Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma" the same thing?

[Guest guest]

I have read in Ammachi's writings that at first the aspirant is drawn

in by the message of love and compassion, and then after that, the

discipline begins. But I also think that some people have heavier

hands when "disciplining," and such heaviness may not be necessary.

As was printed on the bracelets at Amma's retreat in LA 6/04: "That

childlike innocence within you is God." Doesn't this truth figure

into "Santana Dharma" or "Shaktism" or even "Hinduism" ? Or is it

reflective of something Ratzinger-like folks would put a stop to?

[Guest guest]

, "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

> I have read in Ammachi's writings that at first the aspirant is

drawn

> in by the message of love and compassion, and then after that, the

> discipline begins. But I also think that some people have heavier

> hands when "disciplining," and such heaviness may not be necessary.

> As was printed on the bracelets at Amma's retreat in LA 6/04: "That

> childlike innocence within you is God." Doesn't this truth figure

> into "Santana Dharma" or "Shaktism" or even "Hinduism" ? Or is it

> reflective of something Ratzinger-like folks would put a stop to?

 

Hi Mary Ann,

 

please read http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2003/10-12/44-

49_four_sects.shtml.

 

This link has been provided by DB in the Links section. that will

answer the question in the subject title.

 

About the questions in the body of the post, I will have to hear from

others too.

 

Jai Ma!

[Guest guest]

Thanks Manoj, and DB for posting the initial link at SS. Much

appreciated.

 

, "manoj_menon"

<ammademon@g...> wrote:

> , "Mary Ann"

> <buttercookie61> wrote:

> > I have read in Ammachi's writings that at first the aspirant is

> drawn

> > in by the message of love and compassion, and then after that,

the

> > discipline begins. But I also think that some people have

heavier

> > hands when "disciplining," and such heaviness may not be

necessary.

> > As was printed on the bracelets at Amma's retreat in LA

6/04: "That

> > childlike innocence within you is God." Doesn't this truth

figure

> > into "Santana Dharma" or "Shaktism" or even "Hinduism" ? Or is

it

> > reflective of something Ratzinger-like folks would put a stop to?

>

> Hi Mary Ann,

>

> please read http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2003/10-12/44-

> 49_four_sects.shtml.

>

> This link has been provided by DB in the Links section. that will

> answer the question in the subject title.

>

> About the questions in the body of the post, I will have to hear

from

> others too.

>

> Jai Ma!

[Guest guest]

Hi Mary Ann:

 

Some good questions. Thank you.

 

*** Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma" the same thing? ***

 

That is similar to asking whether Greek Orthodoxy and Christianity

are the same thing. The answer is yes and no; Greek Orthodoxy is a

subset of Christianity; it *is* Christianity, but it's not the only

possible approach to Christianity, and not all Christians accept all

of its tenets.

 

Same with Shaktism and Hinduism. Shaktism is one of the four major

schools, or subsets, of Hinduism; but it is not the only possible

approach, and not all Hindus will agree with all of its tenets. Even

within Shaktism, there are denominations that may have radically

different approaches.

 

But they are all indisputably Hindu. You will note that I use the

term Hinduism rather than Sanatana Dharma; that is because I feel

that Hinduism has broader connotations. I know that Sanatana Dharma

is supposed to be the Sanskritic equivalent, but in my experience it

often carries distinctly orthodox overtones and a certain socio-

political stridency that limits its application. Hinduism is not a

perfect term either, obviously, but of the two, I prefer it.

 

So, just as I argued the other day that the form of hatha yoga

without its undergirding of Hinduism is merely an effective form of

exercise and stress-reduction, likewise the form of Shaktism without

Hinduism is merely an Indian-flavored variety of goddess-focused,

Pagan-revival pastiche.

 

*** I have read in Ammachi's writings that at first the aspirant is

drawn in by the message of love and compassion, and then after that,

the discipline begins. ***

 

Yes. I mentioned this explicitly in my last message.

 

*** But I also think that some people have heavier hands

when "disciplining," and such heaviness may not be necessary. ***

 

I think you are misinterpreting the word discipline, using it as a

synonym for chastisement or correction, or some kind of punative

activity. As used by Ammachi, and in Hinduism in

general, "discipline" simply means a received prescription for

sadhana. Perhaps a better English rendering would be "routine"

or "set of activities and practices."

 

Thus "heaviness" is not really a concept that applies. The guru

transmits to each shishya in such a way as they are able to receive.

It is not so much that there is a "heavy" sadhana and a "light"

sadhana, with one being more or less effective or necessary. That is

not what's going on. Ammachi is saying, "the aspirant is drawn in by

the [attractiveness of the] message of love and compassion [implicit

in Shaktism], and then after that, the discipline [i.e., serious

prescription of traditional Tantric sadhana/practice] begins.

 

*** As was printed on the bracelets at Amma's retreat in LA

6/04: "That childlike innocence within you is God." Doesn't this

truth figure into "Santana Dharma" or "Shaktism" or even "Hinduism"?

***

 

It does indeed, most centrally.

 

*** Or is it reflective of something Ratzinger-like folks would put a

stop to? ***

 

As noted in my last post, there are no "Ratzinger-like folks"

holding power within in the Hindu systems. The Hindu religions are

simply not set up that way; it is totally decentralized. There are

the Hindu traditions, and there are the Gurus who teach, interpret

and develop it with each passing generation. Hinduism may be

changed, enhanced, evolved and developed, but only from within, and

by those who have already reached enlightenment, thus having the

knowledge to "tweak and improve the delivery system" in accordance

with the evolving needs and realities of the world. Such

developments are binding upon none except those who accept the

innovator as Guru, though in time they may seep into the popular

fabric of the system. I had written:

 

"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 [quoting

Janardana Dasa] 'transpose/impose Western views, thinking, symbolism

and interpretation on the sacred as expressed through the eternal

Vedas.'"

 

Again, there are no rules -- unless one wishes to remain within the

Shakta tradition. If one does not care for the tradition, one can

gather up as many of its symbols as s/he likes and go and invent

something new for them to mean. That is fine. That is acceptable.

But that is no longer Shaktism.

 

aim mAtangyai namaH

[Guest guest]

I did look at the link and read about the 4 aspects of Hinduism

there. I can understand now why people may have been offended by my

comments about not wanting to become Hindu. If Sanatana Dharma is

the name of what Deepak Chopra and Amma share with the world, then I

view it as a name of something that encompasses my views, practices,

seeking, learning, etc.

 

I mentioned "Ratzinger-like" folks because I felt that the subject

heading and posts about non-Shaktism-type messages seemed to be

heading in the direction of silencing anything that wasn't being

seen by certain members of SS as "serious" spirituality; I wasn't

talking about Hinduism not having a central leader like the Pope.

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Hi Mary Ann:

>

> Some good questions. Thank you.

>

> *** Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma" the same thing? ***

>

> That is similar to asking whether Greek Orthodoxy and Christianity

> are the same thing. The answer is yes and no; Greek Orthodoxy is a

> subset of Christianity; it *is* Christianity, but it's not the

only

> possible approach to Christianity, and not all Christians accept

all

> of its tenets.

>

> Same with Shaktism and Hinduism. Shaktism is one of the four major

> schools, or subsets, of Hinduism; but it is not the only possible

> approach, and not all Hindus will agree with all of its tenets.

Even

> within Shaktism, there are denominations that may have radically

> different approaches.

>

> But they are all indisputably Hindu. You will note that I use the

> term Hinduism rather than Sanatana Dharma; that is because I feel

> that Hinduism has broader connotations. I know that Sanatana

Dharma

> is supposed to be the Sanskritic equivalent, but in my experience

it

> often carries distinctly orthodox overtones and a certain socio-

> political stridency that limits its application. Hinduism is not a

> perfect term either, obviously, but of the two, I prefer it.

>

> So, just as I argued the other day that the form of hatha yoga

> without its undergirding of Hinduism is merely an effective form

of

> exercise and stress-reduction, likewise the form of Shaktism

without

> Hinduism is merely an Indian-flavored variety of goddess-focused,

> Pagan-revival pastiche.

>

> *** I have read in Ammachi's writings that at first the aspirant is

> drawn in by the message of love and compassion, and then after

that,

> the discipline begins. ***

>

> Yes. I mentioned this explicitly in my last message.

>

> *** But I also think that some people have heavier hands

> when "disciplining," and such heaviness may not be necessary. ***

>

> I think you are misinterpreting the word discipline, using it as a

> synonym for chastisement or correction, or some kind of punative

> activity. As used by Ammachi, and in Hinduism in

> general, "discipline" simply means a received prescription for

> sadhana. Perhaps a better English rendering would be "routine"

> or "set of activities and practices."

>

> Thus "heaviness" is not really a concept that applies. The guru

> transmits to each shishya in such a way as they are able to

receive.

> It is not so much that there is a "heavy" sadhana and a "light"

> sadhana, with one being more or less effective or necessary. That

is

> not what's going on. Ammachi is saying, "the aspirant is drawn in

by

> the [attractiveness of the] message of love and compassion

[implicit

> in Shaktism], and then after that, the discipline [i.e., serious

> prescription of traditional Tantric sadhana/practice] begins.

>

> *** As was printed on the bracelets at Amma's retreat in LA

> 6/04: "That childlike innocence within you is God." Doesn't this

> truth figure into "Santana Dharma" or "Shaktism" or

even "Hinduism"?

> ***

>

> It does indeed, most centrally.

>

> *** Or is it reflective of something Ratzinger-like folks would

put a

> stop to? ***

>

> As noted in my last post, there are no "Ratzinger-like folks"

> holding power within in the Hindu systems. The Hindu religions are

> simply not set up that way; it is totally decentralized. There are

> the Hindu traditions, and there are the Gurus who teach, interpret

> and develop it with each passing generation. Hinduism may be

> changed, enhanced, evolved and developed, but only from within,

and

> by those who have already reached enlightenment, thus having the

> knowledge to "tweak and improve the delivery system" in accordance

> with the evolving needs and realities of the world. Such

> developments are binding upon none except those who accept the

> innovator as Guru, though in time they may seep into the popular

> fabric of the system. I had written:

>

> "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 [quoting

> Janardana Dasa] 'transpose/impose Western views, thinking,

symbolism

> and interpretation on the sacred as expressed through the eternal

> Vedas.'"

>

> Again, there are no rules -- unless one wishes to remain within

the

> Shakta tradition. If one does not care for the tradition, one can

> gather up as many of its symbols as s/he likes and go and invent

> something new for them to mean. That is fine. That is acceptable.

> But that is no longer Shaktism.

>

> aim mAtangyai namaH

[Guest guest]

In truth, there is no such thing as "Hinduism". It is a Western word to

categorize the very varied religous and spiritual practices of the very varied

people living in the land of Bharat. The West does this so they can then speak

"knowledgably" about these things. They categorize everything. But their box

is wrong.

 

4 main aspects? Again a Western box construction.

-

Mary Ann

Friday, September 30, 2005 11:46 AM

Re: Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma" the same

thing?

 

 

I did look at the link and read about the 4 aspects of Hinduism

there. I can understand now why people may have been offended by my

comments about not wanting to become Hindu. If Sanatana Dharma is

the name of what Deepak Chopra and Amma share with the world, then I

view it as a name of something that encompasses my views, practices,

seeking, learning, etc.

 

I mentioned "Ratzinger-like" folks because I felt that the subject

heading and posts about non-Shaktism-type messages seemed to be

heading in the direction of silencing anything that wasn't being

seen by certain members of SS as "serious" spirituality; I wasn't

talking about Hinduism not having a central leader like the Pope.

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Hi Mary Ann:

>

> Some good questions. Thank you.

>

> *** Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma" the same thing? ***

>

> That is similar to asking whether Greek Orthodoxy and Christianity

> are the same thing. The answer is yes and no; Greek Orthodoxy is a

> subset of Christianity; it *is* Christianity, but it's not the

only

> possible approach to Christianity, and not all Christians accept

all

> of its tenets.

>

> Same with Shaktism and Hinduism. Shaktism is one of the four major

> schools, or subsets, of Hinduism; but it is not the only possible

> approach, and not all Hindus will agree with all of its tenets.

Even

> within Shaktism, there are denominations that may have radically

> different approaches.

>

> But they are all indisputably Hindu. You will note that I use the

> term Hinduism rather than Sanatana Dharma; that is because I feel

> that Hinduism has broader connotations. I know that Sanatana

Dharma

> is supposed to be the Sanskritic equivalent, but in my experience

it

> often carries distinctly orthodox overtones and a certain socio-

> political stridency that limits its application. Hinduism is not a

> perfect term either, obviously, but of the two, I prefer it.

>

> So, just as I argued the other day that the form of hatha yoga

> without its undergirding of Hinduism is merely an effective form

of

> exercise and stress-reduction, likewise the form of Shaktism

without

> Hinduism is merely an Indian-flavored variety of goddess-focused,

> Pagan-revival pastiche.

>

> *** I have read in Ammachi's writings that at first the aspirant is

> drawn in by the message of love and compassion, and then after

that,

> the discipline begins. ***

>

> Yes. I mentioned this explicitly in my last message.

>

> *** But I also think that some people have heavier hands

> when "disciplining," and such heaviness may not be necessary. ***

>

> I think you are misinterpreting the word discipline, using it as a

> synonym for chastisement or correction, or some kind of punative

> activity. As used by Ammachi, and in Hinduism in

> general, "discipline" simply means a received prescription for

> sadhana. Perhaps a better English rendering would be "routine"

> or "set of activities and practices."

>

> Thus "heaviness" is not really a concept that applies. The guru

> transmits to each shishya in such a way as they are able to

receive.

> It is not so much that there is a "heavy" sadhana and a "light"

> sadhana, with one being more or less effective or necessary. That

is

> not what's going on. Ammachi is saying, "the aspirant is drawn in

by

> the [attractiveness of the] message of love and compassion

[implicit

> in Shaktism], and then after that, the discipline [i.e., serious

> prescription of traditional Tantric sadhana/practice] begins.

>

> *** As was printed on the bracelets at Amma's retreat in LA

> 6/04: "That childlike innocence within you is God." Doesn't this

> truth figure into "Santana Dharma" or "Shaktism" or

even "Hinduism"?

> ***

>

> It does indeed, most centrally.

>

> *** Or is it reflective of something Ratzinger-like folks would

put a

> stop to? ***

>

> As noted in my last post, there are no "Ratzinger-like folks"

> holding power within in the Hindu systems. The Hindu religions are

> simply not set up that way; it is totally decentralized. There are

> the Hindu traditions, and there are the Gurus who teach, interpret

> and develop it with each passing generation. Hinduism may be

> changed, enhanced, evolved and developed, but only from within,

and

> by those who have already reached enlightenment, thus having the

> knowledge to "tweak and improve the delivery system" in accordance

> with the evolving needs and realities of the world. Such

> developments are binding upon none except those who accept the

> innovator as Guru, though in time they may seep into the popular

> fabric of the system. I had written:

>

> "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 [quoting

> Janardana Dasa] 'transpose/impose Western views, thinking,

symbolism

> and interpretation on the sacred as expressed through the eternal

> Vedas.'"

>

> Again, there are no rules -- unless one wishes to remain within

the

> Shakta tradition. If one does not care for the tradition, one can

> gather up as many of its symbols as s/he likes and go and invent

> something new for them to mean. That is fine. That is acceptable.

> But that is no longer Shaktism.

>

> aim mAtangyai namaH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Okay, I am glad to read this. Thank you for posting. There is such

diversity here at SS, and it's good to read posts that accept,

acknowledge and embrace the depth beyond the limitation of the boxes.

 

, "Mahamuni" <mahamuni@c...> wrote:

> In truth, there is no such thing as "Hinduism". It is a Western

word to categorize the very varied religous and spiritual practices

of the very varied people living in the land of Bharat. The West

does this so they can then speak "knowledgably" about these things.

They categorize everything. But their box is wrong.

>

> 4 main aspects? Again a Western box construction.

> -

> Mary Ann

>

> Friday, September 30, 2005 11:46 AM

> Re: Are "Shaktism" and "Santana

Dharma" the same thing?

>

>

> I did look at the link and read about the 4 aspects of Hinduism

> there. I can understand now why people may have been offended by

my

> comments about not wanting to become Hindu. If Sanatana Dharma

is

> the name of what Deepak Chopra and Amma share with the world,

then I

> view it as a name of something that encompasses my views,

practices,

> seeking, learning, etc.

>

> I mentioned "Ratzinger-like" folks because I felt that the

subject

> heading and posts about non-Shaktism-type messages seemed to be

> heading in the direction of silencing anything that wasn't being

> seen by certain members of SS as "serious" spirituality; I

wasn't

> talking about Hinduism not having a central leader like the

Pope.

>

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> > Hi Mary Ann:

> >

> > Some good questions. Thank you.

> >

> > *** Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma" the same thing? ***

> >

> > That is similar to asking whether Greek Orthodoxy and

Christianity

> > are the same thing. The answer is yes and no; Greek Orthodoxy

is a

> > subset of Christianity; it *is* Christianity, but it's not the

> only

> > possible approach to Christianity, and not all Christians

accept

> all

> > of its tenets.

> >

> > Same with Shaktism and Hinduism. Shaktism is one of the four

major

> > schools, or subsets, of Hinduism; but it is not the only

possible

> > approach, and not all Hindus will agree with all of its

tenets.

> Even

> > within Shaktism, there are denominations that may have

radically

> > different approaches.

> >

> > But they are all indisputably Hindu. You will note that I use

the

> > term Hinduism rather than Sanatana Dharma; that is because I

feel

> > that Hinduism has broader connotations. I know that Sanatana

> Dharma

> > is supposed to be the Sanskritic equivalent, but in my

experience

> it

> > often carries distinctly orthodox overtones and a certain

socio-

> > political stridency that limits its application. Hinduism is

not a

> > perfect term either, obviously, but of the two, I prefer it.

> >

> > So, just as I argued the other day that the form of hatha yoga

> > without its undergirding of Hinduism is merely an effective

form

> of

> > exercise and stress-reduction, likewise the form of Shaktism

> without

> > Hinduism is merely an Indian-flavored variety of goddess-

focused,

> > Pagan-revival pastiche.

> >

> > *** I have read in Ammachi's writings that at first the

aspirant is

> > drawn in by the message of love and compassion, and then after

> that,

> > the discipline begins. ***

> >

> > Yes. I mentioned this explicitly in my last message.

> >

> > *** But I also think that some people have heavier hands

> > when "disciplining," and such heaviness may not be necessary.

***

> >

> > I think you are misinterpreting the word discipline, using it

as a

> > synonym for chastisement or correction, or some kind of

punative

> > activity. As used by Ammachi, and in Hinduism in

> > general, "discipline" simply means a received prescription for

> > sadhana. Perhaps a better English rendering would be "routine"

> > or "set of activities and practices."

> >

> > Thus "heaviness" is not really a concept that applies. The

guru

> > transmits to each shishya in such a way as they are able to

> receive.

> > It is not so much that there is a "heavy" sadhana and

a "light"

> > sadhana, with one being more or less effective or necessary.

That

> is

> > not what's going on. Ammachi is saying, "the aspirant is drawn

in

> by

> > the [attractiveness of the] message of love and compassion

> [implicit

> > in Shaktism], and then after that, the discipline [i.e.,

serious

> > prescription of traditional Tantric sadhana/practice] begins.

> >

> > *** As was printed on the bracelets at Amma's retreat in LA

> > 6/04: "That childlike innocence within you is God." Doesn't

this

> > truth figure into "Santana Dharma" or "Shaktism" or

> even "Hinduism"?

> > ***

> >

> > It does indeed, most centrally.

> >

> > *** Or is it reflective of something Ratzinger-like folks

would

> put a

> > stop to? ***

> >

> > As noted in my last post, there are no "Ratzinger-like folks"

> > holding power within in the Hindu systems. The Hindu religions

are

> > simply not set up that way; it is totally decentralized. There

are

> > the Hindu traditions, and there are the Gurus who teach,

interpret

> > and develop it with each passing generation. Hinduism may be

> > changed, enhanced, evolved and developed, but only from

within,

> and

> > by those who have already reached enlightenment, thus having

the

> > knowledge to "tweak and improve the delivery system" in

accordance

> > with the evolving needs and realities of the world. Such

> > developments are binding upon none except those who accept the

> > innovator as Guru, though in time they may seep into the

popular

> > fabric of the system. I had written:

> >

> > "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 [quoting

> > Janardana Dasa] 'transpose/impose Western views, thinking,

> symbolism

> > and interpretation on the sacred as expressed through the

eternal

> > Vedas.'"

> >

> > Again, there are no rules -- unless one wishes to remain

within

> the

> > Shakta tradition. If one does not care for the tradition, one

can

> > gather up as many of its symbols as s/he likes and go and

invent

> > something new for them to mean. That is fine. That is

acceptable.

> > But that is no longer Shaktism.

> >

> > aim mAtangyai namaH

>

>

>

>

>

> -

-----------

>

>

> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms

of Service.

>

>

> -

-----------

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Mahamuni:

 

You are quite right, I suppose. :-p The four categories offered in

Hinduism Today would not make much sense to any but the most Western-

oriented, English-fluent Hindus.

 

But what is the better solution? How do you explain all of this to

interested Westerners? Where do you you begin to get your head

around it? I mean, take today as an example. A very active member

who is a Westerner and pretty active in the group, only TODAY

realized that the religion being discussed here is a form of

Hinduism.

 

The very first sentence of our Group description for the past five

years has read, "Shakti Sadhana is a Hindu spiritual tradition

focusing worship upon Devi, the Goddess, the Divine Mother who

creates and embodies all the Universe." What else can we say? How do

we make it clearer? Even this straightforward attempt at

simplification has failed! And I have to wonder how many people in

this group -- despite all of our welcome letters and explanations

and mission statements, etc -- have the slightest idea of what this

group represents?!

 

Do we simply say, it is not to be understood by outsiders with their

categories and boxes? It is nobody's business what we believe. Is

that the solution? If not, what is?

 

If the four categories from Hinduism Today (and originally

propogated by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami) are useless,

meaningless Western constructions, then what is the RIGHT way to

explain this material to earnest, serious-inded newcomers seeking to

gain a foothold in the world's oldest living religion?

 

DB

 

P.S. Incidentally, it is slightly silly to see the West criticized

as "categorizers," when no culture in the history of the world has

produced so many detailed, systematized categorizations of

humankind, nature, art and spirit as the Hindu civilization! *lol*

But I am joking; I understand your meaning. ;-)

 

 

, "Mahamuni" <mahamuni@c...>

wrote:

> In truth, there is no such thing as "Hinduism". It is a Western

word to categorize the very varied religous and spiritual practices

of the very varied people living in the land of Bharat. The West

does this so they can then speak "knowledgably" about these things.

They categorize everything. But their box is wrong.

>

> 4 main aspects? Again a Western box construction.

[Guest guest]

Oh, D.B.! You've had people join this group who

assume that everyone else here will be fluent in

notions of Dianic Wicca! That Hinduism includes

observing the Celtic fire-festivals or Wiccan Sabbats!

Nobody reads with discrimination anymore.

 

My problem with Subramuniyaswami's categories is, he

makes the Smriti tradition sound wonderful to a

Western Neo-Pagan -- an altar with five different

deities, you can pick and choose, it's all-inclusive.

But the Smartas are for Brahmins only, and they are

among those who believe that no one can convert to

Hinduism.

 

I'm not certain what "flavor" of Hindu I see myself

as. I'm especially fond of Ganesha, but

Subramuniyaswami doesn't see the Ganapatyas as a

viable category. Where does Tantra fit in, in the

categories given?

 

-- Len

 

 

--- Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

> Hi Mahamuni:

>

> You are quite right, I suppose. :-p The four

> categories offered in

> Hinduism Today would not make much sense to any but

> the most Western-

> oriented, English-fluent Hindus.

>

> But what is the better solution? How do you explain

> all of this to

> interested Westerners? Where do you you begin to get

> your head

> around it? I mean, take today as an example. A very

> active member

> who is a Westerner and pretty active in the group,

> only TODAY

> realized that the religion being discussed here is a

> form of

> Hinduism.

>

> The very first sentence of our Group description for

> the past five

> years has read, "Shakti Sadhana is a Hindu spiritual

> tradition

> focusing worship upon Devi, the Goddess, the Divine

> Mother who

> creates and embodies all the Universe." What else

> can we say? How do

> we make it clearer? Even this straightforward

> attempt at

> simplification has failed! And I have to wonder how

> many people in

> this group -- despite all of our welcome letters and

> explanations

> and mission statements, etc -- have the slightest

> idea of what this

> group represents?!

>

> Do we simply say, it is not to be understood by

> outsiders with their

> categories and boxes? It is nobody's business what

> we believe. Is

> that the solution? If not, what is?

>

> If the four categories from Hinduism Today (and

> originally

> propogated by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami) are

> useless,

> meaningless Western constructions, then what is the

> RIGHT way to

> explain this material to earnest, serious-inded

> newcomers seeking to

> gain a foothold in the world's oldest living

> religion?

>

> DB

>

> P.S. Incidentally, it is slightly silly to see the

> West criticized

> as "categorizers," when no culture in the history of

> the world has

> produced so many detailed, systematized

> categorizations of

> humankind, nature, art and spirit as the Hindu

> civilization! *lol*

> But I am joking; I understand your meaning. ;-)

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the wise words, Len ...

 

But you are quite right, I feel like a complete dope. For all this

time I have been arguing the fine points of Hindu (sorry, Muni,

Sanatana Dharmic) doctrine with a very nice person who -- surprise,

surprise! -- had no idea we were even talking about Hinduism.

 

So there you have it. Problem solved. But I would hate to go back

through the archives and count the thousands of words I've expended

in discussion, wondering what on earth I was failing to express,

when I could have accomplished the whole job with a four-word

telegram: "READ THE GROUP INTRODUCTION."

 

As someone who works with words, reveres them really, and invests

quite a bit of thought into each post I make here, I allowed myself

to be naive enough to think that my responses were being read just

as thoughtfully. Silly boy I am! Still, I am sure that a few people

out there may have read them and maybe got something out of them.

 

The nice thing about this development is how easy it makes things in

the last "Kumari" discussion. All of this stuff about how people

should open their minds and see that god is in goddess and goddess

is in god. Hey presto, that's on the front page too: "Devi is the

Shakti (Supreme Energy) of Shiva (Supreme Consciousness); both

identical to and inseparable from Him." You see, I thought that was

the starting point of the conversation; how much time and energy I

could have saved if I realized that it was the whole question.

 

Bing! Next topic! Anyone want a snack? Need to use the bathroom? ...

I am just kidding, of course. I feel punchy! Laughing a lot, for

some reason!

 

Now, as to the categories that Muni so wisely dismissed as "Western"

and "wrong" -- they are bloody intellectual aids for the novice,

nothing more and nothing less. Subramuniyaswami designed them to

help interested non-Hindus (sorry, Muni, non-Sanatana-Dharmists) get

a broad general understanding of the the system's complex landscape.

As for Muni's claim that "the West does this so they can then speak

'knowledgably' about these things," I hate to disappoint, but if any

more than 0.001% of "the West" is even aware of these categories

(never mind conversant in them), I would be shocked beyond belief.

 

So of course, Len, you are right to note that the "boxes" (to use

Muni's and Mary Ann's words) were not intended for complex analysis.

The Brahmin factor you mention isn't in there. Tantra isn't in

there. They "four schools" discussion is just a broad starting point

for understanding. It gives newcomers and outsiders an analytical

framework through which to process the more complex, detailed

information that inevitably (or not, apparently) comes with study

and experience.

 

You've gotta start somewhere, after all. And this humble group is

another small example of that process. In it, Nora, Kochu and I have

worked very hard to fulfill Amrita's excellent working goal: "Make

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

true or false, 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.'"

 

The role of the Munis of the world, on the other hand, is to let

foolish others do the ground work and then, when it is done, look

and say, "No, that is wrong." No messy explanations or reasoning

necessary. And you know what? I bow to him. He already knew what I

just learned today: Send a four-word telegram, and take the rest of

the day off.

 

And sure enough, he immediately received this small effort a rather

rich outpouring of praise for his pithy wisdom: "I am glad to read

this. Thank you for posting. ... it's good to read posts that

accept, acknowledge and embrace the depth beyond the limitation of

the boxes ...."

 

Are you laughing too, now? Lalita's play indeed .... ;-)

 

aim mAtangyai namaH

 

 

, Len Rosenberg

<kalipadma108> wrote:

>

> Oh, D.B.! You've had people join this group who

> assume that everyone else here will be fluent in

> notions of Dianic Wicca! That Hinduism includes

> observing the Celtic fire-festivals or Wiccan Sabbats!

> Nobody reads with discrimination anymore.

>

> My problem with Subramuniyaswami's categories is, he

> makes the Smriti tradition sound wonderful to a

> Western Neo-Pagan -- an altar with five different

> deities, you can pick and choose, it's all-inclusive.

> But the Smartas are for Brahmins only, and they are

> among those who believe that no one can convert to

> Hinduism.

>

> I'm not certain what "flavor" of Hindu I see myself

> as. I'm especially fond of Ganesha, but

> Subramuniyaswami doesn't see the Ganapatyas as a

> viable category. Where does Tantra fit in, in the

> categories given?

>

> -- Len

[Guest guest]

Devi Bhakta,

 

I haven't had time to respond to your other message but please don't take

personal offense at what I pointed out. It has just become a pet peeve of mine,

along with the falsity of the Aryan Invasion theory. You and the others are

doing fine work and I am grateful for this sacred forum. Please don't mind my

comments. They were meant just to state some food for thought.

 

Eternal Pranams,

 

Surya

-

Devi Bhakta

Friday, September 30, 2005 6:02 PM

Re: Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma" the same

thing?

 

 

Thanks for the wise words, Len ...

 

But you are quite right, I feel like a complete dope. For all this

time I have been arguing the fine points of Hindu (sorry, Muni,

Sanatana Dharmic) doctrine with a very nice person who -- surprise,

surprise! -- had no idea we were even talking about Hinduism.

 

So there you have it. Problem solved. But I would hate to go back

through the archives and count the thousands of words I've expended

in discussion, wondering what on earth I was failing to express,

when I could have accomplished the whole job with a four-word

telegram: "READ THE GROUP INTRODUCTION."

 

As someone who works with words, reveres them really, and invests

quite a bit of thought into each post I make here, I allowed myself

to be naive enough to think that my responses were being read just

as thoughtfully. Silly boy I am! Still, I am sure that a few people

out there may have read them and maybe got something out of them.

 

The nice thing about this development is how easy it makes things in

the last "Kumari" discussion. All of this stuff about how people

should open their minds and see that god is in goddess and goddess

is in god. Hey presto, that's on the front page too: "Devi is the

Shakti (Supreme Energy) of Shiva (Supreme Consciousness); both

identical to and inseparable from Him." You see, I thought that was

the starting point of the conversation; how much time and energy I

could have saved if I realized that it was the whole question.

 

Bing! Next topic! Anyone want a snack? Need to use the bathroom? ...

I am just kidding, of course. I feel punchy! Laughing a lot, for

some reason!

 

Now, as to the categories that Muni so wisely dismissed as "Western"

and "wrong" -- they are bloody intellectual aids for the novice,

nothing more and nothing less. Subramuniyaswami designed them to

help interested non-Hindus (sorry, Muni, non-Sanatana-Dharmists) get

a broad general understanding of the the system's complex landscape.

As for Muni's claim that "the West does this so they can then speak

'knowledgably' about these things," I hate to disappoint, but if any

more than 0.001% of "the West" is even aware of these categories

(never mind conversant in them), I would be shocked beyond belief.

 

So of course, Len, you are right to note that the "boxes" (to use

Muni's and Mary Ann's words) were not intended for complex analysis.

The Brahmin factor you mention isn't in there. Tantra isn't in

there. They "four schools" discussion is just a broad starting point

for understanding. It gives newcomers and outsiders an analytical

framework through which to process the more complex, detailed

information that inevitably (or not, apparently) comes with study

and experience.

 

You've gotta start somewhere, after all. And this humble group is

another small example of that process. In it, Nora, Kochu and I have

worked very hard to fulfill Amrita's excellent working goal: "Make

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

true or false, 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.'"

 

The role of the Munis of the world, on the other hand, is to let

foolish others do the ground work and then, when it is done, look

and say, "No, that is wrong." No messy explanations or reasoning

necessary. And you know what? I bow to him. He already knew what I

just learned today: Send a four-word telegram, and take the rest of

the day off.

 

And sure enough, he immediately received this small effort a rather

rich outpouring of praise for his pithy wisdom: "I am glad to read

this. Thank you for posting. ... it's good to read posts that

accept, acknowledge and embrace the depth beyond the limitation of

the boxes ...."

 

Are you laughing too, now? Lalita's play indeed .... ;-)

 

aim mAtangyai namaH

 

 

, Len Rosenberg

<kalipadma108> wrote:

>

> Oh, D.B.! You've had people join this group who

> assume that everyone else here will be fluent in

> notions of Dianic Wicca! That Hinduism includes

> observing the Celtic fire-festivals or Wiccan Sabbats!

> Nobody reads with discrimination anymore.

>

> My problem with Subramuniyaswami's categories is, he

> makes the Smriti tradition sound wonderful to a

> Western Neo-Pagan -- an altar with five different

> deities, you can pick and choose, it's all-inclusive.

> But the Smartas are for Brahmins only, and they are

> among those who believe that no one can convert to

> Hinduism.

>

> I'm not certain what "flavor" of Hindu I see myself

> as. I'm especially fond of Ganesha, but

> Subramuniyaswami doesn't see the Ganapatyas as a

> viable category. Where does Tantra fit in, in the

> categories given?

>

> -- Len

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Now come on this is boring give us some more of the really funny

ridicilous stuff - like this gem of your scholarly expertise in the

Hatha Yoga discussion :

"Modern Hinduism was already fully formend in the Harappean

Civilisation."

 

That one was real fun not these boring insults.

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Thanks for the wise words, Len ...

>

> But you are quite right, I feel like a complete dope. For all this

> time I have been arguing the fine points of Hindu (sorry, Muni,

> Sanatana Dharmic) doctrine with a very nice person who -- surprise,

> surprise! -- had no idea we were even talking about Hinduism.

>

> So there you have it. Problem solved. But I would hate to go back

> through the archives and count the thousands of words I've expended

> in discussion, wondering what on earth I was failing to express,

> when I could have accomplished the whole job with a four-word

> telegram: "READ THE GROUP INTRODUCTION."

>

> As someone who works with words, reveres them really, and invests

> quite a bit of thought into each post I make here, I allowed myself

> to be naive enough to think that my responses were being read just

> as thoughtfully. Silly boy I am! Still, I am sure that a few people

> out there may have read them and maybe got something out of them.

>

> The nice thing about this development is how easy it makes things

in

> the last "Kumari" discussion. All of this stuff about how people

> should open their minds and see that god is in goddess and goddess

> is in god. Hey presto, that's on the front page too: "Devi is the

> Shakti (Supreme Energy) of Shiva (Supreme Consciousness); both

> identical to and inseparable from Him." You see, I thought that was

> the starting point of the conversation; how much time and energy I

> could have saved if I realized that it was the whole question.

>

> Bing! Next topic! Anyone want a snack? Need to use the

bathroom? ...

> I am just kidding, of course. I feel punchy! Laughing a lot, for

> some reason!

>

> Now, as to the categories that Muni so wisely dismissed

as "Western"

> and "wrong" -- they are bloody intellectual aids for the novice,

> nothing more and nothing less. Subramuniyaswami designed them to

> help interested non-Hindus (sorry, Muni, non-Sanatana-Dharmists)

get

> a broad general understanding of the the system's complex

landscape.

> As for Muni's claim that "the West does this so they can then speak

> 'knowledgably' about these things," I hate to disappoint, but if

any

> more than 0.001% of "the West" is even aware of these categories

> (never mind conversant in them), I would be shocked beyond belief.

>

> So of course, Len, you are right to note that the "boxes" (to use

> Muni's and Mary Ann's words) were not intended for complex

analysis.

> The Brahmin factor you mention isn't in there. Tantra isn't in

> there. They "four schools" discussion is just a broad starting

point

> for understanding. It gives newcomers and outsiders an analytical

> framework through which to process the more complex, detailed

> information that inevitably (or not, apparently) comes with study

> and experience.

>

> You've gotta start somewhere, after all. And this humble group is

> another small example of that process. In it, Nora, Kochu and I

have

> worked very hard to fulfill Amrita's excellent working goal: "Make

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

> true or false, 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.'"

>

> The role of the Munis of the world, on the other hand, is to let

> foolish others do the ground work and then, when it is done, look

> and say, "No, that is wrong." No messy explanations or reasoning

> necessary. And you know what? I bow to him. He already knew what I

> just learned today: Send a four-word telegram, and take the rest of

> the day off.

>

> And sure enough, he immediately received this small effort a rather

> rich outpouring of praise for his pithy wisdom: "I am glad to read

> this. Thank you for posting. ... it's good to read posts that

> accept, acknowledge and embrace the depth beyond the limitation of

> the boxes ...."

>

> Are you laughing too, now? Lalita's play indeed .... ;-)

>

> aim mAtangyai namaH

>

>

> , Len Rosenberg

> <kalipadma108> wrote:

> >

> > Oh, D.B.! You've had people join this group who

> > assume that everyone else here will be fluent in

> > notions of Dianic Wicca! That Hinduism includes

> > observing the Celtic fire-festivals or Wiccan Sabbats!

> > Nobody reads with discrimination anymore.

> >

> > My problem with Subramuniyaswami's categories is, he

> > makes the Smriti tradition sound wonderful to a

> > Western Neo-Pagan -- an altar with five different

> > deities, you can pick and choose, it's all-inclusive.

> > But the Smartas are for Brahmins only, and they are

> > among those who believe that no one can convert to

> > Hinduism.

> >

> > I'm not certain what "flavor" of Hindu I see myself

> > as. I'm especially fond of Ganesha, but

> > Subramuniyaswami doesn't see the Ganapatyas as a

> > viable category. Where does Tantra fit in, in the

> > categories given?

> >

> > -- Len

[Guest guest]

Hi Len,

 

After having studied for several years under Subramuniyaswami (those

were absolutely wonderful years!), I can tell you that there were

other reasons in addition to presenting a simplified version of

Hinduism to westerners.

 

Smartas are followers of Shankaracharya but not all followers of

Shankaracharya are smartas:-). What Gurudeva did was to try to dilute

the influence of Smartas; at the time the Kanchi mutt was trying to

train smartas as priests, which is not permitted as per Saiva agama

rules. The Shaiva priesthood was largely sidelined by the influential

Kanchi mutt and Gurudeva provided an outlet for their voice. By

boxing the Kanchi school as smartas, there was some distinction

between smartas (who supposedly were trying to act as the sole

guardians of hinduism)and shaivas, and to partially pre-empt smartas

from taking over Shaiva temples in India and abroad.

 

The shaiva priesthood is very liberal and today if you wanted to be a

traditional Shivacharya priest, you can do so (with 8 years of

training).

 

And damn, there is so much of politics in religion :-).

 

-yogaman

 

, Len Rosenberg

<kalipadma108> wrote:

>

> Oh, D.B.! You've had people join this group who

> assume that everyone else here will be fluent in

> notions of Dianic Wicca! That Hinduism includes

> observing the Celtic fire-festivals or Wiccan Sabbats!

> Nobody reads with discrimination anymore.

>

> My problem with Subramuniyaswami's categories is, he

> makes the Smriti tradition sound wonderful to a

> Western Neo-Pagan -- an altar with five different

> deities, you can pick and choose, it's all-inclusive.

> But the Smartas are for Brahmins only, and they are

> among those who believe that no one can convert to

> Hinduism.

>

> I'm not certain what "flavor" of Hindu I see myself

> as. I'm especially fond of Ganesha, but

> Subramuniyaswami doesn't see the Ganapatyas as a

> viable category. Where does Tantra fit in, in the

> categories given?

>

> -- Len

>

>

> --- Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> > Hi Mahamuni:

> >

> > You are quite right, I suppose. :-p The four

> > categories offered in

> > Hinduism Today would not make much sense to any but

> > the most Western-

> > oriented, English-fluent Hindus.

> >

> > But what is the better solution? How do you explain

> > all of this to

> > interested Westerners? Where do you you begin to get

> > your head

> > around it? I mean, take today as an example. A very

> > active member

> > who is a Westerner and pretty active in the group,

> > only TODAY

> > realized that the religion being discussed here is a

> > form of

> > Hinduism.

> >

> > The very first sentence of our Group description for

> > the past five

> > years has read, "Shakti Sadhana is a Hindu spiritual

> > tradition

> > focusing worship upon Devi, the Goddess, the Divine

> > Mother who

> > creates and embodies all the Universe." What else

> > can we say? How do

> > we make it clearer? Even this straightforward

> > attempt at

> > simplification has failed! And I have to wonder how

> > many people in

> > this group -- despite all of our welcome letters and

> > explanations

> > and mission statements, etc -- have the slightest

> > idea of what this

> > group represents?!

> >

> > Do we simply say, it is not to be understood by

> > outsiders with their

> > categories and boxes? It is nobody's business what

> > we believe. Is

> > that the solution? If not, what is?

> >

> > If the four categories from Hinduism Today (and

> > originally

> > propogated by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami) are

> > useless,

> > meaningless Western constructions, then what is the

> > RIGHT way to

> > explain this material to earnest, serious-inded

> > newcomers seeking to

> > gain a foothold in the world's oldest living

> > religion?

> >

> > DB

> >

> > P.S. Incidentally, it is slightly silly to see the

> > West criticized

> > as "categorizers," when no culture in the history of

> > the world has

> > produced so many detailed, systematized

> > categorizations of

> > humankind, nature, art and spirit as the Hindu

> > civilization! *lol*

> > But I am joking; I understand your meaning. ;-)

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

>

[Guest guest]

Yes there is...

-

childofdevi

Friday, September 30, 2005 8:04 PM

Re: Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma" the same

thing?

 

 

Hi Len,

 

After having studied for several years under Subramuniyaswami (those

were absolutely wonderful years!), I can tell you that there were

other reasons in addition to presenting a simplified version of

Hinduism to westerners.

 

Smartas are followers of Shankaracharya but not all followers of

Shankaracharya are smartas:-). What Gurudeva did was to try to dilute

the influence of Smartas; at the time the Kanchi mutt was trying to

train smartas as priests, which is not permitted as per Saiva agama

rules. The Shaiva priesthood was largely sidelined by the influential

Kanchi mutt and Gurudeva provided an outlet for their voice. By

boxing the Kanchi school as smartas, there was some distinction

between smartas (who supposedly were trying to act as the sole

guardians of hinduism)and shaivas, and to partially pre-empt smartas

from taking over Shaiva temples in India and abroad.

 

The shaiva priesthood is very liberal and today if you wanted to be a

traditional Shivacharya priest, you can do so (with 8 years of

training).

 

And damn, there is so much of politics in religion :-).

 

-yogaman

 

, Len Rosenberg

<kalipadma108> wrote:

>

> Oh, D.B.! You've had people join this group who

> assume that everyone else here will be fluent in

> notions of Dianic Wicca! That Hinduism includes

> observing the Celtic fire-festivals or Wiccan Sabbats!

> Nobody reads with discrimination anymore.

>

> My problem with Subramuniyaswami's categories is, he

> makes the Smriti tradition sound wonderful to a

> Western Neo-Pagan -- an altar with five different

> deities, you can pick and choose, it's all-inclusive.

> But the Smartas are for Brahmins only, and they are

> among those who believe that no one can convert to

> Hinduism.

>

> I'm not certain what "flavor" of Hindu I see myself

> as. I'm especially fond of Ganesha, but

> Subramuniyaswami doesn't see the Ganapatyas as a

> viable category. Where does Tantra fit in, in the

> categories given?

>

> -- Len

>

>

> --- Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> > Hi Mahamuni:

> >

> > You are quite right, I suppose. :-p The four

> > categories offered in

> > Hinduism Today would not make much sense to any but

> > the most Western-

> > oriented, English-fluent Hindus.

> >

> > But what is the better solution? How do you explain

> > all of this to

> > interested Westerners? Where do you you begin to get

> > your head

> > around it? I mean, take today as an example. A very

> > active member

> > who is a Westerner and pretty active in the group,

> > only TODAY

> > realized that the religion being discussed here is a

> > form of

> > Hinduism.

> >

> > The very first sentence of our Group description for

> > the past five

> > years has read, "Shakti Sadhana is a Hindu spiritual

> > tradition

> > focusing worship upon Devi, the Goddess, the Divine

> > Mother who

> > creates and embodies all the Universe." What else

> > can we say? How do

> > we make it clearer? Even this straightforward

> > attempt at

> > simplification has failed! And I have to wonder how

> > many people in

> > this group -- despite all of our welcome letters and

> > explanations

> > and mission statements, etc -- have the slightest

> > idea of what this

> > group represents?!

> >

> > Do we simply say, it is not to be understood by

> > outsiders with their

> > categories and boxes? It is nobody's business what

> > we believe. Is

> > that the solution? If not, what is?

> >

> > If the four categories from Hinduism Today (and

> > originally

> > propogated by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami) are

> > useless,

> > meaningless Western constructions, then what is the

> > RIGHT way to

> > explain this material to earnest, serious-inded

> > newcomers seeking to

> > gain a foothold in the world's oldest living

> > religion?

> >

> > DB

> >

> > P.S. Incidentally, it is slightly silly to see the

> > West criticized

> > as "categorizers," when no culture in the history of

> > the world has

> > produced so many detailed, systematized

> > categorizations of

> > humankind, nature, art and spirit as the Hindu

> > civilization! *lol*

> > But I am joking; I understand your meaning. ;-)

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

>

 

 

 

 

Traditions Divine

 

 

 

 

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Look my point was that in a forum such as this one, discussing such traditional

and sacred topics, we should strive towards more than just the "status quo". Do

you not agree?

 

 

-

Devi Bhakta

Friday, September 30, 2005 6:02 PM

Re: Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma" the same

thing?

 

 

Thanks for the wise words, Len ...

 

But you are quite right, I feel like a complete dope. For all this

time I have been arguing the fine points of Hindu (sorry, Muni,

Sanatana Dharmic) doctrine with a very nice person who -- surprise,

surprise! -- had no idea we were even talking about Hinduism.

 

So there you have it. Problem solved. But I would hate to go back

through the archives and count the thousands of words I've expended

in discussion, wondering what on earth I was failing to express,

when I could have accomplished the whole job with a four-word

telegram: "READ THE GROUP INTRODUCTION."

 

As someone who works with words, reveres them really, and invests

quite a bit of thought into each post I make here, I allowed myself

to be naive enough to think that my responses were being read just

as thoughtfully. Silly boy I am! Still, I am sure that a few people

out there may have read them and maybe got something out of them.

 

The nice thing about this development is how easy it makes things in

the last "Kumari" discussion. All of this stuff about how people

should open their minds and see that god is in goddess and goddess

is in god. Hey presto, that's on the front page too: "Devi is the

Shakti (Supreme Energy) of Shiva (Supreme Consciousness); both

identical to and inseparable from Him." You see, I thought that was

the starting point of the conversation; how much time and energy I

could have saved if I realized that it was the whole question.

 

Bing! Next topic! Anyone want a snack? Need to use the bathroom? ...

I am just kidding, of course. I feel punchy! Laughing a lot, for

some reason!

 

Now, as to the categories that Muni so wisely dismissed as "Western"

and "wrong" -- they are bloody intellectual aids for the novice,

nothing more and nothing less. Subramuniyaswami designed them to

help interested non-Hindus (sorry, Muni, non-Sanatana-Dharmists) get

a broad general understanding of the the system's complex landscape.

As for Muni's claim that "the West does this so they can then speak

'knowledgably' about these things," I hate to disappoint, but if any

more than 0.001% of "the West" is even aware of these categories

(never mind conversant in them), I would be shocked beyond belief.

 

So of course, Len, you are right to note that the "boxes" (to use

Muni's and Mary Ann's words) were not intended for complex analysis.

The Brahmin factor you mention isn't in there. Tantra isn't in

there. They "four schools" discussion is just a broad starting point

for understanding. It gives newcomers and outsiders an analytical

framework through which to process the more complex, detailed

information that inevitably (or not, apparently) comes with study

and experience.

 

You've gotta start somewhere, after all. And this humble group is

another small example of that process. In it, Nora, Kochu and I have

worked very hard to fulfill Amrita's excellent working goal: "Make

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

true or false, 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.'"

 

The role of the Munis of the world, on the other hand, is to let

foolish others do the ground work and then, when it is done, look

and say, "No, that is wrong." No messy explanations or reasoning

necessary. And you know what? I bow to him. He already knew what I

just learned today: Send a four-word telegram, and take the rest of

the day off.

 

And sure enough, he immediately received this small effort a rather

rich outpouring of praise for his pithy wisdom: "I am glad to read

this. Thank you for posting. ... it's good to read posts that

accept, acknowledge and embrace the depth beyond the limitation of

the boxes ...."

 

Are you laughing too, now? Lalita's play indeed .... ;-)

 

aim mAtangyai namaH

 

 

, Len Rosenberg

<kalipadma108> wrote:

>

> Oh, D.B.! You've had people join this group who

> assume that everyone else here will be fluent in

> notions of Dianic Wicca! That Hinduism includes

> observing the Celtic fire-festivals or Wiccan Sabbats!

> Nobody reads with discrimination anymore.

>

> My problem with Subramuniyaswami's categories is, he

> makes the Smriti tradition sound wonderful to a

> Western Neo-Pagan -- an altar with five different

> deities, you can pick and choose, it's all-inclusive.

> But the Smartas are for Brahmins only, and they are

> among those who believe that no one can convert to

> Hinduism.

>

> I'm not certain what "flavor" of Hindu I see myself

> as. I'm especially fond of Ganesha, but

> Subramuniyaswami doesn't see the Ganapatyas as a

> viable category. Where does Tantra fit in, in the

> categories given?

>

> -- Len

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Be careful while discussing with this self proclaimend authority on

Hinduism, after awhile he will tell you an apple is an egg and a cat

is a dog a buddhist is a hindu, Hatha Yoga is 8000 yers old and kaula

tantra is vedic and westerners are all brahmins.

You know he is doing this because he is working on the impossibilty

tantric hyper drive spaceship, This vehicle is able to project faster

than light. Now to achieve this admirable feat he starts posting all

these absurdities, until Heisenberg appears and chants his

mantra: "The more precisely the POSITION is determined,the less

precisely the MOMENTUM is known" this activates the uncertainity

principle in all three brainend beings who dare to listen,and as a

result space will begin to warp because of fear and then wrap

around the time continuum.

While he is pushing the ignition button it is possible that you

develop an irresistible urge to vomit.

 

, "Mahamuni" <mahamuni@c...>

wrote:

> Look my point was that in a forum such as this one, discussing such

traditional and sacred topics, we should strive towards more than

just the "status quo". Do you not agree?

>

>

> -

> Devi Bhakta

>

> Friday, September 30, 2005 6:02 PM

> Re: Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma"

the same thing?

>

>

> Thanks for the wise words, Len ...

>

> But you are quite right, I feel like a complete dope. For all

this

> time I have been arguing the fine points of Hindu (sorry, Muni,

> Sanatana Dharmic) doctrine with a very nice person who --

surprise,

> surprise! -- had no idea we were even talking about Hinduism.

>

> So there you have it. Problem solved. But I would hate to go back

> through the archives and count the thousands of words I've

expended

> in discussion, wondering what on earth I was failing to express,

> when I could have accomplished the whole job with a four-word

> telegram: "READ THE GROUP INTRODUCTION."

>

> As someone who works with words, reveres them really, and invests

> quite a bit of thought into each post I make here, I allowed

myself

> to be naive enough to think that my responses were being read

just

> as thoughtfully. Silly boy I am! Still, I am sure that a few

people

> out there may have read them and maybe got something out of them.

>

> The nice thing about this development is how easy it makes things

in

> the last "Kumari" discussion. All of this stuff about how people

> should open their minds and see that god is in goddess and

goddess

> is in god. Hey presto, that's on the front page too: "Devi is the

> Shakti (Supreme Energy) of Shiva (Supreme Consciousness); both

> identical to and inseparable from Him." You see, I thought that

was

> the starting point of the conversation; how much time and energy

I

> could have saved if I realized that it was the whole question.

>

> Bing! Next topic! Anyone want a snack? Need to use the

bathroom? ...

> I am just kidding, of course. I feel punchy! Laughing a lot, for

> some reason!

>

> Now, as to the categories that Muni so wisely dismissed

as "Western"

> and "wrong" -- they are bloody intellectual aids for the novice,

> nothing more and nothing less. Subramuniyaswami designed them to

> help interested non-Hindus (sorry, Muni, non-Sanatana-Dharmists)

get

> a broad general understanding of the the system's complex

landscape.

> As for Muni's claim that "the West does this so they can then

speak

> 'knowledgably' about these things," I hate to disappoint, but if

any

> more than 0.001% of "the West" is even aware of these categories

> (never mind conversant in them), I would be shocked beyond belief.

>

> So of course, Len, you are right to note that the "boxes" (to use

> Muni's and Mary Ann's words) were not intended for complex

analysis.

> The Brahmin factor you mention isn't in there. Tantra isn't in

> there. They "four schools" discussion is just a broad starting

point

> for understanding. It gives newcomers and outsiders an analytical

> framework through which to process the more complex, detailed

> information that inevitably (or not, apparently) comes with study

> and experience.

>

> You've gotta start somewhere, after all. And this humble group is

> another small example of that process. In it, Nora, Kochu and I

have

> worked very hard to fulfill Amrita's excellent working

goal: "Make

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

is

> true or false, 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.'"

>

> The role of the Munis of the world, on the other hand, is to let

> foolish others do the ground work and then, when it is done, look

> and say, "No, that is wrong." No messy explanations or reasoning

> necessary. And you know what? I bow to him. He already knew what

I

> just learned today: Send a four-word telegram, and take the rest

of

> the day off.

>

> And sure enough, he immediately received this small effort a

rather

> rich outpouring of praise for his pithy wisdom: "I am glad to

read

> this. Thank you for posting. ... it's good to read posts that

> accept, acknowledge and embrace the depth beyond the limitation

of

> the boxes ...."

>

> Are you laughing too, now? Lalita's play indeed .... ;-)

>

> aim mAtangyai namaH

>

>

> , Len Rosenberg

> <kalipadma108> wrote:

> >

> > Oh, D.B.! You've had people join this group who

> > assume that everyone else here will be fluent in

> > notions of Dianic Wicca! That Hinduism includes

> > observing the Celtic fire-festivals or Wiccan Sabbats!

> > Nobody reads with discrimination anymore.

> >

> > My problem with Subramuniyaswami's categories is, he

> > makes the Smriti tradition sound wonderful to a

> > Western Neo-Pagan -- an altar with five different

> > deities, you can pick and choose, it's all-inclusive.

> > But the Smartas are for Brahmins only, and they are

> > among those who believe that no one can convert to

> > Hinduism.

> >

> > I'm not certain what "flavor" of Hindu I see myself

> > as. I'm especially fond of Ganesha, but

> > Subramuniyaswami doesn't see the Ganapatyas as a

> > viable category. Where does Tantra fit in, in the

> > categories given?

> >

> > -- Len

>

>

>

>

>

> --

----------

>

>

> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms

of Service.

>

>

> --

----------

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mahamuni:

 

I could not agree more. Kindly pardon my previous post or two, I was

rather more frank than usual, for a number of reasons -- some of

them legitimate perhaps, others less so.

 

In any event, I appreciate your clarifications and please be assured

that I am not offended in the least. Silly posts, as Da Nath notes

(and illustrates), can be a damn good laugh every now and then, even

when they are my own. ;-)

 

DB

 

, "Mahamuni" <mahamuni@c...>

wrote:

> Look my point was that in a forum such as this one, discussing

such traditional and sacred topics, we should strive towards more

than just the "status quo". Do you not agree?

>

>

> -

> Devi Bhakta

>

> Friday, September 30, 2005 6:02 PM

> Re: Are "Shaktism" and "Santana

Dharma" the same thing?

>

>

> Thanks for the wise words, Len ...

>

> But you are quite right, I feel like a complete dope. For all

this

> time I have been arguing the fine points of Hindu (sorry, Muni,

> Sanatana Dharmic) doctrine with a very nice person who --

surprise,

> surprise! -- had no idea we were even talking about Hinduism.

>

> So there you have it. Problem solved. But I would hate to go

back

> through the archives and count the thousands of words I've

expended

> in discussion, wondering what on earth I was failing to express,

> when I could have accomplished the whole job with a four-word

> telegram: "READ THE GROUP INTRODUCTION."

>

> As someone who works with words, reveres them really, and

invests

> quite a bit of thought into each post I make here, I allowed

myself

> to be naive enough to think that my responses were being read

just

> as thoughtfully. Silly boy I am! Still, I am sure that a few

people

> out there may have read them and maybe got something out of

them.

>

> The nice thing about this development is how easy it makes

things in

> the last "Kumari" discussion. All of this stuff about how people

> should open their minds and see that god is in goddess and

goddess

> is in god. Hey presto, that's on the front page too: "Devi is

the

> Shakti (Supreme Energy) of Shiva (Supreme Consciousness); both

> identical to and inseparable from Him." You see, I thought that

was

> the starting point of the conversation; how much time and energy

I

> could have saved if I realized that it was the whole question.

>

> Bing! Next topic! Anyone want a snack? Need to use the

bathroom? ...

> I am just kidding, of course. I feel punchy! Laughing a lot, for

> some reason!

>

> Now, as to the categories that Muni so wisely dismissed

as "Western"

> and "wrong" -- they are bloody intellectual aids for the novice,

> nothing more and nothing less. Subramuniyaswami designed them to

> help interested non-Hindus (sorry, Muni, non-Sanatana-Dharmists)

get

> a broad general understanding of the the system's complex

landscape.

> As for Muni's claim that "the West does this so they can then

speak

> 'knowledgably' about these things," I hate to disappoint, but if

any

> more than 0.001% of "the West" is even aware of these categories

> (never mind conversant in them), I would be shocked beyond

belief.

>

> So of course, Len, you are right to note that the "boxes" (to

use

> Muni's and Mary Ann's words) were not intended for complex

analysis.

> The Brahmin factor you mention isn't in there. Tantra isn't in

> there. They "four schools" discussion is just a broad starting

point

> for understanding. It gives newcomers and outsiders an

analytical

> framework through which to process the more complex, detailed

> information that inevitably (or not, apparently) comes with

study

> and experience.

>

> You've gotta start somewhere, after all. And this humble group

is

> another small example of that process. In it, Nora, Kochu and I

have

> worked very hard to fulfill Amrita's excellent working

goal: "Make

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

is

> true or false, 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.'"

>

> The role of the Munis of the world, on the other hand, is to let

> foolish others do the ground work and then, when it is done,

look

> and say, "No, that is wrong." No messy explanations or reasoning

> necessary. And you know what? I bow to him. He already knew what

I

> just learned today: Send a four-word telegram, and take the rest

of

> the day off.

>

> And sure enough, he immediately received this small effort a

rather

> rich outpouring of praise for his pithy wisdom: "I am glad to

read

> this. Thank you for posting. ... it's good to read posts that

> accept, acknowledge and embrace the depth beyond the limitation

of

> the boxes ...."

>

> Are you laughing too, now? Lalita's play indeed .... ;-)

>

> aim mAtangyai namaH

>

>

> , Len Rosenberg

> <kalipadma108> wrote:

> >

> > Oh, D.B.! You've had people join this group who

> > assume that everyone else here will be fluent in

> > notions of Dianic Wicca! That Hinduism includes

> > observing the Celtic fire-festivals or Wiccan Sabbats!

> > Nobody reads with discrimination anymore.

> >

> > My problem with Subramuniyaswami's categories is, he

> > makes the Smriti tradition sound wonderful to a

> > Western Neo-Pagan -- an altar with five different

> > deities, you can pick and choose, it's all-inclusive.

> > But the Smartas are for Brahmins only, and they are

> > among those who believe that no one can convert to

> > Hinduism.

> >

> > I'm not certain what "flavor" of Hindu I see myself

> > as. I'm especially fond of Ganesha, but

> > Subramuniyaswami doesn't see the Ganapatyas as a

> > viable category. Where does Tantra fit in, in the

> > categories given?

> >

> > -- Len

>

>

>

>

>

> -

-----------

>

>

> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms

of Service.

>

>

> -

-----------

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Glad we are on the same page.

-

Devi Bhakta

Saturday, October 01, 2005 8:01 AM

Re: Are "Shaktism" and "Santana Dharma" the same

thing?

 

 

Namaste Mahamuni:

 

I could not agree more. Kindly pardon my previous post or two, I was

rather more frank than usual, for a number of reasons -- some of

them legitimate perhaps, others less so.

 

In any event, I appreciate your clarifications and please be assured

that I am not offended in the least. Silly posts, as Da Nath notes

(and illustrates), can be a damn good laugh every now and then, even

when they are my own. ;-)

 

DB

 

, "Mahamuni" <mahamuni@c...>

wrote:

> Look my point was that in a forum such as this one, discussing

such traditional and sacred topics, we should strive towards more

than just the "status quo". Do you not agree?

>

>

> -

> Devi Bhakta

>

> Friday, September 30, 2005 6:02 PM

> Re: Are "Shaktism" and "Santana

Dharma" the same thing?

>

>

> Thanks for the wise words, Len ...

>

> But you are quite right, I feel like a complete dope. For all

this

> time I have been arguing the fine points of Hindu (sorry, Muni,

> Sanatana Dharmic) doctrine with a very nice person who --

surprise,

> surprise! -- had no idea we were even talking about Hinduism.

>

> So there you have it. Problem solved. But I would hate to go

back

> through the archives and count the thousands of words I've

expended

> in discussion, wondering what on earth I was failing to express,

> when I could have accomplished the whole job with a four-word

> telegram: "READ THE GROUP INTRODUCTION."

>

> As someone who works with words, reveres them really, and

invests

> quite a bit of thought into each post I make here, I allowed

myself

> to be naive enough to think that my responses were being read

just

> as thoughtfully. Silly boy I am! Still, I am sure that a few

people

> out there may have read them and maybe got something out of

them.

>

> The nice thing about this development is how easy it makes

things in

> the last "Kumari" discussion. All of this stuff about how people

> should open their minds and see that god is in goddess and

goddess

> is in god. Hey presto, that's on the front page too: "Devi is

the

> Shakti (Supreme Energy) of Shiva (Supreme Consciousness); both

> identical to and inseparable from Him." You see, I thought that

was

> the starting point of the conversation; how much time and energy

I

> could have saved if I realized that it was the whole question.

>

> Bing! Next topic! Anyone want a snack? Need to use the

bathroom? ...

> I am just kidding, of course. I feel punchy! Laughing a lot, for

> some reason!

>

> Now, as to the categories that Muni so wisely dismissed

as "Western"

> and "wrong" -- they are bloody intellectual aids for the novice,

> nothing more and nothing less. Subramuniyaswami designed them to

> help interested non-Hindus (sorry, Muni, non-Sanatana-Dharmists)

get

> a broad general understanding of the the system's complex

landscape.

> As for Muni's claim that "the West does this so they can then

speak

> 'knowledgably' about these things," I hate to disappoint, but if

any

> more than 0.001% of "the West" is even aware of these categories

> (never mind conversant in them), I would be shocked beyond

belief.

>

> So of course, Len, you are right to note that the "boxes" (to

use

> Muni's and Mary Ann's words) were not intended for complex

analysis.

> The Brahmin factor you mention isn't in there. Tantra isn't in

> there. They "four schools" discussion is just a broad starting

point

> for understanding. It gives newcomers and outsiders an

analytical

> framework through which to process the more complex, detailed

> information that inevitably (or not, apparently) comes with

study

> and experience.

>

> You've gotta start somewhere, after all. And this humble group

is

> another small example of that process. In it, Nora, Kochu and I

have

> worked very hard to fulfill Amrita's excellent working

goal: "Make

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

is

> true or false, 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.'"

>

> The role of the Munis of the world, on the other hand, is to let

> foolish others do the ground work and then, when it is done,

look

> and say, "No, that is wrong." No messy explanations or reasoning

> necessary. And you know what? I bow to him. He already knew what

I

> just learned today: Send a four-word telegram, and take the rest

of

> the day off.

>

> And sure enough, he immediately received this small effort a

rather

> rich outpouring of praise for his pithy wisdom: "I am glad to

read

> this. Thank you for posting. ... it's good to read posts that

> accept, acknowledge and embrace the depth beyond the limitation

of

> the boxes ...."

>

> Are you laughing too, now? Lalita's play indeed .... ;-)

>

> aim mAtangyai namaH

>

>

> , Len Rosenberg

> <kalipadma108> wrote:

> >

> > Oh, D.B.! You've had people join this group who

> > assume that everyone else here will be fluent in

> > notions of Dianic Wicca! That Hinduism includes

> > observing the Celtic fire-festivals or Wiccan Sabbats!

> > Nobody reads with discrimination anymore.

> >

> > My problem with Subramuniyaswami's categories is, he

> > makes the Smriti tradition sound wonderful to a

> > Western Neo-Pagan -- an altar with five different

> > deities, you can pick and choose, it's all-inclusive.

> > But the Smartas are for Brahmins only, and they are

> > among those who believe that no one can convert to

> > Hinduism.

> >

> > I'm not certain what "flavor" of Hindu I see myself

> > as. I'm especially fond of Ganesha, but

> > Subramuniyaswami doesn't see the Ganapatyas as a

> > viable category. Where does Tantra fit in, in the

> > categories given?

> >

> > -- Len

>

>

>

>

>

> -

-----------

>

>

> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms

of Service.

>

>

> -

-----------

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Traditions Divine

 

 

 

 

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

93,

 

how much right U are!

There exist such a variety of religions under superficial term

"hinduism", that certain "hindu" sects are closer in beliefs to

christianity or islam that to neighbouring other "hindu" sects...

 

A.

 

, "Mahamuni" <mahamuni@c...> wrote:

> In truth, there is no such thing as "Hinduism". It is a Western

word to categorize the very varied religous and spiritual practices of

the very varied people living in the land of Bharat. The West does

this so they can then speak "knowledgably" about these things. They

categorize everything. But their box is wrong.