2005

Namaste Janardana Dasa:

You make some very important points -- someone needed to say it, and

you did so with more eloquence and clarity than I've ever apparently

been able to muster. I thank you for that.

As moderators of the group, it is my and Nora's and Kochu's

occasional role to remind everyone that this *is* a Shaktism group,

and that Shaktism is, as you say, "an age-old tradition of worship,"

that -- as such -- it needs (like any system) to be accepted or

rejected largely on its own terms. It is not a New Age pastiche; it

is not a set of symbols to be applied however a given member may see

fit. It is what it is.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong if people want to pick

and choose elements of Shakta that they like, and brush off those

that do not appeal to them. But this is not the forum for such

mixing and matching. Because once this kind of activity begins, the

object of discussion soon ceases to be Shaktism at all any more. It

may be something very nice indeed, or it may be unadulterated horse

manure. But it is not Shaktism -- and to discuss it in this group as

if it were is both misleading and confusing (not to mention selfish

and rude) for members who presumably came here to discuss and learn

about the actual topic of the group.

For better or worse, people nowadays adapt Hindu words, images and

concepts as they wish for whatever personal journey of discovery

they may dream up. But the resulting narrative of such explorations

inevitably amounts to little more more than a New Age blog -- a

loosey-goosey spiritual diary of little interest or use to anyone

but the person who is writing it. As has been pointed out, there are

lots of that are appropriate to such ruminations.

Shakti Sadhana, I will repeat, is not one of them.