All glories to the Supreme Goddess!

[Guest guest]

The Abrahamic religions are distinct from Hinduism because they do not acknowledge the female aspect of Divinity

 

source:

BOOK: When God was A Woman: The story of the most ancient of religions, the religion of the Goddess, and the role thhis ancient worship played in Judeo-Christian attitudes towards women

 

AUTHOR: Merlin Stone

CATEGORY: Women's Studies, Religion, Anthropology

c 1976, HBJ $4.95

originally published in UK as "The Paradise Papers"

 

From the back cover: In the beginning, God was a Woman. Here, archeologically documented, is the story of the Goddess. Known by many names --Astarte, Isis, Ishtar, among others [srimati Radharani, Gauri, Parvati, Durga, Annapurna]--She reigned Supreme in the Near and Middle East [and India, Tibet, Nepal].

 

Beyond being worshipped for fertility, she was revered as the wise creator

and the one source of Universal Order. Under Her, women's roles differed markedly from those in patriarchal Judeo-Christian cultures. Women bought and sold property, traded in the marketplace, and the inheritance of property was passed on from mother to daughter.

 

How did the change come about? By documenting the wholesale rewriting of

myth and religious dogmas, Merlin Stone details a most ancient conspiracy: the patriarchal RE-IMAGING OF THE GODDESS as a wanton, depraved figure. This is the portrait that laid the foundation for one of culture's greatest shams: the legend of Adam and fallen Eve.

 

Reviews: "The dramatic climax of her book is intriguing and important: that the myth of Adam and Eve was designed as part of the continuous Levite battle to suppress a female religion." -- Martha Lifson, Los Angeles Times

 

 

 

This book postulate that the Abrahamic religions were set up to mock and scare people into negating the validity of the female aspect of the Divine, so that it would be easier to conquer and take over these Goddess worshipping and Cow worshipping cultures. Every possible tactic was used, including the leaders of these people telling their followers that "God" instructed them to

pillage towns and cities of "infidels", kill their women and children.

 

 

By contrast, the eternal Sanatana Dharma religion of Hinduism and its offshoots, reognizes that each Deity has a female aspect. It is one of the core central beliefs. The feminine aspect of the Divine, in truth, teaches us how to approach the Divine.

 

The idea of reverence to Mary was only brought in during the time of the

Crusades, when European soldiers were impressed by the concept of homage to the feminine when they came closer to cultures that were influenced by Indian thought.

 

It seems to me that: given the increasing popularity of yoga all over the world, universal dwindling church attendance of Abrahamic faiths, and a continuous state of war between Abrahamic governments each claiming that "God is on their side", that this would be an ideal time to explain to people that Hinduism is, in truth, a faith that has ahimsa as a core value

and is in fact quite distinct from the Abrahamic religions.

 

Jaya Sri Radhe!

[Guest guest]

(1.2.10) Srila Rupa Gosvami, quoting the Skanda purana, states:

 

sruti-smrti-puranadi-

pancaratra-vidhim vina

aikantiki harer bhaktir

utpatayaiva kalpate

 

"Devotional service performed without reference to the Vedas, Puranas, Pancaratras, etc., must be considered sentimentalism, and it causes nothing but disturbance to society."

[theist]

My birthland, my culture, my language, my race, my religious designation=my illusion.

[gHari]

The back cover reveals what a cheat the author is.

[Guest guest]

 

My birthland, my culture, my language, my race, my religious designation=my illusion.

 

While I agree racism is wrong. India is the most sacred land on the planet, and it is not racist to say so. The Puranas say as much, do they not? Bharatavarsha is where God himself has descended on this earth planet, and it is the motherland for all Gaudiyas Vaishnavas, Sri Vaishnavas and ALL other Hindu sects, no matter their race. While some Gaudiyas do not call themselves Hindu for whatever reason, Hindu itself is a title that identifies with this holy land. When we call ourselves Hindu, we are identifying ourself with Mother India! Jai Bharata Mata!

[Guest guest]

sometimes people try to reduce God down to a male and Radha to a female, but these Anglo words don't do justice to Purusha-Prakriti.

 

Radha-Krishna is supreme ultimate spirititual love and ecstacy.

It is not really a matter of male and female as we know it in human society.

 

Trying to reduce the Maha-purusha down to a "male" is a pathetic attempt.

 

Trying to reduce Maha-Bhava down to a "female" is the symptom of total ignorance of spirit and ecstacy.

 

Ladies, RAdha is not a woman.

Neither is Krishna a man.

 

RAdha-Krishna is the personification of the supreme absolute spirit.

[Guest guest]

It's true that Hinduism has a better balance of the feminine (shakti) and masculine (purusha) aspects of God than Islam and Christianity, who consider even mentioning the term "Goddess" as blasphemy against the Holy Father of Heaven. That the Rishis and sages of Bharat have personifed the Feminine on all levels, is to the glory of the revealed scriptures and spiritual wisdom of Sanatana Dharma, and it's balanced picture of the Divine. God is not an old man in the sky. Neither are the other celestial controllers shown to be just as males. From the devas to the twofold aspect of Supreme Lord, the feminine and masculine are shown in an eternal dance.

[theist]

To remain falsely identified with any material designations after taking such a fortunate birth as Bharta-varsa is to have missed the oppurtunity that taking such a birth offered.

[Guest guest]

WHY VAISNAVAS DO NOT ACCEPT ABRAHAMIC TEXTS AS CANON

 

The other day someone was asking why Sufis accept Hindu canon but

Vaisnavas do not accept Abrahamic canon as revealed scriptures.

 

The book "When God Was a Woman", while not Hindu canon, documents every instance in the Old Testament in which "God" personally instructed

the Abrahamic leaders to kill and rape women and kill children.The canon of Abrahamic thought considers the Old Testament to be a revealed scripture.

 

This book, while neither Hindu nor Vaishnava canon, would point to one possible reason why Vaisnavas do not accept Abrahamic texts as part of their canon and revealed scriptures or "Holy Texts."

 

It might also address why Vaisnavas such as the Goswamis did not become Sufis, but rather made the decision to totally immerse themselves in the study of the mood of Supreme Goddess, using Hindu canon as points of reference.

 

I myself enjoyed reading this book to be reminded of how grossed out I was when I first read the Bible cover to cover as a child. I had forgotten how much stuff there is in the Bible that I had "blocked out" in order to become

a part of the mainstream Western society.

 

If it's not your thing, I have no problem with that. I'm just including the

information about this book as a "one stop shopping center" of Biblical

quotes condoning rape and killing, for those who are interested.

 

 

NO CALLS FOR RAPE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Also, someone noted that, " I don't remember any calls for rape in the New

Testament."

 

This is because during the years of Christ's life that the Bible chooses to ignore, approximately ages 12 - 30, some scholars believe that he went to India, studied yoga and Indian thought and was profoundly influenced by Bharata Varsa and the precepts of Sanatana Dharma.

 

Some people did not know that, so I have included information about this

book for those who do not realize how much even Judeo-Christian thought

has drastically changed since Jesus' years in India.

 

 

 

WHY VAISNAVAS DO NOT ACCEPT ABRAHAMIC TEXTS AS CANON:

The Bible also originally had references to reincarnation in it that were deleted by various councils including the Council of Nicea. This might also

allude to why Vaishnavas do not accept Abrahamic texts as revealed

scriptures or religious canon.

 

Just FYI only for whoever has never heard of these things. Haribol!

[Guest guest]

(1.2.10) Srila Rupa Gosvami, quoting the Skanda purana, states:

 

sruti-smrti-puranadi-

pancaratra-vidhim vina

aikantiki harer bhaktir

utpatayaiva kalpate

 

"Devotional service performed without reference to the Vedas, Puranas, Pancaratras, etc., must be considered sentimentalism, and it causes nothing but disturbance to society."

[theist]

Guest in post 9 said:

"NO CALLS FOR RAPE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Also, someone noted that, " I don't remember any calls for rape in the New

Testament."

 

This is because during the years of Christ's life that the Bible chooses to ignore, approximately ages 12 - 30, some scholars believe that he went to India, studied yoga and Indian thought and was profoundly influenced by Bharata Varsa and the precepts of Sanatana Dharma.

 

Some people did not know that, so I have included information about this

book for those who do not realize how much even Judeo-Christian thought

has drastically changed since Jesus' years in India."

 

To think the reason for Lord Jesus Christ not promoting rape was due to His having traveled to India as a young man shows a remarkable level of ignorance and is precisely the problem with hearing from those that are not , at least theoretically, liberated from identifying with their land of birth as being the only source for any wisdom that exists on the planet.

 

Just as the Old Testament is filled with the misconceptions and prejudices of some of the Jewish leaders in those times who wrote while thinking "I am Jewish", so do any people, eastern or western, interject and impose their own misconceptions and mistakes onto anything they happen to say or write.

 

Srila Prabhupada has said that Lord Jesus Christ came straight from the Spiritual Sky. To think that such a person as that would not know that rape was wrong without having to travel to India first is ridiculous.

[Guest guest]

 

sometimes people try to reduce God down to a male and Radha to a female, but these Anglo words don't do justice to Purusha-Prakriti.

 

Radha-Krishna is supreme ultimate spirititual love and ecstacy.

It is not really a matter of male and female as we know it in human society.

 

Trying to reduce the Maha-purusha down to a "male" is a pathetic attempt.

 

Trying to reduce Maha-Bhava down to a "female" is the symptom of total ignorance of spirit and ecstacy.

 

Ladies, RAdha is not a woman.

Neither is Krishna a man.

 

RAdha-Krishna is the personification of the supreme absolute spirit.

 

Prabupada strongly disagrees to what you say,Krsna is Krsna the person who was in Mahabaratha,infact ISKCONis in a earlier post have given examples how people like Gandhi try to misinterpret things by saying Pandavas are like our five senses in the body and Krsna the mind etc,yours sounds more like that,you are totally wrong

[Guest guest]

not just Prabhupada disagrees, my Gurudeva also teaches that Radha-Krishna are personal beings and the Supreme Personal Form of Godhead and not merely symbolic personifications.

[Guest guest]

 

Prabupada strongly disagrees to what you say,Krsna is Krsna the person who was in Mahabaratha,infact ISKCONis in a earlier post have given examples how people like Gandhi try to misinterpret things by saying Pandavas are like our five senses in the body and Krsna the mind etc,yours sounds more like that,you are totally wrong

 

that is not the point.

I am saying that Radharani is not a human - woman.

Radharani is the internal pleasure potency of Krishna.

She has no independent existence apart from Krishna.

 

As well, as these Devis (Goddesses) take male forms in Mahaprabhu lila.

 

Most all the male devotees of Mahaprabhu were Devis in Vraja-lila.

 

There is no comparison to RAdharani and a mundane woman.

There is virutally nothing in common between the two.

 

Mundane women are imitation shakti - not the real thing.

 

Many women in this age actually have the Purusha mentality and this is exemplified in the so-called liberation of women as they strive to become free from male dominance.

 

Radharani has no conception of becoming free from male dominance by Krishna.

She is not an advocate of women's lib.

[Guest guest]

 

There is no comparison to RAdharani and a mundane woman.

There is virutally nothing in common between the two.

 

Aren't things in the material world a shadow of things in the spiritual world? so I wouldn't say there is no connection. I am reminded of the Hermetic axiom: that which is Above, is as that which is Below.

[Guest guest]

 

Aren't things in the material world a shadow of things in the spiritual world? so I wouldn't say there is no connection. I am reminded of the Hermetic axiom: that which is Above, is as that which is Below.

 

Interesting that you should say that. There have been a few physicists who have come to believe that this reality that we're living in is nothing more than a hologram. Even string theory has similar inferences. What's remarkable is that even neurophysiologists have come up with this idea, perceiving the brain to be a mere hologram, and this is completely independent from physicists.

[Guest guest]

 

Interesting that you should say that. There have been a few physicists who have come to believe that this reality that we're living in is nothing more than a hologram. Even string theory has similar inferences. What's remarkable is that even neurophysiologists have come up with this idea, perceiving the brain to be a mere hologram, and this is completely independent from physicists.

 

I think Srila Prabhupada has described the material creation as a "perverted" reflection of the spiritual world.

Therefore, in this world the males are a "perverted" form of the spiritual male model.

As well, the females of this material world are "perverted" reflections of the spiritual feminine model, they are not genuinely feminine in the spiritual sense.

 

I just always have a problem with when devotee women presume that they are spiritually more feminine than male devotees, as actually being feminine in the mundane reflection is no qualification for being spiritually feminine.

 

Being materially feminiine of mind and body does not make one spiritually feminine.

Spiritual femininity is just as easily cultivated by male devotees as it for female devotees.

Some spiritualists would even say that being male in this world is closer to spriitual femininity than is being materially female.

[Guest guest]

 

I think Srila Prabhupada has described the material creation as a "perverted" reflection of the spiritual world.

Therefore, in this world the males are a "perverted" form of the spiritual male model.

As well, the females of this material world are "perverted" reflections of the spiritual feminine model, they are not genuinely feminine in the spiritual sense.

 

I just always have a problem with when devotee women presume that they are spiritually more feminine than male devotees, as actually being feminine in the mundane reflection is no qualification for being spiritually feminine.

 

Being materially feminiine of mind and body does not make one spiritually feminine.

Spiritual femininity is just as easily cultivated by male devotees as it for female devotees.

Some spiritualists would even say that being male in this world is closer to spriitual femininity than is being materially female.

 

I am a man and I still cringe at some of the patriarchal attitudes of male spiritualists. Many women are more naturally spiritual, for one they are more intouch with their intuitive side (notice how more women have a sixth sense), and don't get bogged down in doctrinal disputes like we do, that hurt us from seeing the forest thru the trees.

[Guest guest]

 

I am a man and I still cringe at some of the patriarchal attitudes of male spiritualists. Many women are more naturally spiritual, for one they are more intouch with their intuitive side (notice how more women have a sixth sense), and don't get bogged down in doctrinal disputes like we do, that hurt us from seeing the forest thru the trees.

 

that's another myth.

it's not actually a fact.

 

Men are every bit as intuitive as women and usally more so.

 

Maybe dullard men with no intelligence feel that way, but that is not a majority.

[Guest guest]

 

that's another myth.

it's not actually a fact.

 

Men are every bit as intuitive as women and usally more so.

 

Maybe dullard men with no intelligence feel that way, but that is not a majority.

 

it's not a myth, at least not in the west. For example, who do you think most people with clairvoyant abilities are women? They are more intouch with the subtle realms and vibrations. Obviously some Yogis are intouch with their intuitive side, but that's because eastern religions encourage introspection. In the west, most men are not that intouch with their inner chakra-realm