The Tantric Perspective on Women

[Guest guest]

A female member of this group recently sent me a private e-mail,

asking about how a female aspirant is supposed to approach Tantric

Shaktism when virtually all of the extant scriptures appear to have

been written by and for male sadhaks. It's an excellent discussion

point, and I'm posting it here because many of you are far more

qualified than I to address her concern – and I hope you will choose

to share your wisdom. For now, I'll try to get the conversation

rolling with an excerpt from the essay, "'Sa Ham – I am She': Woman

As Goddess," by Rita DasGupta Sherma, © 2000 Sheffield Academic Press:

 

"To be sure, Tantra distinguishes itself from other religious sects

by its maverick attitudes towards the forbidden, including

sexuality. ... However, sacramental sex, although important for

certain tantric schools, generally represents a very small part of

the overall sadhana [spiritual practice] of the aspirant. [Rather,]

it is the mastery of yogic disciplines (such as pranayama, various

asana, mudras, [... and] intense meditation on the inherently pure

nature of all phenomena, due to the omnipresence of Shakti) that form

the basis of sadhana and allow for the transmutation and divinization

of the entire spectrum of embodied experience, including sexuality.

 

"An exclusive focus on the sexual elements of tantric sadhana can

tend to obscure the foundational philosophical premise of Tantra;

[that is,] the assumption of the radical immanence of the divine,

most dynamically manifest in our human embodiment, and least

concealed in the feminine form. The belief in the omnipresence of the

divine feminine on the physical as well as the spiritual plane has

the effect of reversing the anti-embodiment bias so prevalent in the

philosophies of transcendence.

 

"Tantric philosophy is based on a valorization of the feminine

principle as mutable, morphogenic and material – and it envisions

woman as the most natural expression of this feminine principle. But

the divine feminine in Tantra is not limited to the maternal or

nurturing aspects of the Goddess as demure wife of a celestial Lord.

Tantra embraces the fierce, majestic, willful, and autonomous aspects

of the Goddess and, by corollary, allows women access to nuanced and

multifaceted divine feminine models. ...

 

"In Tantra, purification does not consist of elaborate ablutions,

pilgrimage to purifying sites, and extreme measures for cleansing

the 'impure' body. Rather, it consists of the experiential

realization of the inherently pure, divine nature of the body and,

indeed, all things. Thus the purification referred to in tantric

texts involves a multi-layered visualization process whereby the

aspirant envisions the presence of the divine Mother in every part of

the body/mind complex (bhuta-suddhi). Since women are Shakti

incarnate, their self-identification with the inner Shakti is

considered easier and more natural."

 

Regarding the apparent lack of female-authored Tantric texts, Sherma

notes that many of these women would have been from the lower castes

and likely illiterate, particularly in a non-vernacular language like

Sanskrit. However, the fact that accomplished women aspirants were

common in the Tantric sects is clearly evidenced in the male-authored

texts, which "contain numerous references to the initiation of women

into lineages, female religious preceptors [and gurus] and women as

embodiments of the Goddess." Also, many oral Tantric sources such

as "folklore, devotional songs, and poetry" appear more likely to be

woman-authored and provide "glimpses of women's relationship with the

Goddess" in these cults.

 

Sherma continues, "Indeed, it was far more likely that lower-caste

women would be involved in a non-orthodox sect because they would be

under far fewer social restrictions and were likely to be

economically independent through a trade. In any case, whatever the

background of the sadhika [a woman initiated into tantric Shaktism],

the honor that was due her did not change.... each [was] seen as an

aspect of the Mother Herself."

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Devi Bhakta, for posting something from the book Is

the Goddess a Feminist? I have been reading that book, and

wanted to post some things from it, also, to hear others'

thoughts about the material. For example, from the same essay

you have excerpted comes the following:

 

"While the emergence of the Shaiva bhakti movement allowed

women a certain degree of spiritual self-agency, the Shakta

tradition (devotionalism directed towards Shakti) developed into

a male-dominated sphere. It is only in Shakta-tantra that the

Goddess-woman indentification is stressed, and women's right

to self-determination is affirmed. As Payne noted, Shaktism and

Tantrism form 'two intersecting but not coinciding circles' (Payne

1979:72).

 

Can you (or others) comment on this in terms of modern day

Shakta practice?

[Guest guest]

Hi Maryann:

 

I think the starting point is to realize that Shaktism is not a

monolithic religion; it is as diverse as Her devotees. But we could

isolate perhaps three main strands -- not as formal cults per se,

just simply as a shorthand that may help you to orient yourself:

 

1. Brahmanical Shaktism: This would include the more strictly Vedic

approaches to the Goddess, usually involving priestly intervention

and ritual on behalf of the devotee. Here the focus is on

transcendent aspects of the Divine, with Shakti seen more as a

vehicle by which one attains an Ultimate deity (usually male, i.e.

Vishu/Krishna/Rama; or Shiva, etc.); *or* as an Ultimate deity

Herself who transcends Her gender in Her highest form (a la, the Devi

Bhagavata Purana). So a Shakta taking this approach would see

absolutely no logical or necessary connection between honoring the

Divine Feminine and respecting human women. Many passages in the Devi

Bhagavata, for example, are frankly misogynist in their disdain for

human women, even as the scripture as a whole declares Devi to be the

Supreme Divine -- that is most likely the meaning of the quote you

cite, that "Shakta developed into a male-dominated sphere."

 

2. Devotional Shaktism: As you probably know, the Bhakti (devotional)

forms of Hinduism, including Shaktism, are less dependent upon

priestly intervention and temple ritual. Instead, the devotee works

upon her or his inner self, cultivating an intensely emotional

relationship with her or his chosen form of the Divine (ishtadevata,

ishtadevi). Ramakrishna is probably the best-known advocate for

developing a bhakti relationship with Devi. Many if not most Shaktas

who choose a bhakti approach will love Devi in one of two devotional

relationships (bhavas): either as a Child to be indulged and doted

upon, or as a Mother to be honored and respected. In both cases,

sexuality is implicitly ruled out -- the idea being that no

emotionally healthy person would ever harbor sexual feelings toward

one's daughter or toward one's own Mother; thus the devotee is

guarded against spiritual devotion degenerating into mere sexual

arousal. (By interesting contrast, it is considered a very high bhava

for a female or male devotee to approach a Male deity as lover).

 

3. Tantric Shaktism. Here, Divine Immanence is the axis of worship

rather than Divine Transcendence. The Devi Mahatmyam -- an intensely

Tantric scripture, although Brahmanical and Devotional Shaktas

reverence it as well, on different levels -- states, vis a vis human

women: "O Devi! All types of knowledge and all women in the world are

thy diverse manifestations." (The excerpt I cited above at Message

#5290 offers more detail about Tantra's radical association of human

women with the Goddess.) Although human women and men are both said

to be of Her substance, Her divine essence is considered "least

concealed" in women -- and particularly in women who have

experientially realized themselves as Her manifestations. Therefore,

Self-realization through Shaktism is said to be less of a task for

women than for men: "Since women are Shakti incarnate, their self-

identification with the inner Shakti is considered easier and more

natural." Initiation into a Tantric form of Shaktism (say, Srividya)

is said to be eight times more auspicious if one's guru is a woman.

While it is recognized that women of an asuric and tamasic nature are

best avoided, any woman initiated into Tantric Shaktism is

considered, without reservation, to be respected as Devi Herself.

 

Now, I know that some members will challenge the categories I've set

out here. And so I wish to stress that I offer them only for

convenience and as a tool for understanding. There are Tantric

Shaktas who reverence the Devi Bhagavata Purana; there are Bhaktas

(including Ramakrishna himself) who do not shy away from the lover's

bhava, and there are Bhaktas who grow enraged at the merest

suggestion that Devi be approached in any relationship except Mother.

Likewise, there are non-Shaktas who honor the Goddess and recite the

Devi Mahatmyam during Navratri ... and on and on.

 

My point is that it's impossible to categorically state

that "Shaktism is male-dominated" or that "Shaktism is feminist." At

best, one might be able to say "That particular approach to Shaktism

is male-dominated" or "That particular Shakta is a feminist." The

individual devotee cannot help but bring their individual attitudes

to the table when approaching any religion, Shaktism included. The

best we can hope for is that, with steadfast and constant practice,

She will reveal Herself to us in the forms and manners that we need

and can understand at whatever our particular stage of spiritual

development may be.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

 

, "Mary Ann <maryann@m...>"

<maryann@m...> wrote:

> "While the emergence of the Shaiva bhakti movement allowed

> women a certain degree of spiritual self-agency, the Shakta

> tradition (devotionalism directed towards Shakti) developed into

> a male-dominated sphere. It is only in Shakta-tantra that the

> Goddess-woman indentification is stressed, and women's right

> to self-determination is affirmed. As Payne noted, Shaktism and

> Tantrism form 'two intersecting but not coinciding circles' (Payne

> 1979:72).

>

> Can you (or others) comment on this in terms of modern day

> Shakta practice?

[Guest guest]

I have questions re two interesting points you have made, Devi

Bhakta:

 

1) (By interesting contrast, it is considered a very high bhava

> for a female or male devotee to approach a Male deity as

lover).

 

Is there a provision (in ANY Shakta or tantric text that you have

EVER come across) for a female devotee approaching a Female

deity as lover?

 

Can you tell me where can I read more about the male devotee

approach to Male deity as lover?

 

2) While it is recognized that women of an asuric and tamasic

nature are

> best avoided, any woman initiated into Tantric Shaktism is

> considered, without reservation, to be respected as Devi

Herself.

 

Who would be proclaiming that a woman or women are of an

"asuric" or "tamasic" nature? Is that just an individual thing, or

something that gets to the level of "excommunication" ?

[Guest guest]

Hi Maryann:

 

Here are couple of quick answers to your queries; at

the outset, let me stress that these replies represent

my opinion only. I invite any corrections or divergent

views:

 

1. "By interesting contrast, it is considered a very

high bhava for a female or male devotee to approach a

Male deity as lover." Is there a provision (in ANY

Shakta or tantric text that you have EVER come across)

for a female devotee approaching a Female deity as

lover?

 

I do not know of any specific such text, but if the

Shakta Tantras apply equally to women and men (and

there is nothing I know of that says they do not) this

would be perfectly acceptable. After all, a initiated

female sadhika may perform all the same worship

techniques prescribed for a male sadhaka -- be it

worship of the Sri Chakra, worship of a human shakti,

yoni puja, etc. The big difference is that the sadhika

may also *be* the shakti at the center of such

worship, which the male aspirant, of course, may not.

 

2. Can you tell me where can I read more about the

male devotee approach to Male deity as lover?

 

The main example that comes to mind is male devotees

of Krishna imagining themselves as the gopikas

(cowherd girls) who are his lovers. Sometimes this

will involve male devotees dressing in female clothing

and imagining themselves as Krishna's lover during

devotions or on special religious occasions. But I am

not well-versed in Vaishnavism, so don't take it from

me. The ISKCON site notes, "A sakhi-bekhi is a person

-- often a male, but sometimes females take part --

who dresses up like a gopi and imagines

himself/herself as being enjoyed by Krishna." Here's

that link; but look around and you'll find more.

There's been a lot written on this subject:

 

http://www.iskcon.org/main/twohk/philo/roots/apasam/lilimit.htm

 

3. "Women of an asuric and tamasic nature are best

avoided" ... Who would be proclaiming that a woman or

women are of an "asuric" or "tamasic" nature? Is that

just an individual thing, or something that gets to

the level of "excommunication" ?

 

There is no proclamation or excommunication -- no

universal judgment that "this one is bad" and "this

one is good". We simply do the best one can according

to our own development, level of discernment, and gut

instinct. Compare the idea of the

ishtadevi/ishtadevata -- the personal deity; the form

of the Supreme Divine that opens my heart and allows

me to make serious spiritual progress may very well

leave another person cold, and vice versa.

 

Likewise, a woman whom I choose to avoid as tamasic or

asuric (say, because of her negative effect on me, my

work, my sadhana, my friends or loved ones) may very

well be someone else's mother, daughter, sister,

spouse, lover, valued friend, confidante, etc. We are

all a mix of sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic qualities

-- otherwise we wouldn't be human. So I cannot define

that other person as "asuric" except as to their

immediate effect upon me, my sadhana, my work, my

peace of mind, my friends ... my little world. If

their effect is negative, then I do what I can to

avoid 'em, simple as that. No hard feelings, no ill

wishes, no anger -- I simply stay away.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

=====

* Please visit the Shakti Sadhana Homepage at http://www.shaktisadhana.org

* Please join the Shakti Sadhana Group at

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

http://taxes./

[Guest guest]

Just one more thing that occurred to me after I replied to your

previous post: Are there writings that indicate that men who are

"asuric" or "tamasic" should be avoided?

 

, Devi bhakta

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

 

"Women of an asuric and tamasic nature are best

> avoided"

[Guest guest]

I hope you don't mind me interrupting this beautiful exchanges

you

have with Devi bhakta . Just an input from me : I don't see any

difference between Men and Women who are "asuric" or

"Tamasic". There

are an equal number of them. If you feel that theres a man who

is "asuric" and "Tamasic" and feel that he should be

avoided, then

avoid. You don't need the scriptures to tell you? Its all about

our

personal decisions.

[Guest guest]

You're exactly right, of course, Nora; thanks. ;-)

 

I think Maryann is simply having a bit of fun; it's quite clear in

context that the answer is gender-specific only because the question

was. But we should be cautious about overly polarizing the sexes, or

no understanding of Tantra will be possible. Certainly, women and men

are different, and Tantra does dramatically employ those differences

as a means of achieving spiritual goals. But we must always keep in

mind that the end goal of any sadhana is to overcome apparent

polarities, not to repeatedly emphasize them. The analysis can be

fascinating (or deadly boring, I suppose, depending on one's

perspective), but it is not the principal point, and we ought not to

get so lost in its trees that we lose sight of the forest.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namhe

 

, "Nora

<ashwini_puralasamy>" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> I hope you don't mind me interrupting this beautiful exchanges

> you

> have with Devi bhakta . Just an input from me : I don't see any

> difference between Men and Women who are "asuric" or

> "Tamasic". There

> are an equal number of them. If you feel that theres a man who

> is "asuric" and "Tamasic" and feel that he should be

> avoided, then

> avoid. You don't need the scriptures to tell you? Its all about

> our

> personal decisions.

[Guest guest]

Hello Nora! I was just poking at the fact that the scriptures

themselves have a viewpoint which is not a female one, and not

a loving male one, either. Also, in response to Devi Bhakta, my

point isn't meant to polarize at all. There is simply no reason to

argue and deny that women have been left out of or denigrated in

and by scripture, as well as in important aspects of the world.

We cannot begin to love that which is not accorded its rightful

space and place within and without.

 

When women who are menstruating are excluded from religious

/ spiritual ceremony, I think such exclusion is asuric and

tamasic. Do you agree, Nora?

 

 

, "Nora

<ashwini_puralasamy>" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> I hope you don't mind me interrupting this beautiful exchanges

> you

> have with Devi bhakta . Just an input from me : I don't see any

> difference between Men and Women who are "asuric" or

> "Tamasic". There

> are an equal number of them. If you feel that theres a man who

> is "asuric" and "Tamasic" and feel that he should be

> avoided, then

> avoid. You don't need the scriptures to tell you? Its all about

> our

> personal decisions.

[Guest guest]

When women who are menstruating are excluded from religious

/ spiritual ceremony, I think such exclusion is asuric and

tamasic. Do you agree, Nora?

 

Well it depends on which religious path / ceremonies you are talking

about. In a pure tantrik there is no such thing as impurities. The

body itself is the temple. The mensurating blood is the sign of DEVI.

In some tantrik rituals, mensurating blood are being offered to the

DEVI as offerings. I was told by a Kali Bhakta that in some rituals

too, its best perform when the women is menstruating.

 

In India, Kamakhya Temple, Nilachal where Goddess Sati's yoni

fell (

see message 2289 ). This place is also Yoni Pitha.

 

During the month of June-July (Asadh) the colourful festival of

Ambubachi, is held, when the Earth is supposed to have its annual

menstrual period. To symbolise the occasion, only red flowers, red

vermillion etcetera are used. And what's more, pieces of red cloth,

with the diety's menstrual blood are given to devotees as sacred

symbols.

 

And its still a personal choice. If I want to go to the DEVI temple

in a state of menstruating, who will know. Will the temple priest

say : No! you cannot come because you are menstruating. Its between

DEVI and me.

[Guest guest]

I was basing my question on my recollection of your telling me

that there was a temple you went to that doesn't allow women to

attend when they are menstruating. I remember you saying that it

made you mad that they had a rule like that, and my point is just

that it's that kind of rule that is tamasic and asuric.

 

, "Nora

<ashwini_puralasamy>" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> When women who are menstruating are excluded from

religious

> / spiritual ceremony, I think such exclusion is asuric and

> tamasic. Do you agree, Nora?

>

> Well it depends on which religious path / ceremonies you are

talking

> about. In a pure tantrik there is no such thing as impurities.

The

> body itself is the temple. The mensurating blood is the sign of

DEVI.

> In some tantrik rituals, mensurating blood are being offered to

the

> DEVI as offerings. I was told by a Kali Bhakta that in some

rituals

> too, its best perform when the women is menstruating.

>

> In India, Kamakhya Temple, Nilachal where Goddess Sati's

yoni

> fell (

> see message 2289 ). This place is also Yoni Pitha.

>

> During the month of June-July (Asadh) the colourful festival of

> Ambubachi, is held, when the Earth is supposed to have its

annual

> menstrual period. To symbolise the occasion, only red flowers,

red

> vermillion etcetera are used. And what's more, pieces of red

cloth,

> with the diety's menstrual blood are given to devotees as

sacred

> symbols.

>

> And its still a personal choice. If I want to go to the DEVI temple

> in a state of menstruating, who will know. Will the temple priest

> say : No! you cannot come because you are menstruating. Its

between

> DEVI and me.

[Guest guest]

I was basing my question on my recollection of your telling me

that there was a temple you went to that doesn't allow women to

attend when they are menstruating. I remember you saying that it

made you mad that they had a rule like that, and my point is just

that it's that kind of rule that is tamasic and asuric.

 

Yes ! precisely. There are temples. But these are temples who adhere

to certain scriptures. And there are many scriptures. I wouldnt like

to say weather its tamasic and asuric as they have their own valid

reason for implementing such rules. I did ask them ( or rather a kind

soul (who happen to be a man ) willing enough to explain the rational

behind it ) And I respect them for it. I met several Kali Bhakta who

said : then dont go to that temple. Build your own temple. Mother

temple dont have to be a structure. The earth itself is her temple

and her body.

[Guest guest]

I see the sense in what you are saying, yet at the same time,

Hitler had his reasons for implementing his rules, too, and a lot

of people, including Hitler himself, thought they were valid

reasons. Yet Hitler's ideas, and people going along with those

ideas, was tamasic and asuric. At some point, Love must step

forward and say: "Wait a minute...stop." The effect of being a

child growing up with tamasic and asuric rules is devastating. It

can take a lifetime of pain to get to the point of saying: "Wait a

minute...." While there is great value in going to another temple,

there can also be great value in beginning to speak one's truth in

the temple one finds oneself in upon waking.

 

"May all creatures think of mutual welfare." -- Srimad

Bhagavatum.

 

, "Nora

<ashwini_puralasamy>" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> I was basing my question on my recollection of your telling me

> that there was a temple you went to that doesn't allow women

to

> attend when they are menstruating. I remember you saying that

it

> made you mad that they had a rule like that, and my point is

just

> that it's that kind of rule that is tamasic and asuric.

>

> Yes ! precisely. There are temples. But these are temples who

adhere

> to certain scriptures. And there are many scriptures. I wouldnt

like

> to say weather its tamasic and asuric as they have their own

valid

> reason for implementing such rules. I did ask them ( or rather

a kind

> soul (who happen to be a man ) willing enough to explain the

rational

> behind it ) And I respect them for it. I met several Kali Bhakta

who

> said : then dont go to that temple. Build your own temple.

Mother

> temple dont have to be a structure. The earth itself is her

temple

> and her body.