Shaktism, "only for Siddhis"

[Nyingjé Tso]

Again, this is a Vaishnava POV.

And I respect it and your sampraday :namaste:

Please understand that this tread is not intended as an attack to Vaishnavas and Shaivas (being a devotee of Shiva myself, that would be weird anyway)

It is not a questionning or Vaisnav/Saiva sampraday validity or justification. But rather an interrogation toward SOME gurus and scholars that have a real hostility toward Shaktism, to the point of teaching their students and devotees that Shaktism isn't dharmic, isn't a way to moksha, isn't even a valid path.

You and your school doesn't seems to hold the above true. There is nothing wrong for you to hold Visnu supreme, let's agree on that, it is not the problem at all.

I hope you understand and don't feel offended, I don't want you to believe I am attacking your teachings or anything okay ? Because It is really, really not my intention, nor how this tread was intended to be

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

For the second thing, I would say that it is maybe a very western idea.

This is definitely a possibility. Since I have never been to India I don't know. But I think then it becomes an issue of these western ideas crossing paths with Eastern Religions.

The influence of the west on the east and vice versa is strong and it isn't always for the better. So from a western perspective I think westerners fear Shakti because of those things I stated earlier, and that fear gets regurgitated back onto the internet where it gets picked up by scholars, bloggers, everyone and their mother.

You and I can look at all sides and feel no fear (I don't fear Shiva either) but we have done our due diligence and on top of that we have open minds (relatively speaking). Many people don't want to do the work (or again are afraid to). It's so much easier just to go about business as usual.

These gurus and teachers that you mention that decry Shaktism are really only one symptom of a larger problem but that's probably better left to another thread. I apologize sincerely if I misread your OP and went in an off- direction.

:camp:

 

[Chakra]

And I respect it and your sampraday :namaste:

Please understand that this tread is not intended as an attack to Vaishnavas and Shaivas (being a devotee of Shiva myself, that would be weird anyway)

It is not a questionning or Vaisnav/Saiva sampraday validity or justification. But rather an interrogation toward SOME gurus and scholars that have a real hostility toward Shaktism, to the point of teaching their students and devotees that Shaktism isn't dharmic, isn't a way to moksha, isn't even a valid path.

You and your school doesn't seems to hold the above true. There is nothing wrong for you to hold Visnu supreme, let's agree on that, it is not the problem at all.

I hope you understand and don't feel offended, I don't want you to believe I am attacking your teachings or anything okay ? Because It is really, really not my intention, nor how this tread was intended to be

Namaste,
I think you have taken my post in the wrong direction. I was not offended with anything you said and other people said. I was simply trying to give an explanation as to why some Vaishnavas may disagree on Shaivas and Shaktas on who is God, but yet may still consider them paths to Moksha. IMHO, if a Vaishnava criticizes Shaktism as unvedic but says that Shaivism is a way to moksha, then he is being a hypocrite. It just doesn't make any sense to say one is right and the other is wrong when you disagree with both. Again, I was not offended by your post or anything, I was merely trying to add my opinion on this matter.
Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

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

They are the ill-informed and misinformed persons who write ill-informed and misinformed papers and articles other ill-informed and misinformed persons read, propagating the ignorance of Hinduism.

 

[Vinayaka]

They are the ill-informed and misinformed persons who write ill-informed and misinformed papers and articles other ill-informed and misinformed persons read, propagating the ignorance of Hinduism.

You mean Doniger and her ilk? Why do we care what western misinformed scholars think?

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

By the way, Mother Shakti can deadlift and bench-press an ∞ amount of universes with one pinky while watching re-runs of The Wire.

She can do ALL THE THINGS.

:camp:

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Why do we care what western misinformed scholars think?

Because I am talking about some Hindu scholars, from the "inside", not outsiders.

Okay, this a vast minority of some Vaisnav and Saiva Hindu scholars. But still, these people are Hindu and are teaching these, this is why I was wondering the original question: why ?

 

[Poeticus]

She can do ALL THE THINGS.

:camp:

I deleted it because it was too goofy of me. Also because I'm very biased due to my holding of two Dual-Ordinances as most important: yajna-wise, Mitra-Varuna; and bhakta-wise, Kali-Durga. Thus the obvious pro-Devi goofy statement.

 

[Jainarayan]

You mean Doniger and her ilk? Why do we care what western misinformed scholars think?

Among others I'm sure, though she is the poster girl for ignorance or perversion (i.e. twisting) of Indology and Hinduism. We as individuals who know better may not care what she thinks, but think of the damage they do in their writings... college courses and the students who will carry this "knowledge" with them, for example. It's a ripple effect. Another example is the western idea that tantra is all about sex; the idea had to come from somewhere... New Agers are certainly not reading Arthur Avalon or Georg Feuerstein, I'm sure of it.

 

[JaiMaaDurga]

Namaste,

I would agree that it comes from the general perception of Shakta belief and
practice being associated with esotericism and/or "baser" goals; i.e. acquiring
siddhis, etc. As has been mentioned, we Shaktas have been historically more
concerned with our own affairs than in vada-bhiksa- and let us not forget that
we are also considered "late arrivals" in terms of established sampradayas and
so on. I have come across more than a few writings in which Shaktism is treated
as probably originating from a conflation of foreign goddesses and the grama-devis
of different localities, with the subsequent grafting of Shaiva concepts.

I have come across teachings that declare Shaktism to be "the lowest form of
worship", with comparisons to smearing lamb's blood over doorways, etc.
If others want to perceive or portray us as "primitive", or declare Shaktism as
deluded and somehow inherently unsuitable as a path to moksha, this will do
nothing but sway those who are weak in discernment, and unwilling to undertake
proper investigation. It will certainly do nothing to change the minds of Shaktas.

If one is selling gold, they will not waste time belittling the brass being sold next
door.

JAI MATA DI

 

[Jainarayan]

She can do ALL THE THINGS.

:camp:

... including pressing perfect pleats in a sari. Now that's real power!

 

[Chakra]

Because I am talking about some Hindu scholars, from the "inside", not outsiders.

Okay, this a vast minority of some Vaisnav and Saiva Hindu scholars. But still, these people are Hindu and are teaching these, this is why I was wondering the original question: why ?

If you are talking about why they call it an "undharmic" path, then that would be because each sect considers their path as the real dharma. As far as superstition and black magic is concerned, usually Vaishnavas don't practice such things and it was alien to them.
Regards

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

... including pressing perfect pleats in a sari. Now that's real power!

Tell me about it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Tell me about it.

I will, elsewhere so as not to derail the thread.

 

[Vinayaka]

If you are talking about why they call it an "undharmic" path, then that would be because each sect considers their path as the real dharma. As far as superstition and black magic is concerned, usually Vaishnavas don't practice such things and it was alien to them.
Regards

I don't consider my sect as the 'real dharma'. It's the one that best suits me, but others are equally as valid. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this way either. Many Hindu sects accept the validity of other sampradayas. Mystically, there are 14 nadis within the sushumna, and each one is am inner valid path to the sahaswara. So there are several roads.

 

[Chakra]

I don't consider my sect as the 'real dharma'. It's the one that best suits me, but others are equally as valid. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this way either. Many Hindu sects accept the validity of other sampradayas. Mystically, there are 14 nadis within the sushumna, and each one is am inner valid path to the sahaswara. So there are several roads.

Ah I see. I can say that you are one of the few exceptions to my comment, as I've seen most Shaivas and Vaishnavas completely intolerant to each other. They go as far as to insulting each others' god. I'm sure you have heard of the story where a Shaivite plugs the nose of the deity of Vishnu so he can't smell the incense and then a Vaishnavite does the same.

In relation to the OP, I would say that denigration of other sects has always happened before. If you insult Vaishnavism, you aren't exactly insulting Vishnu himself. Same for Shaktism and Shaktas. Even in Vedantic debates, name-calling has always existed. Two examples would be Swami Prabhupada and followers of Shri Madhvacharya. SP called Advaitins "mayavada", as if a bad word. He didn't exactly insult Advaitins, but he insulted the philosophy of Advaita. Same with Madhvas. They have called Shri Shankara many terrible things, such as "a demon". However, I do think that they were not referring to Shankara as a person as a demon, but his philosophy as demonic etc. Similarly, refutation/insults of/to Shaktism or Vaishnavism or anything has always existed in Hinduism. There is no need for alarm if a traditional scholar says that Shaktism is unvedic etc. It has always happened. Now, if a Vaishnava says that Durga or Kali are "evil gods who do black magic", then that would be a first and completely lamentable.
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm sure you have heard of the story where a Shaivite plugs the nose of the deity of Vishnu so he can't smell the incense and then a Vaishnavite does the same.

I can honestly say I've never heard this story.

In my entire life, I've only met about 3 people who I would call ones who denigrate.

The monastic order I'm familiar with most is a Saivite order. They welcome BAPS monks, Advaitin monks from Shankara maths, Vaishnava monks, even Arya Samaj monks, as brothers.

It's like we live on two different planets. all I see is groups giving each other mutual respect, and all you see is them denigrating each other,

 

[Chakra]

In my entire life, I've only met about 3 people who I would call ones who denigrate.

The monastic order I'm familiar with most is a Saivite order. They welcome BAPS monks, Advaitin monks from Shankara maths, Vaishnava monks, even Arya Samaj monks, as brothers.

It's like we live on two different planets. all I see is groups giving each other mutual respect, and all you see is them denigrating each other,

I don't know. In the past there was definitely a lot of denigration. It may not be the same today. I guess you are lucky that you only know 3 people who are intolerant. I've known too many (that includes some family members )
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

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?

Why blame just Moghuls and British? Are there not such people among Hindus, particularly some former Rajas. It is said that the Sikh Raja of Patiala participated in some very weird rituals. Sure, it was the effect of lax morals.

 

[Poeticus]

Ah I see. I can say that you are one of the few exceptions to my comment, as I've seen most Shaivas and Vaishnavas completely intolerant to each other. They go as far as to insulting each others' god. I'm sure you have heard of the story where a Shaivite plugs the nose of the deity of Vishnu so he can't smell the incense and then a Vaishnavite does the same.

In relation to the OP, I would say that denigration of other sects has always happened before. If you insult Vaishnavism, you aren't exactly insulting Vishnu himself. Same for Shaktism and Shaktas. Even in Vedantic debates, name-calling has always existed. Two examples would be Swami Prabhupada and followers of Shri Madhvacharya. SP called Advaitins "mayavada", as if a bad word. He didn't exactly insult Advaitins, but he insulted the philosophy of Advaita. Same with Madhvas. They have called Shri Shankara many terrible things, such as "a demon". However, I do think that they were not referring to Shankara as a person as a demon, but his philosophy as demonic etc. Similarly, refutation/insults of/to Shaktism or Vaishnavism or anything has always existed in Hinduism. There is no need for alarm if a traditional scholar says that Shaktism is unvedic etc. It has always happened. Now, if a Vaishnava says that Durga or Kali are "evil gods who do black magic", then that would be a first and completely lamentable.
Regards

I'm still trying to figure out who these few Vaishnava and Shaiva scholars/acharya-s/guru-s are that state that the former two are viable though one of the two is the best, while Shaktism is still the worst and is not viable for moksha. Their sub-sect identification, and names, etc.. would be a breakthrough for this conversation. It would have provided specifics.