Shakta theology and Shakta worship (Do Shaktas Ignore or Deny Shiva? Why Do Shaktas Worship the Divine Mother?)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Devi bhakta and everyone.

 

You've given us three statements about what Shakta religion is -- your own

statement, a statement of Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, and a statement

by Sir John Woodroffe.

 

I found Woodroffe's statement especially interesting, and I thank you for

drawing our attention to it.

 

You've presented these statements as if they are all making the same point.

 

But are they?

 

Your own statement:

 

"Hinduism recognizes *three* main theological conceptions of Devi: (1)

Supreme Divinity, manifesting as all gods and goddesses; (2) Divine

Power of Shiva (who is Divine Consciousness); and (3) Divine Consort,

subordinate wife and "helper" to a Supreme Male Divinity...Conception (1)

is Shaktism...Conception (2) mainly describes most schools of Tantra and

certain

sects of Shaivism. Conception (3) covers certain other sects of

Shaivism, and many if not most sects of Vaishnavism."

 

Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami's statement:

 

"In philosophy and practice, Shaktism greatly resembles Shaivism. But

Shaktas worship Shakti as the Supreme Being exclusively, as the dynamic

aspect of Divinity, while Shiva is considered solely transcendent and is

not worshiped."

 

Sir John Woodroffe's statement:

 

The Shakta "believes in Shiva (a Static Real as Immutable

Being-Consciousness), which is the ground of and serves to maintain Shakti

(which, in this system, is the Dynamic Real)...He, as Immutable Being, does

and can do nothing without Her as His Power...For these and other reasons,

in Shaktism primacy is given to the

Mother..."

 

What are we being told her about Shakta theology and Shakta worship?

 

1.Shakta theology.

 

According to both Subramuniyaswami and Woodroffe, Shaktas recogize two

aspects of Divinity, a dynamic aspect (Shakti) and a transcendent or static

aspect (Shiva). Woodroffe refers to Shakti as "His Power".

 

Isn't this exactly the sort of conception of Devi you describe in the

second of your three categories -- "(2) Divine Power of Shiva (who is

Divine Consciousness)"? Didn't you tell us that conceptions of this

category are not Shaktism but Tantrism or Shaivism?

 

2.Shakta worship.

 

According to Subramuniyaswami, the Shaktas "worship Shakti exclusively".

According to Woodroffe, they give her "primacy".

 

There is a subtle but important difference. The word "primacy" comes from

the Latin "primus" meaning "first". Woodroffe is telling us that Shaktas

give Devi the first place in their worship. Surely this is not quite the

same as saying that they worship her "exclusively"?

 

The Calcutta area (which I've visited) is full of large and small temples

of Kali which also contain honoured images of Shiva and Krishna. In these

temples, the Goddess is certainly given "primacy", yet she is not

worshipped "exclusively".

 

Is the word "Shakta" applicable to these temples or not?

 

Om shantih,

Colin.

[Guest guest]

Hi Colin:

 

Thanks for reading my post so closely, and for actually responding to my

statements. It is discouraging sometimes to write out long presentations only to

realize that most people simply skim them quickly and then respond to their

*idea* of what I said, rather than to what I actually said.

 

For example, only yesterday I received a private letter from a good friend

of the Group who's been with us since our beginnings back in

Clubs. This person, whose opinion I tend to respect greatly, actually

told me, "If I remember, you never admitted a Shiva Tattwa -- I think

only recently you started acknowledging that."

 

Colin, my jaw literally hit the floor. I just slumped back in my chair and

put my head in my hands. Not only has the front page of the Club/Group

explained Shiva's essential role in Shakti Sadhana from our inception; I have

written countless posts over the last year or so, clarifying and restating that

idea in so many different ways. Some of my very first posts to the Club

discussed the role of Shiva Tattva extensively. I engaged in a detailed

discussion of the Shiva and Shakti Tattvas with a former founder of the Club.

 

Although I write for a living, and usually think I am capable of

effectively communicating an idea, this letter almost made me want to hang up my

pen. From the beginning, I have tried to say (here I go again) that

Shakti Sadhana is an elaborate and beautiful, and above all *practical*,

Goddess-focused CONCEPTUALIZATION of the Divine, above and beyond all

theological speculation.

 

Clearly, if we acknowledge that the Divine is EVERYTHING, both seen

and unseen and beyond, we must acknowledge that approaching it in Its

Divine Feminine aspect is as legitimate as any other approach. And arguments

such as that of Woodroffe attempt to illustrate why it is an especially logical

and attractive and effective approach from our human perspective. That is the

extent of it. It's a DEVOTIONAL argument.

 

Theory is something else altogether. Despite my correspondent's apparent belief

that I never acknowledged the existence of Shiva until last week, I can honestly

say that I am unable to visualize a theoretical construct that works without

Him. I mean, how can you conceptualize day without assuming the existence of

night? Or cold without assuming the existence of heat? Each aspect defines the

other aspect. Certainly, no model of Hinduism -- whatever its conceptualization

of the Divine -- denies the existence of either Shiva or Shakti. But certainly

they all create a different heirarchial breakdown for purposes of practical

conception and devotion. My "categories" are an attempt to usefully define these

heirarchial breakdowns as they apply to Devi.

 

*** You've presented these [three] statements as if they are all

making the same point. ***

 

My intent wasn't so much that the all three statements (Subramuniyaswami's,

Woodroffe's and my own) made the same point, but rather that they each

illuminate in their various ways the same conclusion.

 

My statement indicated (or, I guess I should say, was meant to indicate) that

Hindus have a choice of three broad conceptualizations in approaching Devi --

(a) as Supreme, (b) as Equal and Identical to Shiva; or © as a subordinate

consort.

 

Subramuniyaswami explained that "Shaktas worship Shakti as the Supreme Being

exclusively ... while Shiva is considered solely transcendent and is not

worshiped." To me, this falls within the first conceptualization I mentioned.

She is Supreme, i.e. over all other Gods and Goddesses. Again, this is a

conceptual nuance: Rather than reading the Ardhanariswara as Shakti manifesting

from Shiva's left side, this sort of Shakta reads Shiva as manifesting from

Shakti's right side. Does that make any sense? ;-)

 

Woodroffe's statement says that "in Shaktism primacy is given to the Mother,"

which seems to say something that is, if not identical to Subramuniyaswami's

definition, at least very similar to it.

 

*** Didn't you tell us that conceptions of this category [shiva and

Shakti as two aspects of One being] are not Shaktism but Tantrism or

Shaivism? ***

 

If I did, it wasn't my intention. Because Tantrism is not necessarily "not

Shaktism." You see, my first category refers more to "pure Shaktism," the

devotional model suggested in Devi Mahatmyam, and more thoroughly and explicitly

developed in the Devi Bhagavatam Purana and its Devi Gita. That is not the only

devotional model that qualifies as Shaktism.

 

Tantra, as you know, is an *approach* to worship that is not confined to any one

religious doctrine -- be it Shaktism, Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Buddhism, or

whatever. I could perhaps have said that some Shakta Tantrics employ conceptions

of Devi that would fall into category one (Supreme), while some other Shaktas

employ conceptions that would fall into category two (Co-Equal). Under that

definition, some Shakta Tantrics but no *non*-Shakta Tantrics would fall into

category one, while there would be some spillover into category two. I

considered writing this is my original post -- but then figured that loading on

more detail would hardly enhance clarity. Wrong call, I guess.

 

The important point is that the theology (or theory) of all three models

recognize both Shakti and Shiva; the gradations of individual CONCEPTION are as

numerous as Her devotees. But I would still say the Shakta is primarily covered

my category one, the Tantric Shakta (that would include Woodroffe) can be

category one or category two, *leaning* toward category one. Or maybe

the categories are a failure: I found them to be a useful conceptual model

for my own though processes, but they seem decidedly unhelpful in communicating

my ideas to others!

 

*** According to Subramuniyaswami, the Shaktas "worship Shakti

exclusively". According to Woodroffe, they give her "primacy". There

is a subtle but important difference. ***

 

Yes, that is the difference that I described above, I think.

 

*** In [some] temples, the Goddess is certainly given "primacy", yet

she is not worshipped "exclusively". ***

 

Again, although I consider myself as something of a "pure Shakta" as

defined in category one, I cannot conceive of how one can worship

Shakti without worshiping Shiva, since they are "both" but

alternative conceptions of the same Unity [brahman]. I can, however,

conceive a devotion that focuses worship on the Goddess form

exclusively, with all prayers necessarily reaching Her inseperable

Shiva aspect. That, in my understanding, in what Subramuniyaswami is talking

about, and I don't think Woodroffe's conception is, on a practical level, much

different in any significant way.

 

*** Is the word "Shakta" applicable to these temples or not? ***

 

A temple where, as you say, "the Goddess is certainly given primacy"

is, I would say, certainly a Shakta temple to a Shakta.

 

Thank you for your comments; they were helpful in many ways -- I hope

not just for me, but for the entire Group.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe