Shaktism and Misunderstanding

[Guest guest]

Could I make a point of clarification? I think some of the recent

animosity displayed in several threads in this group is due more to

a confusion/misunderstanding of terminology than to any actual,

substantive disagreement. Case in point:

 

NEWBIE wrote: " I would like to know, can one become a shakta without

a teacher? Can I consider myself a shakta if I agree with all the

scriptures and vision of Shakti? "

 

KIRK replied: " You are a Shakta as you think you are, just as for

anything. I couldn't not be a Shakta. [...] You're a Shakta if you

will it. I wouldn't say it's a club to join or an aspiration to

become as such. It's just as one is, or not, as case may be. "

 

KOCHU replied: " NO. One need to find a person who has walked the

walk and done what has to be done. Book is only a supplement to

that. [...] No one cares what you believe in. It is your private

matter. You become a shakta when shakti accepts you as such not

because you accepted her. "

 

At first it would appear that Kirk and Kochu are giving opposite

answers -- but I think (and I welcome Kirk and/or Kochu to clarify

on this) that Kirk is referring more to an open-ended, general

spiritual orientation (Hindu/Buddhist-flavored, Goddess-oriented,

but not necessarily tied to any one religious system or lineage);

whereas Kochu is referring very specifically to Srividya upasana --

a highly structured, doctrinally sophisticated and very lineage-

driven school of South Indian Shakta Hinduism (and the system

perhaps most adhered to among the Hindu members of this particular

group).

 

That being the case, Kirk and Kochu are both correct according to

their respective understandings of the term " Shakta " , but both

incorrect as to the other's understanding.

 

I mention this because I suspect that this looseness or imprecision

of definition was also behind the Ammachi flap of the past week or

so. A more Western, or " New Age " (I use the term here in a broad,

general and not derogatory sense) approach to Ammachi would involve

a very different definitions of " Shakta " , " initiation " , " guru " and

any number of other Hindu terms of art -- compared to the way these

terms are employed in Srividya upasana.

 

In a broad, multi-cultural, multi-national, multi-religious group

such as this one, we do have to be careful that we make allowances

for such differences between us, or else there will be inevitable

understandings -- as those who are talking from one tradition or set

of definitions clash with those who are approaching from other

traditions and definitions. Thus do we end up with posts like this

one, from a sincere and valued member:

 

JOANNA wrote: " That is simply ridiculous, the [view of] conservative

lineages who believe [the] Divine can flow only through them and

only they have right to initiate. It's sort of controlling power.

[...] I think it could be [that the Shakti Sadhana] forum likes

traditional lineages which, if true, are also beautiful (but at the

same time that is like saying if you do not come from family of

doctors [then] how can you be a doctor). [...] Think about the

purpose and the point and about your teachers and their sacred

lineages [--] what would Sri Dattatre[y]a think of You

writing all this negative crap[?] "

 

This, as far as I can tell, is simply a Western New Age approach

clashing against an Eastern, Hindu traditionalist approach -- trying

hard to understand, but running up against that same conflict of

terminologies. In this case, Joanna concluded that Nora was

insulting Ammachi -- thus it may have come as a shock to see this:

 

NORA wrote: " I got my first hug from Ammachi many years ago [...] I

told my husband 'she must be a good person ... that is why all these

people are here for her blessings.' [...] I still read her teachings

and still have a pic of her in front of me, and yes she still smiles

at me as I made those remarks yesterday. [...] Why dont we

say: 'it's all Ammachi laila'. "

 

So what happened here ? Did Nora do an instantaneous 180-degree

turn? Not at all. I suspect it is merely the clash of definitions

and traditions once more.

 

Further muddying the water, I'd add, is an ugly, racist side-show

burlesque that has been going on behind the scenes in a flurry of

off-board e-mails, with an ax-grinding former member busily

exploiting the misunderstandings I mention above -- for example, to

characterize Nora (or, depending on how the wind is blowing, the

entire Shakti Sadhana group) as " anti-Ammachi " or " Ammachi-bashing. "

The individual responsible for this silliness in fact knows better;

his/her attacks are (as always) but banal, disingenuous attempts to

drive wedges by exploiting cultural misunderstanding for its own

sake (and, one suspects, for a certain idle, sadistic entertainment

value as well).

 

There is no need for us to venture into such dark corners, however.

As always, open discussion and sincere interaction will win the day

here; I trust in it and hope it will always be so. We are, after

all -- despite whatever technical differences between our various

systems -- united in our mutual veneration of the Devi, and of

Shakti Sadhana, however we may personally understand and practice

the concept.

 

Jai Maa!

 

aim mAtangyai namaH

[Guest guest]

Well, I have asked for permission for Mahashodashi, and gotten it, and my

Lama is pretty tantric and Shakta. I am not saying I have never asked for

permissions and done sadhanas. I do them every day. I feel open ended about

it like if you love Devi She loves you. That sort of thing.

 

But also, when one has been bitten by Maa as Kundalini then it's all just a

matter of what sets her flowing and how much has one tweaked their mind to

Her progress and made to celebrate that.

 

I think when one starts as young as I did one accepts more as being part of

the path, that's all. I mean I saw kundalini when I was fourteen. Honestly,

that was at about the time I felt my life as a typical person was over. I

couldn't function any more.

 

Often one gets that initiation when one is really bad off. Because one has

to be to see what the cure is going to be and for relativism it's Ma

Kundalini - Kundalini Ma, or just plain Ma, or Devi, or any millions of

names of adoration.

 

I am not a special case of anything, rather I am just an illustration that

even in Hollywood, Ca, living a life on the streets a kid was still able to

find something that made sense in a deeply spiritual way in the time of

total need, and that's the power of Ma. All through time. I wouldn't have

survived without Her.

 

I owe lots of thanks to the old TM teachers that had residence courses in

the city and believed because then I was able to escape to something like

samadhi, but what do people do now? I don't know.

 

I myself have had to learn to do it for myself as there's nothing like that

environment for yoga any more. Especially not in NOLA. I doubt many

discredit Maharishi Mahesh Yogi so much any more considering he had

practical retreat centers that were nice. Too bad they're gone. I wish there

was something else like it. Well there's always Namkhai Norbu's retreat

centers, like Tsegyalgar. I haven't been but maybe next time.

 

Not knowing what babbling I am even saying any more. Gotta go. Thanks to all

aspirants, may they come together to inspire, but not more wars.

 

 

-

" Devi Bhakta " <devi_bhakta

 

Friday, September 21, 2007 12:24 PM

Shaktism and Misunderstanding

 

 

> Could I make a point of clarification? I think some of the recent

> animosity displayed in several threads in this group is due more to

> a confusion/misunderstanding of terminology than to any actual,

> substantive disagreement.

> [....]

> That being the case, Kirk and Kochu are both correct according to

> their respective understandings of the term " Shakta " , but both

> incorrect as to the other's understanding.

>

[Guest guest]

DB,

 

I agree with some of what you say, but find the New Age label

offensive and alienating. I don't think there is a way to use this

word free of derogatory content, or of its original sense which is

laden with all the " prosperity consciousness, "

buy-your-way-to-nirvana, egoistic claptrap.

 

Unfortunately " New Age " is regularly used to ridicule and dismiss

people who are attempting a restoration of Goddess reverence within

societies which have historically repressed it, with centuries of

violence, and now with mockery or accusations of blasphemy, and so i

ask you to reconsider using it to describe us.

 

Goddess devotees or Pagans would be better descriptors for those who

are not Sri Vidya initiates or indeed Hindus. What you say further

along is also serviceable, " an open-ended, general spiritual

orientation (Hindu/Buddhist-flavored, Goddess-oriented, but not

necessarily tied to any one religious system or lineage). "

 

To clarify, you are not saying that Sri Vidya upasana is the only

valid form of Shaktism, right?

 

>In a broad, multi-cultural, multi-national, multi-religious group

>such as this one, we do have to be careful that we make allowances

>for such differences between us,

 

I couldn't agree more. Which is why inflammatory comments are

damaging to dialog and understanding. I have never met Amritaji, and

have absolutely no negative ideas about him or his devotees, but even

if i did i would not fling them out as provocations.

 

I see a problem here which goes beyond opinions about Amma. There

have been several occasions when Nora has lashed out at newbies, most

recently an innocent query around Sri Sukta. This passed without

comment, i think because most of the time it seems best not to step

down in the mud. But i regret not reaching out to that person.

 

Almost like clockwork, every time the astrological weather gets

heavy, pugnacious behavior breaks out on lists, not just this one.

Interesting to watch how people behave. That's human beings for you...

 

Max

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

Real Women, Global Vision

[Guest guest]

Hi Max:

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

*** I agree with some of what you say, but find the New Age label

offensive and alienating. I don't think there is a way to use this

word free of derogatory content, or of its original sense which is

laden with all the " prosperity consciousness, " buy-your-way-to-

nirvana, egoistic claptrap. ***

 

You know, I had a feeling I might be sailing into trouble on that one

-- but I was kinda looking for a less wordy shorthand equivalent for

my earlier reference to " an open-ended, general spiritual orientation

(Hindu/Buddhist-flavored, Goddess-oriented, but not necessarily tied

to any one religious system or lineage). " But certainly I will refrain

from using the term " New Age " in this discussion, as ridicule and

dismissal of the people you describe is not my intention.

 

*** Goddess devotees or Pagans would be better descriptors for those

who are not Sri Vidya initiates or indeed Hindus. ***

 

Hmmm. I'm not sure I would want the only two classifications to be

" Hindu " and " Pagan, " but I agree there doesn't seem to be another good

word.

 

*** To clarify, you are not saying that Sri Vidya upasana is the only

valid form of Shaktism, right? ***

 

Certainly not. Sri Vidya itself has northern as well as southern

schools, not to mention the ubiquitous Kaula/Samaya divide and the

dozens of lineages within each sub-school. There are also countless

non-Srividya Shakta systems within Hinduism proper -- all of which are

perfectly " valid " to those who keep track of such things (and of

course to their respective adherents). And if you expand the term to

broadly apply to non-Hindu and mixed approaches too -- well, as I said

in my last post, the validity of any pronouncement in this area all

depends on the underlying definitions of both the speaker/writer and

the listener/reader.

 

*** inflammatory comments are damaging to dialog and understanding.

.... There have been several occasions when Nora has lashed out at

newbies ***

 

Again I leave it to Nora to address or defend her words if she wishes.

Suffice it to say that I spend more time wringing my hands over

" diplomacy " and phrasing, whereas Nora is more -- shall we say --

impetuous? ;-)

 

*** most recently an innocent query around Sri Sukta. This passed

without comment, i think because most of the time it seems best not to

step down in the mud. But i regret not reaching out to that person. ***

 

Wellll ... as is so often the case in post exchanges that may seem a

little mystifying around here, there was a long back-story behind that

one, which was -- to make a longish story short -- neither as new nor

as innocent as it may have seemed to the casual observer. (You see,

Nora's also in charge of S_S's Ministry for the Control and

Containment of Imaginary Creatures and Multiple-Use IPs. *lol*)

 

*** Almost like clockwork, every time the astrological weather gets

heavy, pugnacious behavior breaks out on lists, not just this one.***

 

Now *that* is interesting. I've often wondered what's behind the

group's ebbs and flows -- it certainly applies in the offline world,

why not on as well? Reminds me of Mary Poppins, in fact:

 

Admiral Boom: A word of advice, young man! Storm signals are up at

Number 17! Bit of heavy weather brewing there!

 

Bert: 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello! Admiral's right! Heavy weather brewin' at

Number 17 and no mis-take!

 

So ...

 

With love and warmest regards from all of us here at " Number 17 " ;-)

 

Thanks again, Max, for your time and thoughts

 

DB

[Guest guest]

>Hmmm. I'm not sure I would want the only two classifications to be

> " Hindu " and " Pagan, " but I agree there doesn't seem to be another good

>word.

 

I wouldn't either, just throwing out some alternatives, i'm sure

people can come up with others.

 

Max

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

Real Women, Global Vision

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I'm gonna chime in a little late here. As someone who might fall into the

category of " an

open-ended, general spiritual orientation (Hindu/Buddhist-flavored,

Goddess-oriented,

but not necessarily tied to any one religious system or lineage). " I'd have to

say that I

didn't read DB's " new age " label as being derogatory, just as his usual

respectful

shorthand.

 

I don't think that it was the most precise use of words, but in my experience

with DB he

does expend a lot of effort in respectful written precision and when he does

take short

cuts I feel that I understand his meaning, generally by context. The context in

this case

was the contrast to the Hindu tradition he also referred to.

 

I struggle to find my place in Hinduism because of that contrast.

 

I love the Goddess with all my heart and I see her in Devi, I see Her in Shakti

literature, I

know that my Mother is there speaking to me. How do I respectfully share this

space with

people who have taken the time and effort to stick to a more traditional and

more strictly

described path?

 

That is the exploration and the tension that I see as a dynamic force of this

group.

 

I'm sorry that I've been long absent. Your work and your words have kept me

going.

 

Blessings,

 

pr

 

 

, " Devi Bhakta " <devi_bhakta wrote:

>

> Hi Max:

>

> Thanks for your comments.

>

> *** I agree with some of what you say, but find the New Age label

> offensive and alienating. I don't think there is a way to use this

> word free of derogatory content, or of its original sense which is

> laden with all the " prosperity consciousness, " buy-your-way-to-

> nirvana, egoistic claptrap. ***

>

> You know, I had a feeling I might be sailing into trouble on that one

> -- but I was kinda looking for a less wordy shorthand equivalent for

> my earlier reference to " an open-ended, general spiritual orientation

> (Hindu/Buddhist-flavored, Goddess-oriented, but not necessarily tied

> to any one religious system or lineage). " But certainly I will refrain

> from using the term " New Age " in this discussion, as ridicule and

> dismissal of the people you describe is not my intention.

>

> *** Goddess devotees or Pagans would be better descriptors for those

> who are not Sri Vidya initiates or indeed Hindus. ***

>

> Hmmm. I'm not sure I would want the only two classifications to be

> " Hindu " and " Pagan, " but I agree there doesn't seem to be another good

> word.

>

> *** To clarify, you are not saying that Sri Vidya upasana is the only

> valid form of Shaktism, right? ***

>

> Certainly not. Sri Vidya itself has northern as well as southern

> schools, not to mention the ubiquitous Kaula/Samaya divide and the

> dozens of lineages within each sub-school. There are also countless

> non-Srividya Shakta systems within Hinduism proper -- all of which are

> perfectly " valid " to those who keep track of such things (and of

> course to their respective adherents). And if you expand the term to

> broadly apply to non-Hindu and mixed approaches too -- well, as I said

> in my last post, the validity of any pronouncement in this area all

> depends on the underlying definitions of both the speaker/writer and

> the listener/reader.

>

> *** inflammatory comments are damaging to dialog and understanding.

> ... There have been several occasions when Nora has lashed out at

> newbies ***

>

> Again I leave it to Nora to address or defend her words if she wishes.

> Suffice it to say that I spend more time wringing my hands over

> " diplomacy " and phrasing, whereas Nora is more -- shall we say --

> impetuous? ;-)

>

> *** most recently an innocent query around Sri Sukta. This passed

> without comment, i think because most of the time it seems best not to

> step down in the mud. But i regret not reaching out to that person. ***

>

> Wellll ... as is so often the case in post exchanges that may seem a

> little mystifying around here, there was a long back-story behind that

> one, which was -- to make a longish story short -- neither as new nor

> as innocent as it may have seemed to the casual observer. (You see,

> Nora's also in charge of S_S's Ministry for the Control and

> Containment of Imaginary Creatures and Multiple-Use IPs. *lol*)

>

> *** Almost like clockwork, every time the astrological weather gets

> heavy, pugnacious behavior breaks out on lists, not just this one.***

>

> Now *that* is interesting. I've often wondered what's behind the

> group's ebbs and flows -- it certainly applies in the offline world,

> why not on as well? Reminds me of Mary Poppins, in fact:

>

> Admiral Boom: A word of advice, young man! Storm signals are up at

> Number 17! Bit of heavy weather brewing there!

>

> Bert: 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello! Admiral's right! Heavy weather brewin' at

> Number 17 and no mis-take!

>

> So ...

>

> With love and warmest regards from all of us here at " Number 17 " ;-)

>

> Thanks again, Max, for your time and thoughts

>

> DB

>