Shaktism, "only for Siddhis"

[Nyingjé Tso]

I am utterly flabbergasted with the "it's the feminine and thus it's scary" responses.

I agree with what you say bro

more than that, I don't think Shaktism is a reaction for "feminist sampraday". There was no need of it at the first place. Womens have always been treated with reverence and given a place in scripture, after all, there was women that were rishis. There are womens that are gurus. Hinduism have always been fair to womens from its root, so I don't think we can simplify Shaktism as some kind of feminist movement.

Plus, all the Shaktas I have encountered until now were in the GREAT majority.... Mens

However Shaktism does represent a huge tradition in tantra. And we know that Tantra, in India, is as much plagued as it is in the west. In India, it is synonymous with black magic and superstition because of fake so called tantrikas use these to bribe people in villages. Or to sell curses to people.

I think this is where the reputation of black magic and superstition comes from.


I do not care when devotees of others sampraday say thoes kind of things. This thread is not about people that say things about Shaktism. It is about Gurus, scholars, people that have students and people that listens to them. I think this is way more important that just a bunch of guys saying some stuff.

When a bunch of people important like that say those kind of thing, either they do have a valid scriptural reason, or it is then just baseless "mine is better".

Looks like then it is the second option. I am still disappointed that this kind of stupidity still goes on. Because Shakta scholars must certainly suffer from it.

 

[Jainarayan]

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 !

For sure, so much this. ^

I have small brass murthis of both Maa Kali and Maa Durga on my altar. "Why in the heck would a Vaishnava have images of goddesses from a different sect, especially 'scary ones'?" you might ask. Well, they are imo, not scary, and being the soft polytheist I am, I see them as different facets/personalities of the divine feminine, along with Maa Saraswati, Maa Gayatri (Mata Veda) and Maa Lakshmi. They are non-different. As to the scariness... rubbish. Is a mother bear, mother wolf or tigress scary to her babies? Of course not. However, if her babies are in danger she will attack and savage the predator, even a male, in defense of her babies. Once the threat is over, she will go to her babies, lick and nuzzle them, and nurse them.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Apart from Kali, Mahishasura mardini and the das mahavidyas, there are other forms of mataji that are popular and yet not scary.

Who would be afraid of Her like this ?

Is kamakoti Kamakshi considered "scary" ?

Does Parvati mata looks fierce ?

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Apart from Kali, Mahishasura mardini and the das mahavidyas, there are other forms of mataji that are popular and yet not scary.

Who would be afraid of Her like this ?

Is kamakoti Kamakshi considered "scary" ?

Does Parvati mata looks fierce ?

I actually don't think the kind of fear that's been mentioned has much to do without how she looks but more with what she represents. (Although someone could easily point to Kali in a fit of hysteria if they wanted to be really stereotypically ignorant)

To some, Shakti is mysterious, strong, protective, but also empowering, maybe even sensual, which is frightening if she inspires more than half of the population to act the same. It's impossible for the current social structure to be what is is without the fear of (or outright hatred) of the feminine.

So one possibility is, you emphasis the less threatening aspects of her nature - she's a mother, a sister, a daughter. She's chaste, demur, graceful. She can be all those other "scary things" (fierce, warrior-like, sexual) only when it is convenient or needed.

Another possibility is you simply downplay her importance.

Again, I'm not saying that Hindus in general believe this. Quite the opposite. I think it's mostly people who have lost touch with what Shakti really is. But there is a disconnect between what some people say they believe and how they actually behave. That is the troubling thing.

:camp:

:camp:

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Shakti is power.
Power isn't "scary" in itself. There is raw power (Kali) and there is focused power (Laksmi, etc.)

Power is the blooming of the dormant potential. It is like water. Water makes everything grow, it is what keeps you alive, it is also the wild torrent that ravages the earth, before making it flowing with life again.

Shakti is like a multi faceted coin. If there is any fear that must arise from it, then it is from the misunderstanding of the faces of this coin. You cannot worship the water that gives life without acknoledging the water that gives death.

But it is not a Shakti only problem then. Shiva also is the destructor, thanks to Him liberation is attained. Yet, less people fear Him, why ? Like Shakti He is the giver of boons, like Shakti He is raw and immensely powerful. He dwells among the dead on the cremation field, dancing with ghouls and ghosts. He is like water too. Then why is He less feared than Shakti ?

 

[Poeticus]

I agree with what you say bro

more than that, I don't think Shaktism is a reaction for "feminist sampraday". There was no need of it at the first place. Womens have always been treated with reverence and given a place in scripture, after all, there was women that were rishis. There are womens that are gurus. Hinduism have always been fair to womens from its root, so I don't think we can simplify Shaktism as some kind of feminist movement.

Plus, all the Shaktas I have encountered until now were in the GREAT majority.... Mens

Jaya, did you know that when Hindus would charge into a battle against non-Hindus in the medieval days (during the Islamic Conquest of the Subcontinent) ... they would loudly say Jai Ma Bharati ! Jai Ma Kali ! Jai Ma Durga ! Jai Mata Di ! These aren't just ordinary praises said in the mandir-s ... they are actual, well-alive, and often used battle-cries. (There are more battle-cries that invoke Hindu goddesses than there are for Hindu gods, Har Har Mahadeva ! and Jai Shri Ram ! being the other two though obviously outnumbered by the Shakta-centric battle-cries). For example, the battle cry of the Gurkha-s in the Indian army is Jai Ma Kali Ayo Gurkhali ! (Praise Mother Kali for the Gurkha-s have arrived !). Shakta Dharma is raw power. Power that is unstoppable. The Dharmic has always admired Shaktism for its sublime power, unmatched in its rudimentary forms. The Feminine = raw, unstoppable power in the Astika context.

However Shaktism does represent a huge tradition in tantra. And we know that Tantra, in India, is as much plagued as it is in the west. In India, it is synonymous with black magic and superstition because of fake so called tantrikas use these to bribe people in villages. Or to sell curses to people.

I think this is where the reputation of black magic and superstition comes from.


I do not care when devotees of others sampraday say thoes kind of things. This thread is not about people that say things about Shaktism. It is about Gurus, scholars, people that have students and people that listens to them. I think this is way more important that just a bunch of guys saying some stuff.

When a bunch of people important like that say those kind of thing, either they do have a valid scriptural reason, or it is then just baseless "mine is better".

Looks like then it is the second option. I am still disappointed that this kind of stupidity still goes on. Because Shakta scholars must certainly suffer from it.

... But what I got from your OP (after having re-read it a few times), is that you aren't talking about misogyny or the feminine at all, but you are rather questioning why traditional Vaishnava-s and Shaiva-s do not find Shaktism as having credible grounds for holding Shakti as Absolute, correct ? If so ... the reason is a very simple one: the reasons that the Vaishnava-s give for Shaivism being "not true" are pretty much the same reasons the two groups give for Shaktism being "not true" (for example: "No, brah, Shiva has never been praised as the Absolute"; "No, brah, Vishnu has never been praised as the Absolute"; "No, brah, Shakti has never been praised as the Absolute"). Much of this has to do with vAda-bhiksha and sampradAya-centrism. In the ancient and classical days, acharya-s would go around having polemical discourses with other acharya-s and would use shAshtra-jnAna (memorization and understanding of the shAshtra-s) to offer credit and support for their hypotheses. Unfortunately, Shakta-s didn't engage in vAda-bhiksha very much. Similar to the Jaina-s, Shakta-s concentrated more on writing Shaktic scripture instead of engaging in vAda-bhiksha.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

You cannot worship the water that gives life without acknoledging the water that gives death.

Then why is He less feared than Shakti ?

That is precisely the question isn't it?

The thing is, people see what they wish to see. And denial is a very powerful and comforting thing.

Shakti is only something not to be feared if you allow yourself to look at the other sides of the coin. But acknowledging something that is unknown is very difficult for a lot of people. It makes them have to ask questions, step outside there comfort zone and see things differently.

You can deny something that is staring you right in the face until the day you die - the truth may never penetrate.

So why is Shiva less feared than Shakti?

Because if we're talking about masculine characteristics here, by society's standards, it is right and good that Shiva should have terrifying, awesome, aggressive power.

But for Shakti? No no, that's not what it means to be feminine at all. Be quite and timid, compassionate and un-confrontational.

The problem, in part, is an obsession over what it means to be feminine or masculine. These attributes are not so polarized as weve always been raised to think. All well balanced people carry attributes of both and the same is true for the divine. Because the divine is all attributes and none. God is not only strong and powerful, but compassionate and loving. And not only at certain time. ALL the time. That's hard for people. It's not easy, compact, or straightforward. Until we let go of those polarizations we will run into this issue of trying to define things in terms of masculine or feminine.

:camp:

 

[Poeticus]

Jaya, did you know that when Hindus would charge into a battle against non-Hindus in the medieval days (during the Islamic Conquest of the Subcontinent) ... they would loudly say Jai Ma Bharati ! Jai Ma Kali ! Jai Ma Durga ! Jai Mata Di ! These aren't just ordinary praises said in the mandir-s ... they are actual, well-alive, and often used battle-cries. (There are more battle-cries that invoke Hindu goddesses than there are for Hindu gods, Har Har Mahadeva ! and Jai Shri Ram ! being the other two though obviously outnumbered by the Shakta-centric battle-cries). For example, the battle cry of the Gurkha-s in the Indian army is Jai Ma Kali Ayo Gurkhali ! (Praise Mother Kali for the Gurkha-s have arrived !). Shakta Dharma is raw power. Power that is unstoppable. The Dharmic has always admired Shaktism for its sublime power, unmatched in its rudimentary forms. The Feminine = raw, unstoppable power in the Astika context.

Here is a recent example:

Captain Vikram Batra's (PVC) last words before he died in an enemy-counterfire while attempting a rescue of a fallen soldier in the Kargil War were: Jai Mata Di !

Now my question is this: which other peeps on the planet invoke goddesses when they charge into the face of death ?

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

But what I got from your OP (after having re-read it a few times), is that you aren't talking about misogyny or the feminine at all,

No, not at all, you are right.

but you are rather questioning why traditional Vaishnava-s and Shaiva-s do not find Shaktism as having credible grounds for holding Shakti as Absolute, correct ? If so ... the reason is a very simple one: the reasons that the Vaishnava-s give for Shaivism being "not true" are pretty much the same reasons the two groups give for Shaktism being "not true" (for example: "No, brah, Shiva has never been praised as the Absolute"; "No, brah, Vishnu has never been praised as the Absolute"; "No, brah, Shakti has never been praised as the Absolute"). Much of this has to do with vAda-bhiksha and sampradAya-centrism. In the ancient and classical days, acharya-s would go around having polemical discourses with other acharya-s and would use shAshtra-jnAna (memorization and understanding of the shAshtra-s) to offer credit and support for their hypotheses.

This is what I though too, but oddly, even if (for exemple) this X Vaisnav scholar have this "only Visnu is supreme blah blah", he will recognize both Vaisnavism and Saivism as a way to moksha. Same for Y Saiva scholar.

This is what I find odd. Those scholars of both schools do not agree on who is supreme, but they do agree that both of their ways lead to Moksha, and they both agree that Shaktism is the only way that does not lead to moksha, but "at best, to Saivism".

Unfortunately, Shakta-s didn't engage in vAda-bhiksha very much. Similar to the Jaina-s, Shakta-s concentrated more on writing Shaktic scripture instead of engaging in vAda-bhiksha.

This, I understand, could be a valid reason on why Shaktism is belittled compared to Visnavism and Saivism. However, it is certainly not a reason nor an "enlightened" attitude for a Saiva/Vaisnav guru to engage in slandering or belittling another path. I wonder now, If Shakta scholars have tried to engage in Vada biksha by themselves recently.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Here is a recent example:

Captain Vikram Batra's (PVC) last words before he died in an enemy-counterfire while attempting a rescue of a fallen soldier in the Kargil War were: Jai Mata Di !

Now my question is this: which other peeps on the planet invoke goddesses when they charge into the face of death ?

Again, it's not the people that live up to their words that are the issue, just those that only seek out Ma's grace when it suits them, or those who claim devotion but then turn around and beat their wife. I don't evaluate anyone by there words alone, but also their actions. And not over one or two moments but in their entire lifetime.

There are many female icons in the world but that does not indicate equality or appreciation of women overall. The Statue of Liberty and Lady Justice come to mind.

:camp:

 

[Poeticus]

Then why is He less feared than Shakti ?

Because Lord Shri Shiva is also known as Bholenath, "JayaBholenath". Seriously, Lord Shri Shiva is known for spoiling his devotees. In regards to fearing Shakti ... this is truly the first time I am hearing it. I have heard Tantra being "feared", but even then I haven't heard Shaktism being used as a reason for fearing Tantra but rather the "black magic" being used as the prime reason. This is no different than Vedicists in the Vedic Era being cautious/fearful of the Atharvan-s of the Atharva Veda shAkhA-s; heck, they gave the same reason for not taking the Atharva Veda seriously - that it's tied to black magic (though ridiculous such a claim was). Were they being misogynistic towards the Atharva Veda ? (<--- serious question)

 

[Poeticus]

Again, it's not the people that live up to their words that are the issue, just those that only seek out Ma's grace when it suits them, or those who claim devotion but then turn around and beat their wife.

A truly horrid reality ... but the OP doesn't even talk about that. I have re-read the OP a few times, and I fail to see any mentioning (indirectly and directly) of feminism, misogyny, patriarchalism, etc..

 

[Chakra]

No, not at all, you are right.

but you are rather questioning why traditional Vaishnava-s and Shaiva-s do not find Shaktism as having credible grounds for holding Shakti as Absolute, correct ? If so ... the reason is a very simple one: the reasons that the Vaishnava-s give for Shaivism being "not true" are pretty much the same reasons the two groups give for Shaktism being "not true" (for example: "No, brah, Shiva has never been praised as the Absolute"; "No, brah, Vishnu has never been praised as the Absolute"; "No, brah, Shakti has never been praised as the Absolute"). Much of this has to do with vAda-bhiksha and sampradAya-centrism. In the ancient and classical days, acharya-s would go around having polemical discourses with other acharya-s and would use shAshtra-jnAna (memorization and understanding of the shAshtra-s) to offer credit and support for their hypotheses.

This is what I though too, but oddly, even if (for exemple) this X Vaisnav scholar have this "only Visnu is supreme blah blah", he will recognize both Vaisnavism and Saivism as a way to moksha. Same for Y Saiva scholar.

This is what I find odd. Those scholars of both schools do not agree on who is supreme, but they do agree that both of their ways lead to Moksha, and they both agree that Shaktism is the only way that does not lead to moksha, but "at best, to Saivism".



This, I understand, could be a valid reason on why Shaktism is belittled compared to Visnavism and Saivism. However, it is certainly not a reason nor an "enlightened" attitude for a Saiva/Vaisnav guru to engage in slandering or belittling another path. I wonder now, If Shakta scholars have tried to engage in Vada biksha by themselves recently.

I would just like to add a comment on your observation that Vaishnava scholars think that Shaivism and Shaktism will lead to moksha. This is of course, a Vaishnava idea that I am stating. The whole idea is that Vaishnavas acknowledge Shiva and Durga as knowers of Brahman (they know the truth about Vishnu) and are thus very merciful to the other jivas, giving them knowledge on Vishnu. That is why Shiva associates with Bhutas etc, because he gives them mercy. The idea is that if a Shavite is very devoted to Shiva, he will eventually gain Shiva's abode, as shown by Bhagavan's statement in the Gita where he says worshipers of other gods go to them. Then, when getting a life in Shiva's abode (Kailash), Shiva will instruct them on proper knowledge of Brahman and then the jivas will then understand and then take a birth as a Vaishnava. Same goes for a Shakti follower. Bhagavan Krishna says in the Sahasranama, that "all beings eventually attain him". Hope this helps. Again, this is a Vaishnava POV.
Regards

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Were they being misogynistic towards the Atharva Veda ? (<--- serious question)

You could just call them bigots I guess. <--- serious answer.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

A truly horrid reality ... but the OP doesn't even talk about that. I have re-read the OP a few times, and I fail to see any mentioning (indirectly and directly) of feminism, misogyny, patriarchalism, etc..

Well, no, but she asked where we thought these thought processes or negative feelings were coming from, and those were a part of my guess. I'm no expert, just posing a possibility.

:camp:

 

[Poeticus]

This is what I though too, but oddly, even if (for exemple) this X Vaisnav scholar have this "only Visnu is supreme blah blah", he will recognize both Vaisnavism and Saivism as a way to moksha. Same for Y Saiva scholar.

This is what I find odd. Those scholars of both schools do not agree on who is supreme, but they do agree that both of their ways lead to Moksha, and they both agree that Shaktism is the only way that does not lead to moksha, but "at best, to Saivism".

This, I understand, could be a valid reason on why Shaktism is belittled compared to Visnavism and Saivism. However, it is certainly not a reason nor an "enlightened" attitude for a Saiva/Vaisnav guru to engage in slandering or belittling another path. I wonder now, If Shakta scholars have tried to engage in Vada biksha by themselves recently.

Ah ! I see what you are trying to say. But don't worry: Vedically, Mother Aditi is called Supreme many times in the Shri Rgveda. So their arbitrary points are moot, as per the hymns of Rishi-s Bharadvaja and Kashyapa.

But honestly speaking ... the same thing happened to Purva Mimamsa, Samkhya, and Vaisheshika by ( <_< .... checking for Atanu .... >_> .... ) the traditional Vedantists.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Now my question is this: which other peeps on the planet invoke goddesses when they charge into the face of death ?

AFAIK, only Hindus do this, Jai Bharat mata !

That is precisely the question isn't it?

The thing is, people see what they wish to see. And denial is a very powerful and comforting thing.

Shakti is only something not to be feared if you allow yourself to look at the other sides of the coin. But acknowledging something that is unknown is very difficult for a lot of people. It makes them have to ask questions, step outside there comfort zone and see things differently.

You can deny something that is staring you right in the face until the day you die - the truth may never penetrate.

So why is Shiva less feared than Shakti?

Because if we're talking about masculine characteristics here, by society's standards, it is right and good that Shiva should have terrifying, awesome, aggressive power.

But for Shakti? No no, that's not what it means to be feminine at all. Be quite and timid, compassionate and un-confrontational.

The problem, in part, is an obsession over what it means to be feminine or masculine. These attributes are not so polarized as weve always been raised to think. All well balanced people carry attributes of both and the same is true for the divine. Because the divine is all attributes and none. God is not only strong and powerful, but compassionate and loving. And not only at certain time. ALL the time. That's hard for people. It's not easy, compact, or straightforward. Until we let go of those polarizations we will run into this issue of trying to define things in terms of masculine or feminine.

So, if I understand right, you raise then two issues:

> The inability for many people to accept the two faces of the coin, meaning to accept God/ess to be both Life and Death, benevolent and raw.

> The fact that a wrathful male deity is more comforting for people than a wrathful female, because women are supposed to be soft and adorable.

For the first one, I agree with you. But it is a matter of teachings. There are some schools that view God separate, and others not. It gives different teachings of Death and suffering, and thus is subject to vary greatly between sampraday. We can only answer by our personal experiences and by the teachings we have received, without it being a general truth. To me Shiva is not fearful at all. When He is life, I adore Him. When He is death, I still adore Him, and accept it fully. Life is the right breast and death is the left breast of Mother. To me, the taste of the milk of experience doesn't change from one another.
But again, you see, it is only a matter of our personal experiences and views on that. There are people that really can't stand the simple idea that their body have a limited time on this earth. They think the right breast is the one that gives a delicious nectar, and that the left breast gives mortal poison. They fear the left breast and don't dare to take a drop from it, and fail to realize this simple, yet central fact in Hinduism: we aren't our body. Our souls cannot be harmed. Let alone poisoned. They fail to realize the left breast is from the same being than the right.


For the second thing, I would say that it is maybe a very western idea. Trust me, take a step in any Hindu home in India, and you know right away who's in charge. In fact, womens do not hesitate to show how fierce they are. I have seen several times angered or annoyed women elevating voices to mens without fear, I even saw one runnning after her husband with a brick in her hands because he had spend the night (and the money) drinking alcohol !
So I don't think this idea of "womens have to be cute and they are not fierce" is originally there. Womens in India are "supposed" to be well mannered and beautiful, but I can assure you they don't hesitate to show how fierce they are. Numerous times there, I saw womens being Laskmi a second, they snapping into Kali the next.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand who exactly is saying this. Is there a blog somewhere i can read?

 

[Poeticus]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand who exactly is saying this.

... Psychoanalysts from Oxford, Harvard, and Yale.

 

[Vinayaka]

... Psychoanalysts from Oxford, Harvard, and Yale.

Oh. And just why are we paying attention to them?