Shaktism, "only for Siddhis"

[Nyingjé Tso]

Vanakkam,


I wanted to bring something up, since I have read around the interwebz some very interesting stuff about Shaktism, but also very ... Let's say intriguing.

Many scholars of traditionnal Vaisnav and Shaiva sampraday doesn't seems to accept Shaktism as a valid path to Moksha. Some goes even further, saying Shaktism is only a way to gain Siddhis and material boons that doesn't lead to moksha. A very few are hostile, saying it is only a remain of kul devis worship plagued by superstition and black magic, and that is certainly not a valid or even a "dharmic" path.

Now I would like to understand why all this is said... I know that Shaktism is a very popular path in north india as well as in the south, where for example, Sri Laleetha, Meenakshi and Kamakshi mata are huge centers of worship there. The tantric tradition is also very rich and diverse, as much as any other path.

So why this disdain and hostility from some Vaisnav/Saiva scholars and devotees ? Is it only a matter of "my sampraday is better than yours" or is there a real debate or scriptural problem with Shaktism being or not a way to moksha ?



Please not that this thread is not to be taken as hostile toward any Vaisnav or Saiva here, I am merely talking about individuals from some specific sampraday. Now, the question I asked in this thread is a sincere question, so please be gentle not to turn this thread into a "mine is better" war, thank you.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I'm going to let the feminist in me have a few words because honestly these are my first thoughts:

The sacred feminine has for many many centuries been demonized or feared because, well, women freak men out. There's a lot of natural power associated with women - we give birth for example. If you think about the logistics of that, it's crazy that living beings even do that. But women are also "gross" and weird - Our vaginas bleed every month, what's up with that?

And I hate to say it, but in a Patriarchal society the first thing you want to do to keep the order of things is make sure everyone knows how dangerous or inferior women are. If you acknowledge that a religious tradition devoted to the feminine power has any legitimacy, you're saying it has just as much power as your own tradition - and what if people start finding things there that they can't find in yours?

It boils down to control and the fear of loss of control in my view.

However, I'll pull a Vinayaka here and say these people are probably in the loud minority. The internet is a great place to spout your ignorant ideas without consequences. Every Saiva or Vaishnava I've ever met in person either holds a version of Shakti very dear or goes a step further and considers them a necissary element of their practice to some extent. It's just that in those traditions she's a compliment, not the complete package.

:camp:

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Also if Shaktism is only for Siddhis and black magic, I'm failing really hard at that because all I'm getting is this thing call "Bhakti" and all that does is inspire me to be a better person. I know, totally not sexy or dangerous. I'll go be boring over here

:camp:

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Fireside, I undertand what you mean. Moreover, the feminine is in Vedas. When it is in Veda, there shouldn't be a question of validity normally.

You are right that those people are a vast minority (thank goodness!) but the thing is they arent' "just" internet trolls or foul mouthed devotees. Among them are also some scholars, that takes those claims into historical/scriptural debates.

This is why I am wondering, why scholars are saying this kind of things ? Is the reason of these claim a real scriptural debate or just baseless slander in the big "my sampraday is better" game they seems to play ?
For learned people to play that game, it is very sad.

I am myself astonished by those claims honestly.

 

[Vinayaka]

I agree with other posters. Nobody has any business denigrating other paths. Of course individuals can select what works for them.

Take languages as another analogy. Just because you don't speak a certain language doesn't mean that language is wrong.

But then, when this stuff occurs, its best to pay it no attention, unless it enters your home, as they say.

 

[Chakra]

Namaste,
Many traditional Vaishnava scholars do not think that Shaktism is a valid path to moksha (no offence to anyone). This is not due to any personal animosity or envy, but rather due to a scriptural issue. Also, the belief that Vaishnavism and Shavism are "patriarchal" and thus are envious of a "feminine supreme power", that is just erroneous. Most Shaivas believe that Uma is the half of Shiva's body. In Vaishnavism, the consorts of Vishnu (Lakshmi, Sita, Rukmini, Radha, etc) are held on par with Vishnu's status. It is a common belief that one cannot reach the feet of Lord Vishnu without his consort's blessings. And Jayadeva Goswami said that even Lord Krishna bows down to the feet of Sri Radha.
Regards

 

[StarryNightshade]

So why this disdain and hostility from some Vaisnav/Saiva scholars and devotees ? Is it only a matter of "my sampraday is better than yours" or is there a real debate or scriptural problem with Shaktism being or not a way to moksha ?

From what I have gathered from conversations and from the internet:

1.) Sexism. It's centered on the feminine, and not the traditional masculine. Therefore, it must be inferior. Personally, I think a balance of both is necessary, but that's neither here nor there.

2.) The fact that it's "weird". Like you said, many Hindus (and also westerners) equate Shaktism with black magic, animal sacrifice, and general Tantra. Unlike Vaishnaviam and Shaivism, which tend to be regarded as more "safe" (although they have their fair share of "weird" practices, but no one seems to focus on them ).

3.) Kali and Durga are just so SCARY! :thud:

 

[Vinayaka]

This is not due to any personal animosity or envy, but rather due to a scriptural issue.

Can you explain what exactly is the scriptural issue?

 

[Chakra]

Can you explain what exactly is the scriptural issue?

The scriptural issue that I am talking about is that Vaishnava scholars do not think that Durga is proclaimed as supreme in the Vedas etc, just like a Shaiva may not agree that Vishnu is proclaimed as supreme or a Shakti follower may not think other gods are proclaimed as supreme in the Vedas etc. It is just a matter of interpretation of the scriptures, that's all. There is no bias or hate towards Durga or any feminine power.
Regards

 

[Poeticus]

I am utterly flabbergasted with the "it's the feminine and thus it's scary" responses. It has no basis in terms of Indic historicity, neither Shrautically nor Smritically. It is one of the most absurd assertions I have come across here in the Hindu DIR. If that was the case, if it truly was because of sexism, then Bharat would be Bharat-Pita, not Bharat-Mata/Maa-Bharati. If that was the case, then there would not exist Kuldevi-s (and almost every single Hindu Bharatiya has Kuldevi-s; and not just that, but the number of Kuldevi-s is higher than the number of Kuldeva-s). If that was the case, the hymns dedicated to Mother Usha would not exist in the Shri Rgveda (and it is the hymns dedicated to Mother Usha that are 1.) grammatically the most sophisticated; and 2.) they are the only ones that are given the honor of being described as Satya-Mantra). Unfounded, baseless, and hopelessly callous is the statement that Shaktism is decried as such because of sexism or because "it's the feminine and thus it's scary". Very disappointed with such responses. Seriously, a little bit of research isn't that hard to do. We just had this conversation in the "Hinduism has no ethics" thread.

 

[Aupmanyav]

3.) Kali and Durga are just so SCARY! :thud:

Can a mother be scary? No, the children love their mother. Kali/Durga is mother.

 

[Poeticus]

Can a mother be scary? No, the children love their mother. Kali/Durga is mother.

Absolutely true. The Dual-Ordinance of Kali-Durga is not only the most powerful Dual-Ordinance of all time, but also the most beautiful of all time. Scary ? Maybe in the non-Dharmic paradigms, but in the Astika ... it is Maa !

 

[Poeticus]

There is no bias or hate towards Durga or any feminine power.
Regards

The notion that Shaktism is decried because of misogyny, patriarchalism, and anti-female sentiments ... is, to put it plainly, so absurd that ... 2+2=7 makes more sense than the notion itself. Shaktism is often decried in terms of not meeting the qualities of the Absolute by traditional Vaishnava and Shaiva schools simply based on shAstric analysis by the acharya-s of those schools, not because of a hatred or dislike of the feminine. To even suggest such not only displays one's ignorance of vAda-bhiksha and shAstra-jnAna, but comes across as psychoanalytical speculation that has no basis.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I am utterly flabbergasted with the "it's the feminine and thus it's scary" responses. It has no basis in terms of Indic historicity, neither Shrautically nor Smritically. It is one of the most absurd assertions I have come across here in the Hindu DIR. If that was the case, if it truly was because of sexism, then Bharat would be Bharat-Pita, not Bharat-Mata/Maa-Bharati. If that was the case, then there would not exist Kuldevi-s (and almost every single Hindu Bharatiya has Kuldevi-s; and not just that, but the number of Kuldevi-s is higher than the number of Kuldeva-s). If that was the case, the hymns dedicated to Mother Usha would not exist in the Shri Rgveda (and it is the hymns dedicated to Mother Usha that are 1.) grammatically the most sophisticated; and 2.) they are the only ones that are given the honor of being described as Satya-Mantra). Unfounded, baseless, and hopelessly callous is the statement that Shaktism is decried as such because of sexism or because "it's the feminine and thus it's scary". Very disappointed with such responses. Seriously, a little bit of research isn't that hard to do. We just had this conversation in the "Hinduism has no ethics" thread.

Fair enough.

However, do you not think that, perhaps, centuries of Mughal and British rule have allowed sexist views to seep into Hinduism, and may have led to Shaktism not being viewed in the best light?

 

[StarryNightshade]

Can a mother be scary? No, the children love their mother. Kali/Durga is mother.

That's very true. However, I was being facetious/sarcastic with that comment.

 

[Poeticus]

Fair enough.

However, do you not think that, perhaps, centuries of Mughal and British rule have allowed sexist views to seep into Hinduism, and may have led to Shaktism not being viewed in the best light?

Shakta Dharma existed much before the Islamic Conquest of the Subcontinent, let alone the British Raj. It's been there since the IVC, and was very much prominent. Vaishnavism, historically, on the other hand, has always had a majority footing since 400 B.C.E.. For example, Kautilya in the Arthashastra (~300 B.C.E.) gives salutations to Vishnu as the God of the Gods. Heck, the Greek convert, Heliodorus (in 113 B.C.E.), made a pillar dedicating it to Vishnu, calling him flat-out the "God of the Gods". Prominence of worship doesn't in the Indic context correlate to misogyny wins again !

Shaktism has never been decried in vAda-bhiksha because of it being about feminine-nature. This is absurd as saying that the Shivalingam is Shiva's actual penis.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I didn't mean to suggest that Vaishnavas and Shaivas as a group decry Shaktism. In fact if you read to the end of my post you'll notice that I state that both those groups consider Shaktism an integral part of their traditions.

The assertion that Shaktism is looked down upon for patriarchal reasons has more to do with the way in which society is structured.

Also, in Hinduism, while the feminine is celebrated in many of the ways that Poeticus stated, the origins of the OP's concerns are NOT Hindu in nature. They are misogynist. It may be true that Hinduism celebrates the feminine but there are those that not only don't "walk the walk" they don't "talk the talk." That is my interpretation of the OP's concern. Giving yourself a label doesn't protect you from criticism if you aren't actually living up you your faith's principals. Therefore, if you claim that Hinduism celebrates the feminine and then proceed to say that "Skaktism is an inferior path to Moksha" you are simply put, being a hypocrite.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

:camp:

 

[StarryNightshade]

I didn't mean to suggest that Vaishnavas and Shaivas as a group decry Shaktism. In fact if you read to the end of my post you'll notice that I state that both those groups consider Shaktism an integral part of their traditions.

The assertion that Shaktism is looked down upon for patriarchal reasons has more to do with the way in which society is structured.

Also, in Hinduism, while the feminine is celebrated in many of the ways that Poeticus stated, the origins of the OP's concerns are NOT Hindu in nature. They are misogynist. It may be true that Hinduism celebrates the feminine but there are those that not only don't "walk the walk" they don't "talk the talk." That is my interpretation of the OP's concern. Giving yourself a label doesn't protect you from criticism if you aren't actually living up you your faith's principals. Therefore, if you claim that Hinduism celebrates the feminine and then proceed to say that "Skaktism is an inferior path to Moksha" you are simply put, being a hypocrite.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

:camp:

^ This.

 

[Chakra]

I didn't mean to suggest that Vaishnavas and Shaivas as a group decry Shaktism. In fact if you read to the end of my post you'll notice that I state that both those groups consider Shaktism an integral part of their traditions.

The assertion that Shaktism is looked down upon for patriarchal reasons has more to do with the way in which society is structured.

Also, in Hinduism, while the feminine is celebrated in many of the ways that Poeticus stated, the origins of the OP's concerns are NOT Hindu in nature. They are misogynist. It may be true that Hinduism celebrates the feminine but there are those that not only don't "walk the walk" they don't "talk the talk." That is my interpretation of the OP's concern. Giving yourself a label doesn't protect you from criticism if you aren't actually living up you your faith's principals. Therefore, if you claim that Hinduism celebrates the feminine and then proceed to say that "Skaktism is an inferior path to Moksha" you are simply put, being a hypocrite.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

:camp:

Just a quick question, but do Shaktas also worship Lakshmi as the supreme? I know that Durga and Kali are the main forms of Adi Parashakti, but where does Lakshmi fit into Shaktism?
Regards

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Just a quick question, but do Shaktas also worship Lakshmi as the supreme? I know that Durga and Kali are the main forms of Adi Parashakti, but where does Lakshmi fit into Shaktism?
Regards

Your talking to a Maha Lakshmi Bhakta right here!

Yes, there's even a few temples in the north east where she s the presiding deity.

:camp: