From a Member : Shakta Hinduism

[Guest guest]

This is an exchange between me and our newest member [RK]. He have

given me the permission to publish this in the group. I would like

to invite our other members to join in this fellowship and lets talk

and learn about what DEVI means to each and every one of us.

 

 

RK ] I'm a North American male with no ethnic connection to India,

nor significant contact with any Indian community. I have been a

worshipper of the Great Goddess for the past 20 years, mostly by way

of Wiccan ritual (I'm a first-degree Alexandrian initiate, if that

means anything to you).

 

A few months ago, I started reading about Shakta Hinduism, being

inspired by the bhakti poetry of Ramprasad Sen, and I was, and

continue to be, moved by the richness and depth of this tradition.

The more I read about it, the more I want to learn how to worship

and come to know and love Mahadevi.

 

My question to you is, how do newbies such as me find a way into

Shakta practice? It's rather daunting, what with the copious

Sanskrit terminology, scriptures, mantras, yantras, etc. to master.

And to top it all off, many of my sources include warnings against

touching this stuff without the guidance of an authentic guru. The

only Hindu temple in town (Edmonton Alberta) is decidedly Vaishnava

(judging from the statuary on their altar), so I don't think I can

get reliable advice there.

 

And frankly, the idea of total submission to a guru is morally

unacceptable to me, no matter how enlightened s/he may be. I don't

even believe in obedience to the Goddess Herself: the most sincere

devotion I can offer Her is to be uncompromisingly myself, to speak

my truth to Her, to withhold no part of myself from Her -- and that

means not checking my brain at the door.

 

 

My response : I wish I will be able to help you but I'm myself is

under the guidance of a guru. How can a blind lead another blind.

But When you're in the tantric aspect, you need to be under the

guidance of a guru. Sometimes its hard eh! I am in that position

before. I question about this need of a guru and the whole idea of

totally submit oneself to a guru is frightening. But DEVI have been

very kind and patience with me. As I'm told, you do not seek the

guru. The guru will seek you. Once you are ready, SHE or HE will

come to you sometimes without you realising it. That is how it is

with me.

 

 

RK] I'm still unclear on the distinctions among Shakta Sadhana,

bhakti yoga, kundalini yoga, and tantra. Some of my readings seem

to lump them all together, or at least imply substantial overlap.

Is the use of mantras and yantras necessarily tantra? If I approach

Devi as lover, is that necessarily tantra?

 

I'm open to being under the guidance of a teacher, in principle.

I'm a teacher myself, that is, I'm a university professor. But I

don't ask my students to blindly submit to me. I can't see blind

obedience as being healthy in any context.

 

My response : You ask : what's the entry point? From your

description, you are already in. Perhaps the question should be :

Where do I go from here? Where do you want to go? And what's the

Purpose of your Sadhana? Why do you want to seek her further? For

material gain?

 

RK] That cheers me up greatly. Thank you. It just so happens that I

have an answer to that question. I belong to a men's organization

called Mankind Project, which encourages members to discover, and

live out, their personal mission: my own mission is "to create a

nurturing world by speaking my truth and living with reverence for

Mother Earth." I might amplify the word "nurturing" as "just and

sustainable." My primary reason for pursuing Shaktaism,

specifically, is that I love Mahadevi, and I want to get closer to

Her. I want Her love to be as real and tangible to me as my own

heartbeat. I want to do things that are pleasing to Her,

constantly, just for the joy of pleasing Her.

 

 

RK] What I've been doing is regular, solitary yoga-style meditation,

leading into a loving conversation with the Goddess. I use a

Willendorf Goddess figurine as my murti (I was thrilled to discover,

on your webpages, Her iconographic resemblance to the Hindu Lajja

Gauri). I'm pleased with the results so far: I feel a deeper sense

of connection to Her, and a new kind of spiritual freedom. But I'd

like to take this further, to learn more about practising Shakta

Hinduism.

 

Jai Mata di!

[Guest guest]

This is an exchange between me and our newest member [RK]. ***************

RK ] I'm a North American male with no ethnic connection to India, nor significant contact with any Indian community. I have been a worshipper of the Great Goddess for the past 20 years, mostly by way of Wiccan ritual (I'm a first-degree Alexandrian initiate, if that means anything to you).

 

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

My question to you is, how do newbies such as me find a way into Shakta practice? It's rather daunting, what with the copious Sanskrit terminology, scriptures, mantras, yantras, etc. to master.

And to top it all off, many of my sources include warnings against touching this stuff without the guidance of an authentic guru. ****************

The thing is it is not because a guru is superior but because there are many parts that are kept hidden to prevent misuse and spoken in what is called twilight language that requires explanation.

And frankly, the idea of total submission to a guru is morally unacceptable to me, no matter how enlightened s/he may be. I don't even believe in obedience to the Goddess Herself: the most sincere devotion I can offer Her is to be uncompromisingly myself, to speak my truth to Her, to withhold no part of myself from Her -- and that means not checking my brain at the door.

What is required is TRUST and not SUMISSION. Because sometimes the teacher tells you “Take this on trust, you will understand later”. And this is one area that lends to a lot of misuse that’s why one has to be wary. That’s why shastra say one must TEST the Guru before accepting him/her.

 

 

RK] I'm still unclear on the distinctions among Shakta Sadhana, bhakti yoga, kundalini yoga, and tantra. Some of my readings seem to lump them all together, or at least imply substantial overlap.

Is the use of mantras and yantras necessarily tantra? If I approach Devi as lover, is that necessarily tantra?

Its all the same leading to the ame place, which is realizing the essential unity of universe.

 

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

But I'd like to take this further, to learn more about practising Shakta Hinduism.

When it is time Devi herself will send the teacher when all the resistence will fall away.

 

Jai Mata di!

 

 

 

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail.

[Guest guest]

RK wrote:

> [...] [T]he idea of total submission to a guru is morally

unacceptable to me, no matter how enlightened s/he may be. [....]

[Devotion to the Goddess] means not checking my brain at the door.

 

Kochu responded:

> What is required is TRUST and not SUBMISSION.

[....] And this is one area that lends to a lot of misuse that's why

one has to be wary. That's why shastra say one must TEST the Guru

before accepting him/her.

 

Both your [RK's] and Kochu's comments made me think of a passage in a

book I recently read; the quote echos Kochu's pithy comment:

 

'[June] McDaniel [in _The Madness of the Saints: Ecstatic Religion in

Bengal_] contrasts Western myths of meeting the guru, described as

love at first sight, to a more Hindu model based on hesitation and

growing compatibility, "All seek someone they can believe in," she

writes, "but nobody (except perhaps a _pagal_ [crazy, foolish?]

Westerner) would accept a guru without question, any more than one

would buy a used car from a lot without question"'

 

[from _Women in Ochre Robes: Gendering Hindu Renunciation_, Meena

Khandelwal]

RK wrote:

> [....] the most sincere devotion

I can offer Her is to be uncompromisingly myself [....]

 

And this made me think of another quote. Here Khandelwal refers

specifically to renunciation and Advaita (not Tantra),

but I think she makes a very thought-provoking point about Western

concepts of self and identity:

 

"While renunciation's emphasis on equality and independence resonates

with the behavioral norms of Western individualism, the intent and

underlying ontology of sannyasa is quite different from that of

Western individualism. The latter places ultimate meaning in a kind

of essentialized inner self, while Advaita philosophy finds ultimate

meaning in the breaking down of all differences, including the

distinction between the individual atma and the transcendent

Paramatma. In other words, the essence implied in the two types of

individual are quite different, the Hindu essence or atma being

without attributes of any sort. Both the Western individual and the

Hindu renouncer may set out to discover their "true identity", but for

the renouncer this identity is a loss of all social attributes, likes,

and dislikes--the very qualities that are at the heart of Western

identities, [....]

[Guest guest]

Spirituality most often is considered only as a way to intensify self-

expression, happiness, health, general wellness, overall satisfaction

and fullfilment of desires, promising escape from artifical pattern

and stress of modern life.

Indic Traditions are interpreted accordingly.

There is nothing one can do about that.

India itself will more and more develop the need for such an

interpretation, Spirituality that is considered as a means of stress

relief and self expression will become important, because normal life

in society will lack the relaxed ways of old because of the

western "values", that dominate the world, and so a spiritual path

towards wellness and stress relief, is needed in an artifical

westernised environment.

 

Acquistion of dharma artha and kama will be confused with moksha.

 

Let us hope that unlike in the west where only the successful are

respected,, the humble, unpretentious, and poor teachers that do not

strive for material sucess riches and influence, will still be

respected also in the future.

 

 

, "msbauju" <msbauju wrote:

>>

> RK wrote:

> > [....] the most sincere devotion

> I can offer Her is to be uncompromisingly myself [....]

>

> And this made me think of another quote. Here Khandelwal refers

> specifically to renunciation and Advaita (not Tantra),

> but I think she makes a very thought-provoking point about Western

> concepts of self and identity:

>

> "While renunciation's emphasis on equality and independence

resonates

> with the behavioral norms of Western individualism, the intent and

> underlying ontology of sannyasa is quite different from that of

> Western individualism. The latter places ultimate meaning in a kind

> of essentialized inner self, while Advaita philosophy finds ultimate

> meaning in the breaking down of all differences, including the

> distinction between the individual atma and the transcendent

> Paramatma. In other words, the essence implied in the two types of

> individual are quite different, the Hindu essence or atma being

> without attributes of any sort. Both the Western individual and the

> Hindu renouncer may set out to discover their "true identity", but

for

> the renouncer this identity is a loss of all social attributes,

likes,

> and dislikes--the very qualities that are at the heart of Western

> identities, [....]

>

[Guest guest]

This is RK weighing in again. After thinking about this for a week, with further reading

about Shaktism, and offline discussions with another member, I see the

issue slightly differently now. I'd say my objective is to connect with my deepest self --

the Self that transcends my individual experience, as the quote from Khandelwal suggests.

My *approach* to that objective is to start by figuring out what is authentically me (as

opposed to behaviours and attitudes that reflect unexamined social pressures), and to

identify and reclaim my attitudes and behaviours that I am unconscious of, or have

disowned ("shadows"). This is the approach I've learned from the Mankind Project

(www.mkp.org), which seems to be an outgrowth of Jungian therapy. Yes, this is a product

of Western culture. Yes, I am a product of Western civilisation (or the lack thereof, as

Gandhi quipped). I am also a child of Mahadevi, no matter where I was born or who my

parents are. I bring to Her worship the totality of who I am: the good, the bad and the

ugly. Maybe by casting my net widely and honestly, I'll be better able to catch the

Paramatma. Bottom line: this approach seems to be working for me at this time. Finally,

the point of all this for me, as I now understand it, is to more fully realise/embody Devi in

this mixed-up, hurting world I find myself in.

 

, "msbauju" <msbauju wrote:

>

>

> RK wrote:

> > [...] [T]he idea of total submission to a guru is morally

> unacceptable to me, no matter how enlightened s/he may be. [....]

> [Devotion to the Goddess] means not checking my brain at the door.

>

> Kochu responded:

> > What is required is TRUST and not SUBMISSION.

> [....] And this is one area that lends to a lot of misuse that's why

> one has to be wary. That's why shastra say one must TEST the Guru

> before accepting him/her.

>

> Both your [RK's] and Kochu's comments made me think of a passage in a

> book I recently read; the quote echos Kochu's pithy comment:

>

[Guest guest]

20x times self reference (i mine me my) in 8 sentences

equals 2.5 times in one sentence.

one sentence equals appx. 4 seconds speech equals

1.6 times per second Self reference,

equals 96 times self reference in one minute hypothetical speech.

 

, "willendorfer"

<willendorfer wrote:

>

> This is RK weighing in again. After thinking about this for a

week, with further reading

> about Shaktism, and offline discussions with another

member, I see the

> issue slightly differently now. I'd say my objective is to connect

with my deepest self --

> the Self that transcends my individual experience, as the quote

from Khandelwal suggests.

> My *approach* to that objective is to start by figuring out what is

authentically me (as

> opposed to behaviours and attitudes that reflect unexamined social

pressures), and to

> identify and reclaim my attitudes and behaviours that I am

unconscious of, or have

> disowned ("shadows"). This is the approach I've learned from the

Mankind Project

> (www.mkp.org), which seems to be an outgrowth of Jungian therapy.

Yes, this is a product

> of Western culture. Yes, I am a product of Western civilisation

(or the lack thereof, as

> Gandhi quipped). I am also a child of Mahadevi, no matter where I

was born or who my

> parents are. I bring to Her worship the totality of who I am: the

good, the bad and the

> ugly. Maybe by casting my net widely and honestly, I'll be better

able to catch the

> Paramatma. Bottom line: this approach seems to be working for me

at this time. Finally,

> the point of all this for me, as I now understand it, is to more

fully realise/embody Devi in

> this mixed-up, hurting world I find myself in.

>

> , "msbauju" <msbauju@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > RK wrote:

> > > [...] [T]he idea of total submission to a guru is morally

> > unacceptable to me, no matter how enlightened s/he may be. [....]

> > [Devotion to the Goddess] means not checking my brain at the door.

> >

> > Kochu responded:

> > > What is required is TRUST and not SUBMISSION.

> > [....] And this is one area that lends to a lot of misuse that's

why

> > one has to be wary. That's why shastra say one must TEST the Guru

> > before accepting him/her.

> >

> > Both your [RK's] and Kochu's comments made me think of a passage

in a

> > book I recently read; the quote echos Kochu's pithy comment:

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Robert:

 

Mistrust of authority and "rules" imposed by others is very common

baggage at the beginning of a spiritual journey. In the West (and to

some extent in the East now, too), the idea of a "Guru" is disturbing,

even frightening -- the very term is freighted to the hilt, and the

thought of actually "surrendering" to such a character seems utterly

counterintuitive at best.

 

Such apprehensions are themselves expressions of attachment and fear

of loss (of independence, autonomy, uniqueness; whatever thoughts,

ideas, beliefs, tastes, styles, etc, that you belief make you "you").

Such apprehensions are also -- like all of our attachments -- quite

misplaced -- but nobody can tell us that. We must arrive at that

understanding in our own time, by our own effort. We are all where we

are on the path; some ahead, some behind, some more or less in the

same place. None are wrong or right; they simply are where they are.

 

There are techniques, however, to help us accelerate the journey. The

Guru is one who can, if we are lucky, teach us a few of these

"tricks." But to learn requires a certain suspension of disbelief; a

willingness to let go of some ideas and assumptions that we hold dear,

that we may even closely identify with. But it's like a little kid who

knows the foods she likes, and doesn't want someone else (her parents,

probably) to tell her what she should and shouldn't eat. We cannot and

should not force her to expand her palate. But in time she will grow

up and, eventually, experiment with more sophisticated and complex

flavors. Then she'll know. No harm done. We are where we are.

 

Let's de-mystify further it by imagining that we want to climb a big

mountain (indeed we do!); and by imagining the Guru as a professional

guide who can help us to the top -- along the way teaching us tips and

shortcuts, helping us to avoid unstable stretches and dangerous

crevices and hidden drops; teaching us to read the weather and

interpret the natural signs that only experienced mountaineers can see.

 

The guide is not going to carry us; we have to do the climbing

ourselves. We have to be physically and mentally prepared for the

ascent, or even the best guide cannot get us safely to the top. (In

any case, a truly experienced mountain guide would never agree to

assist one who is not ready for the ascent. Instead, s/he might

recommend that person a diet, or point them to a gym, or advise trying

a smaller hill for now. Again, none of this is cause for shame or a

sense of "failure." We are, each of us, where we are.)

 

The only possibility of harm comes when the ego tries to supplant the

guidance of the Guru. When, instead of going to the gym or the smaller

hill, we act out our resentment of authority, brush past the guide and

set out for the peak alone. Will we make it? Maybe, eventually, but

we've turned a measured, systematic, pleasurable ascent into an

ego-driven crap shoot. We'll make it our own way or die trying

(inevitably to reappear right where we started, back at the bottom of

the mountain -- if we're fortunate, a bit wiser for the wear and tear).

 

That's the value and grace of a true guide or Guru -- no more, no

less. Sometimes the wisest idea is to shut off the I's and me's and

my's and mine's; then take a deep, cleansing breath; clear our heads

-- and just listen.

 

aim mAtangyai namaH

 

 

 

 

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha wrote:

>

>

> 20x times self reference (i mine me my) in 8 sentences

> equals 2.5 times in one sentence.

> one sentence equals appx. 4 seconds speech equals

> 1.6 times per second Self reference,

> equals 96 times self reference in one minute hypothetical speech.

>

> , "willendorfer"

> <willendorfer@> wrote:

> >

> > This is RK weighing in again. After thinking about this for a

> week, with further reading

> > about Shaktism, and offline discussions with another

> member, I see the

> > issue slightly differently now. I'd say my objective is to connect

> with my deepest self --

> > the Self that transcends my individual experience, as the quote

> from Khandelwal suggests.

> > My *approach* to that objective is to start by figuring out what is

> authentically me (as

> > opposed to behaviours and attitudes that reflect unexamined social

> pressures), and to

> > identify and reclaim my attitudes and behaviours that I am

> unconscious of, or have

> > disowned ("shadows"). This is the approach I've learned from the

> Mankind Project

> > (www.mkp.org), which seems to be an outgrowth of Jungian therapy.

> Yes, this is a product

> > of Western culture. Yes, I am a product of Western civilisation

> (or the lack thereof, as

> > Gandhi quipped). I am also a child of Mahadevi, no matter where I

> was born or who my

> > parents are. I bring to Her worship the totality of who I am: the

> good, the bad and the

> > ugly. Maybe by casting my net widely and honestly, I'll be better

> able to catch the

> > Paramatma. Bottom line: this approach seems to be working for me

> at this time. Finally,

> > the point of all this for me, as I now understand it, is to more

> fully realise/embody Devi in

> > this mixed-up, hurting world I find myself in.

> >

> > , "msbauju" <msbauju@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > RK wrote:

> > > > [...] [T]he idea of total submission to a guru is morally

> > > unacceptable to me, no matter how enlightened s/he may be. [....]

> > > [Devotion to the Goddess] means not checking my brain at the door.

> > >

> > > Kochu responded:

> > > > What is required is TRUST and not SUBMISSION.

> > > [....] And this is one area that lends to a lot of misuse that's

> why

> > > one has to be wary. That's why shastra say one must TEST the Guru

> > > before accepting him/her.

> > >

> > > Both your [RK's] and Kochu's comments made me think of a passage

> in a

> > > book I recently read; the quote echos Kochu's pithy comment:

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

willendorfer wrote: Finally, the point of all this for me, as I now

understand it, is to more fully realise/embody Devi in this mixed-

up, hurting world I find myself in.

 

Ah! yes this hurting world. To be hurt, and this feeling of

hurting.. somehow reminds me of wounds. Can't help it. I remembered

people better with their wounds than their face.

 

I like to share a story : I'm out having lunch with my husband in a

hawker center one day. Opposite sat this young man. He keeps on

smiling at me trying to get my attention, but I choose not to

respond. I pretend I'm not paying attention to him but he was very

persistent. He then took off his shirt and showed me the scar on his

chest. As soon as I saw his scar, I remembered. I recognize him.

Ah! You're that young man who was injured etc…. suddenly everything

comes back to me.

 

As I was reading your message, suddenly it reminds me of wounds. I

enjoy and to certain extent find it sometime an obsession. The

nastier the wound, the more I love it. Maggots are at one time my

best friends. To me it's like a challenge. I know that I can't just

apply the necessary lotion and cover the wounds. I need to explore

deeper into the wound. To make sure that there are no foreign

objects. No dead tissues. And if there is I need to remove/cut those

dead tissues. Then we access the viability of the wound. The flesh

surrounding the wound. Are they still viable or appear infected etc.

All these are done even before we decided to any suturing.

 

The wound need to be healed. There are many factors that hinder

wound healing. Even if the wound did heal, it still leaves scars and

to some extends pain. Not severe but dull irritating pain. Once we

try to stretch our selves, the pain gets severe, and it hurts us.

And we stop to move further least the pain will bother us again.

That is why perhaps to some it is the trigger point. You touch the

point; they go berserk and into uncontrolled rage.

 

We need to resolve that pain before we talk about healing

altogether. I believe Healing is the first step to any spiritual

progress. So one way of solving this root problem I think is to

address this issue of pain and healing.

[Guest guest]

A few things I'd like to say...

 

In your earlier discussion with Nora (which was shared with the

group) you mentioned being a first degree initiate in Alexandrian

Wicca.

 

That means (correct me please if I am wrong) that you have

already received blessings such as

 

- your eagerness to worship the Goddess has been rituality

acknowledged

- you have received instruction into ways of doing so.

 

In India, the person who gives these blessings is called a guru...

 

This is the approach I've learned from the Mankind Project

> (www.mkp.org), which seems to be an outgrowth of Jungian

therapy. Yes, this is a product

> of Western culture.

 

I would suggest to you that Jungian psychology is a product of

Western _and_ Eastern culture. For instance "mandala" is a

Sanskrit word. Jung's knowledge of this word and its meaning

comes from people like Heinrich Zimmer, who studied tantric

writings in the Sanskrit language.

 

Jung was able to relate this heritage to European hermetic

philosophy, to his own experiences including dreams, and to the

experiences of people who came to him for help and advice.

 

> I am also a child of Mahadevi, no matter where I was born or

who my

> parents are. I bring to Her worship the totality of who I am: the

good, the bad and the

> ugly.

 

Yes.

 

One of the best known Sanskrit hymns to Mahadevi (the

"namastasyai" song in the Devi Mahatmya), says that the

element of error (bhranti) within us is one of her forms.

 

>Maybe by casting my net widely and honestly, I'll be better able

to catch the

> Paramatma.

 

Very well expressed. I can relate to the image of fishing...

 

Om Shantih and Bright Blessings,

Colin Robinson

colinr (AT) zip (DOT) com.au

http://home.pacific.net.au/~ferment/

 

, "willendorfer"

<willendorfer wrote:

>

> This is RK weighing in again. After thinking about this for a

week, with further reading

> about Shaktism, and offline discussions with another

member, I see the

> issue slightly differently now. I'd say my objective is to connect

with my deepest self --

> the Self that transcends my individual experience, as the quote

from Khandelwal suggests.

> My *approach* to that objective is to start by figuring out what is

authentically me (as

> opposed to behaviours and attitudes that reflect unexamined

social pressures), and to

> identify and reclaim my attitudes and behaviours that I am

unconscious of, or have

> disowned ("shadows"). This is the approach I've learned from

the Mankind Project

> (www.mkp.org), which seems to be an outgrowth of Jungian

therapy. Yes, this is a product

> of Western culture. Yes, I am a product of Western civilisation

(or the lack thereof, as

> Gandhi quipped). I am also a child of Mahadevi, no matter

where I was born or who my

> parents are. I bring to Her worship the totality of who I am: the

good, the bad and the

> ugly. Maybe by casting my net widely and honestly, I'll be better

able to catch the

> Paramatma. Bottom line: this approach seems to be working

for me at this time. Finally,

> the point of all this for me, as I now understand it, is to more

fully realise/embody Devi in

> this mixed-up, hurting world I find myself in.

>

> , "msbauju"

<msbauju@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > RK wrote:

> > > [...] [T]he idea of total submission to a guru is morally

> > unacceptable to me, no matter how enlightened s/he may be.

[....]

> > [Devotion to the Goddess] means not checking my brain at

the door.

> >

> > Kochu responded:

> > > What is required is TRUST and not SUBMISSION.

> > [....] And this is one area that lends to a lot of misuse that's

why

> > one has to be wary. That's why shastra say one must TEST

the Guru

> > before accepting him/her.

> >

> > Both your [RK's] and Kochu's comments made me think of a

passage in a

> > book I recently read; the quote echos Kochu's pithy comment:

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Ah Nora, I have been meditating on this subject, how synchronous.

This is what came up, in relation to old deep wounds:

 

Lance the wound.

Drain the wound.

Flush the wound.

Salve the wound.

Then it heals.

 

Our impulse is to pull away from the pain, rather than look at it. We

will be freed if we can turn toward it, examine deeply, and pull up

the underlying bondage from its roots.

 

jai Maa

Max

 

>The wound need to be healed. There are many factors that hinder

>wound healing. Even if the wound did heal, it still leaves scars and

>to some extends pain. Not severe but dull irritating pain. Once we

>try to stretch our selves, the pain gets severe, and it hurts us.

>And we stop to move further least the pain will bother us again.

>That is why perhaps to some it is the trigger point. You touch the

>point; they go berserk and into uncontrolled rage.

>

>We need to resolve that pain before we talk about healing

>altogether. I believe Healing is the first step to any spiritual

>progress. So one way of solving this root problem I think is to

>address this issue of pain and healing.

 

 

--

Max Dashu

 

Art in Goddess Reverence

http://www.maxdashu.net