Gender Identification & Spirituality

[Guest guest]

Dear Seed Crystal:

 

For what it's worth, I thought I'd weigh in on this thread.

 

*** So in shakti or in shiva worship, gender is considered base? ***

 

Shakti and Shaiva worship can be very similar in many ways, but also

have a few fundamental differences. Broadly speaking, Malyavan Tibet's

statement about "over-identification with the body and base desires"

reflects a more Shaiva bias. Shiva worship leans toward celibacy and

monasticism; transcending the flesh by denying the flesh (as is also a

common approach in Christianity and Islam, of course). Shakti worship

tends to focus on transcending the flesh by embracing the flesh.

Tantric practices (which are usually very Shakta-oriented) see the

manifest world as a tool through which we can reach the unmanifest and

the transcendent.

 

I think what Malyavan Tibet was getting at in his comments, is that

"over-identification" with gender at a certain point (a very, very

advanced point that very few reach) becomes a drag. Shaktism (and most

all of Hinduism for that matter) uses human metaphors to describe

universal truths. Why? Because we are human. Tantra invites us to test

what that means. By embracing as sacred the things that orthodox

society might consider profane, we begin to chip away at our own

prejudices and assumptions. We move beyond the objectification impulse

"This is me. This is mine. That is she. That is hers. She is female. I

am male. They are poor. I am rich. I am this color. They are that

color. I am of this clan. They are of that clan." ... All the easy

differences by which our lower natures define who we are.

 

As the orthodoxies that bind us fall away, we begin to realize just

how limiting our body-identification can be. Because beyond our

body-identifiers -- male and female being as good as example as any --

we are souls. Through many births and rebirths, we are male many times

and female many times. In any given incarnation, we simply do the best

we can with who and what we are.

 

I think you'd agree that a person who defines her-/himself in terms of

their profession might seem oddly lacking in some essential human

quality. Surely we are more than what our employers regard us as? Same

thing with a person relies on their belongings -- prestige cars,

prestige vacations, trophy houses, trophy spouses, etc -- to boost

their self-importance. We say that these people are focusing too much

on the material. So do all of the world's religious traditions in

their various ways -- over-attachment to one's worldly belongings is

not conducive to spiritual advancement.

 

Well, Tantric Shaktism simply kicks that up to the next level:

Over-attachment to one's own body-identification is not conducive to

spiritual spiritual advancement. At a certain point, saying, "I'm a

woman and you're a man" is no different than saying, "I've got a Ford

and you've got a Toyota." It's a distinction that is useful at a

certain level (like paying fees at the Motor Vehicle Registry), but

useless at more exalted levels (like determining what kind of person

you are, ethically or spiritually).

 

Granted, our male or female identity reaches infinitely deeper than

our other possessions, and so it burdens us with a lot more baggage

and carries a lot more social and spiritual implications than does the

car we drive or the house we live in. But ultimately, so the

scriptures teach us, it's just another label we've got to get past.

 

You note that Malyavan Tibet "mentioned male priests dressing up as

the feminine to 'lay down the ego.'" And asked, "Is it considered the

same for female priestesses who dress as male (a laying down of ego)?"

 

I don't think Malyavan Tibet's statement means that ritual

cross-dressing is a humbling or ego-deflating experience in the sense

of, "Oh, I'm dressed as a woman; how embarrassing." I think it's

better understood through Ramakrishna's example -- just as a method of

further detaching one's mind from identifications that are ultimately

just "possessions" to be shed. To loosen up one's

gender-identification just as you might want to loosen up your

profession-identification or possession-identification. So I guess a

woman could achieve the same thing, if she lived in a context in which

wearing male clothing was considered transgressive and unorthodox

enough to shake up her usual sense of self.

 

You say, "I would raise any sons I might have with love for who they

were, just as I love my husband for who he is, and love my father and

brothers and nephews for who they are."

 

I think that gets to the heart of a lot of what has been argued over

here. Your answer is nice to read because it expresses what we would

hope any religious pursuit would give us -- a sense of love, empathy,

compassion and kindness that extends beyond our immediate selves, or

"our kind."

 

Whenever a person -- of whatever religious tradition -- begins using

that tradition to reinforce a belief that s/he is "better" than some

"other" defined by whatever difference, it's a pretty sure bet that

they're no longer on the spiritual trajectory and instead have got got

a serious social ax to grind.

 

Thus, Christian fundies who kill abortion doctors for Jesus, or

Muslims who crash planes into buildings for Allah ... or witches who

abhor men for Diana ... have reached a spiritual deadstop. And they've

got to drop a few of their psychic suitcases before they advance any

further.

 

My two paise ...

 

DB

[Guest guest]

Excellent post.

 

In it you say, "By embracing as sacred the things that orthodox

society might consider profane, we begin to chip away at our

own prejudices and assumptions. We move beyond the

objectification impulse 'This is me. This is mine. That is she.

That is hers. She is female. I am male. They are poor. I am rich. I

am this color. They are that color. I am of this clan. They are of

that clan.' ... All the easy differences by which our lower natures

define who we are.

 

As the orthodoxies that bind us fall away, we begin to realize just

how limiting our body-identification can be."

 

Could you expand on how 'embracing as sacred the things that

....[are] profane' leads to moving 'beyond the objectivication

process'. Does not intelligence, confidence, diligence, humility

and an inner sense of self, all of which are part of the so-called

ascetic appoach of Shaivism, lead to the same thing? Why is it

necessary to embrace the profane and run the risk of being a

tamasic prisoner of the senses and passion? What is it about

the psychology of a person that leads him/her to Shaktism?

 

This is not an argumentative question but a request for more

clarity.

 

Om and Prem

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Dear Seed Crystal:

>

> For what it's worth, I thought I'd weigh in on this thread.

>

> *** So in shakti or in shiva worship, gender is considered

base? ***

>

> Shakti and Shaiva worship can be very similar in many ways,

but also

> have a few fundamental differences. Broadly speaking,

Malyavan Tibet's

> statement about "over-identification with the body and base

desires"

> reflects a more Shaiva bias. Shiva worship leans toward

celibacy and

> monasticism; transcending the flesh by denying the flesh (as

is also a

> common approach in Christianity and Islam, of course). Shakti

worship

> tends to focus on transcending the flesh by embracing the

flesh.

> Tantric practices (which are usually very Shakta-oriented) see

the

> manifest world as a tool through which we can reach the

unmanifest and

> the transcendent.

>

> I think what Malyavan Tibet was getting at in his comments, is

that

> "over-identification" with gender at a certain point (a very, very

> advanced point that very few reach) becomes a drag. Shaktism

(and most

> all of Hinduism for that matter) uses human metaphors to

describe

> universal truths. Why? Because we are human. Tantra invites

us to test

> what that means. By embracing as sacred the things that

orthodox

> society might consider profane, we begin to chip away at our

own

> prejudices and assumptions. We move beyond the

objectification impulse

> "This is me. This is mine. That is she. That is hers. She is

female. I

> am male. They are poor. I am rich. I am this color. They are that

> color. I am of this clan. They are of that clan." ... All the easy

> differences by which our lower natures define who we are.

>

> As the orthodoxies that bind us fall away, we begin to realize

just

> how limiting our body-identification can be. Because beyond

our

> body-identifiers -- male and female being as good as example

as any --

> we are souls. Through many births and rebirths, we are male

many times

> and female many times. In any given incarnation, we simply do

the best

> we can with who and what we are.

>

> I think you'd agree that a person who defines her-/himself in

terms of

> their profession might seem oddly lacking in some essential

human

> quality. Surely we are more than what our employers regard us

as? Same

> thing with a person relies on their belongings -- prestige cars,

> prestige vacations, trophy houses, trophy spouses, etc -- to

boost

> their self-importance. We say that these people are focusing

too much

> on the material. So do all of the world's religious traditions in

> their various ways -- over-attachment to one's worldly

belongings is

> not conducive to spiritual advancement.

>

> Well, Tantric Shaktism simply kicks that up to the next level:

> Over-attachment to one's own body-identification is not

conducive to

> spiritual spiritual advancement. At a certain point, saying, "I'm a

> woman and you're a man" is no different than saying, "I've got a

Ford

> and you've got a Toyota." It's a distinction that is useful at a

> certain level (like paying fees at the Motor Vehicle Registry), but

> useless at more exalted levels (like determining what kind of

person

> you are, ethically or spiritually).

>

> Granted, our male or female identity reaches infinitely deeper

than

> our other possessions, and so it burdens us with a lot more

baggage

> and carries a lot more social and spiritual implications than

does the

> car we drive or the house we live in. But ultimately, so the

> scriptures teach us, it's just another label we've got to get past.

>

> You note that Malyavan Tibet "mentioned male priests

dressing up as

> the feminine to 'lay down the ego.'" And asked, "Is it considered

the

> same for female priestesses who dress as male (a laying

down of ego)?"

>

> I don't think Malyavan Tibet's statement means that ritual

> cross-dressing is a humbling or ego-deflating experience in

the sense

> of, "Oh, I'm dressed as a woman; how embarrassing." I think

it's

> better understood through Ramakrishna's example -- just as a

method of

> further detaching one's mind from identifications that are

ultimately

> just "possessions" to be shed. To loosen up one's

> gender-identification just as you might want to loosen up your

> profession-identification or possession-identification. So I

guess a

> woman could achieve the same thing, if she lived in a context

in which

> wearing male clothing was considered transgressive and

unorthodox

> enough to shake up her usual sense of self.

>

> You say, "I would raise any sons I might have with love for who

they

> were, just as I love my husband for who he is, and love my

father and

> brothers and nephews for who they are."

>

> I think that gets to the heart of a lot of what has been argued

over

> here. Your answer is nice to read because it expresses what

we would

> hope any religious pursuit would give us -- a sense of love,

empathy,

> compassion and kindness that extends beyond our immediate

selves, or

> "our kind."

>

> Whenever a person -- of whatever religious tradition -- begins

using

> that tradition to reinforce a belief that s/he is "better" than some

> "other" defined by whatever difference, it's a pretty sure bet that

> they're no longer on the spiritual trajectory and instead have got

got

> a serious social ax to grind.

>

> Thus, Christian fundies who kill abortion doctors for Jesus, or

> Muslims who crash planes into buildings for Allah ... or witches

who

> abhor men for Diana ... have reached a spiritual deadstop. And

they've

> got to drop a few of their psychic suitcases before they advance

any

> further.

>

> My two paise ...

>

> DB

[Guest guest]

Hi Ellen:

 

I appreciate your argument; it sounds like you've though it through,

and I'll let it stand on its own merit. My only interest here is to

note a few points as regards Shaktism:

 

*** Personally, I have reservations about these "balance" metaphors

***

 

The idea of balance is valued in the Shakta Tantric traditions

because it appears to be a governing principle of the entire cosmos.

Ideologies that deny balance contain the seeds of their own

destruction. Balance, a function of Sri MahaLakshmi, preserves. I

understand your concern that currently prevailing social systems are

so far out of balance, that what is *currently* proposed as true

balance is actually a false approximation. That is possible;

societies to eventually must faces the consequences of imbalance.

However, for metaphysical and purposes of Tantric theory and

practice, I believe the balance metaphor is apt, effective, and

objectively true. Any flaw would come from the individual human

practitioner who brought her/his own prejudices to bear upon the

equation.

 

*** Here we are presented with a quite different picture of the

sacred feminine ... as a kind of personal identity problem, something

difficult to be transcended. ***

 

If my post conveyed that to you, then I have ineffectively

represented the system. Neither the "sacred feminine" nor the "sacred

masculine" are "problems to be transcended." *Human* sexual identity

is, however, at a certain level -- that is, if one's goal is Self-

Realization (which is, after all, the ultimate goal of all the Hindu

systems).

 

*** Who wrote all the books explaining Shaktism as a way of

transcending gender and escaping from the processes of nature? How

many of them were women? ***

 

Hinduism and its Tantric subsets are some of the only world spiritual

traditions who can truthfully reply, "Quite a few." It is

historically certain that there were female rishis among the authors

of the Vedas, Hinduism's most ancient and sacred source texts. As for

Tantra, "all the books" you refer to were actually not set down to

writing until around 1000 AD; before that, however, the oral

tradition stretches back millennia. Tantra has always welcomed women

gurus, and one well-known aphorism states that an initiate with a

female guru is "eight times more fortunate" than one with a male

guru. Although it is impossible to say who exactly set these ancient

oral traditions to paper, it is virtually certain that the traditions

themselves passed down the lineages of both male and female gurus.

 

*** What social and economic classes did the authors belong to? ***

 

Tantric Shaktism is notable for its refusal to exclude anyone on the

basis of gender, caste or social position. The sole criteria for

initiation was (and remains) spiritual competence, self-discipline

and devotion. It was not (and is not) about male or female, rich or

poor. It was (and is) about spiritual realization.

 

*** I am far more interested in how Indian Goddess traditions can

benefit the lives of ordinary women, in India and the US both, than I

am in learning how to attain advanced meditative states myself. ***

 

Then Tantra may be of limited interest, because the system is

primarily a practical set of instructions on achieving specific

spiritual goals. It is not, and does not pretend to be or try to be,

a social system.

 

Having said that, Shaktism, like any true religious system, manifests

in its purest adherents by any number of good social works. As an

immediate and current example, I'd mention one of the forement living

exponents of Tantric Shaktism, Sri Amritananda Natha Saraswati, and

his Sri Vidya Trust (SVT), a nonprofit organization headquartered in

Devipuram, India. SVT is involved in a number of developmental

activities including non-formal education, empowerment of women and

low-cost housing for the rural poor:

 

GOAL: To improve the quality of life and achieve greater self-

reliance by forming local cooperative village banks, encouraging

small business enterprises and organizing women's groups to deal with

the problems of exploitation, alcoholism and discrimination.

 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 15 villages in the vicinity of Devipuram have formed

women's cooperative banks, the capital for which is provided

completely by the local women. The combined capital of these banks

currently totals Rs. 200,000 with 2 annual rotations. Loan recoveries

have been close to 99% or better, compared to nationalized banks'

performance in the rural sector of less than 40%. Many local, income-

producing enterprises have been funded in the past year by these

banks.

 

In 1994, with the help of OXFAM of India, SVT and a group of ten

other voluntary agencies organized a conference of women's groups at

Anakapalli in which over 10,000 members participated. These women,

along with representatives of the eleven voluntary agencies, were

able to discuss their problems, distill their common experiences and

needs, and then suggest solutions for improving the quality of their

lives. From the consensus emerged an action plan that was well

received by the Indian government. This process demonstrated the

effectiveness of organization and cooperation in bringing about

social change.

 

SVT women's groups participated in a state-wide movement that

resulted in the successful modification of policies regarding the

sale of government alcohol in the villages.

 

The women's cooperative banks have provided an important alternative

to the usurious lending practices of private money lenders.

 

IMMEDIATE PLANS: To expand the women's bank program to over 100

villages and achieve total capitalization of Rs. 5,000,00 to

10,000,000 (US$ 150,000 - 300,000) by the year 2000.

 

To encourage small business development in the 100 villages.

 

To encourage and support the organization of women for the

achievement of their educational and social goals.

 

**********

 

Seek, and you will find other, similar examples. But still, Shaktism

is not a "female religion" or a "male religion." It is a human

religion, in which women and men alike share age-old Hindu spiritual

goals. You may not be interested in "attaining advanced meditative

states," but these women and men are. And yet, these pursuits have

not, I think you will agree, stunted their compassion or their social

activism. In face, Shaktism has and continues to enpower its

adherents to perform such work on an ever-greater scale.

 

Again, I do not question the urgency or passion of your social

concerns. But I must clarify that if you seek to the expose

patriarchal "truth" behind Tantric Shaktism, you are barking up the

wrong tree. It is an ancient system, with an incredibly complex and

sophisticated networks of scriptural canons and ritual systems. It is

not "feminist" in any Western sense of the word, nor will it satisfy

a Dianic Witch's standards of political, social or spiritual

correctness.

 

It is what it is, and may stand judgement as such. But do not judge

it as what it is not.

 

Aum MAtangyai NamaH

[Guest guest]

Excellent post and excellent questioning here.

 

The good and evil are like two sides of the same coin, which is again

a changing aspect (duality).

 

There are some interesting stories in kathasarit-sagara where a king

performing tapas is tested by being exposed to blood, lake filled with

pus, excrements and all the decaying things in the world. But in the

end by his unshakeable detachment to the external changing reality he

is rewarded with a heaven , beautiful lakes, golden swans, woman,

dancers, musicians, all things of beauty and purity.

 

There;s mention in robert svobodas book abt telank swami worshipping

shiva linga with his own faeces. The aghoris sometimes dwell on

cremation ground eating decaying corpses etc.

 

To hang out in the depths of hell but come out as if nothing has

happened is sattwa, lightness and not tamasic.

 

 

 

, "omprem" <omprem> wrote:

> Excellent post.

>

> In it you say, "By embracing as sacred the things that orthodox

> society might consider profane, we begin to chip away at our

> own prejudices and assumptions. We move beyond the

> objectification impulse 'This is me. This is mine. That is she.

> That is hers. She is female. I am male. They are poor. I am rich. I

> am this color. They are that color. I am of this clan. They are of

> that clan.' ... All the easy differences by which our lower natures

> define who we are.

>

> As the orthodoxies that bind us fall away, we begin to realize just

> how limiting our body-identification can be."

>

> Could you expand on how 'embracing as sacred the things that

> ...[are] profane' leads to moving 'beyond the objectivication

> process'. Does not intelligence, confidence, diligence, humility

> and an inner sense of self, all of which are part of the so-called

> ascetic appoach of Shaivism, lead to the same thing? Why is it

> necessary to embrace the profane and run the risk of being a

> tamasic prisoner of the senses and passion? What is it about

> the psychology of a person that leads him/her to Shaktism?

>

> This is not an argumentative question but a request for more

> clarity.

>

> Om and Prem

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> > Dear Seed Crystal:

> >

> > For what it's worth, I thought I'd weigh in on this thread.

> >

> > *** So in shakti or in shiva worship, gender is considered

> base? ***

> >

> > Shakti and Shaiva worship can be very similar in many ways,

> but also

> > have a few fundamental differences. Broadly speaking,

> Malyavan Tibet's

> > statement about "over-identification with the body and base

> desires"

> > reflects a more Shaiva bias. Shiva worship leans toward

> celibacy and

> > monasticism; transcending the flesh by denying the flesh (as

> is also a

> > common approach in Christianity and Islam, of course). Shakti

> worship

> > tends to focus on transcending the flesh by embracing the

> flesh.

> > Tantric practices (which are usually very Shakta-oriented) see

> the

> > manifest world as a tool through which we can reach the

> unmanifest and

> > the transcendent.

> >

> > I think what Malyavan Tibet was getting at in his comments, is

> that

> > "over-identification" with gender at a certain point (a very, very

> > advanced point that very few reach) becomes a drag. Shaktism

> (and most

> > all of Hinduism for that matter) uses human metaphors to

> describe

> > universal truths. Why? Because we are human. Tantra invites

> us to test

> > what that means. By embracing as sacred the things that

> orthodox

> > society might consider profane, we begin to chip away at our

> own

> > prejudices and assumptions. We move beyond the

> objectification impulse

> > "This is me. This is mine. That is she. That is hers. She is

> female. I

> > am male. They are poor. I am rich. I am this color. They are that

> > color. I am of this clan. They are of that clan." ... All the easy

> > differences by which our lower natures define who we are.

> >

> > As the orthodoxies that bind us fall away, we begin to realize

> just

> > how limiting our body-identification can be. Because beyond

> our

> > body-identifiers -- male and female being as good as example

> as any --

> > we are souls. Through many births and rebirths, we are male

> many times

> > and female many times. In any given incarnation, we simply do

> the best

> > we can with who and what we are.

> >

> > I think you'd agree that a person who defines her-/himself in

> terms of

> > their profession might seem oddly lacking in some essential

> human

> > quality. Surely we are more than what our employers regard us

> as? Same

> > thing with a person relies on their belongings -- prestige cars,

> > prestige vacations, trophy houses, trophy spouses, etc -- to

> boost

> > their self-importance. We say that these people are focusing

> too much

> > on the material. So do all of the world's religious traditions in

> > their various ways -- over-attachment to one's worldly

> belongings is

> > not conducive to spiritual advancement.

> >

> > Well, Tantric Shaktism simply kicks that up to the next level:

> > Over-attachment to one's own body-identification is not

> conducive to

> > spiritual spiritual advancement. At a certain point, saying, "I'm a

> > woman and you're a man" is no different than saying, "I've got a

> Ford

> > and you've got a Toyota." It's a distinction that is useful at a

> > certain level (like paying fees at the Motor Vehicle Registry), but

> > useless at more exalted levels (like determining what kind of

> person

> > you are, ethically or spiritually).

> >

> > Granted, our male or female identity reaches infinitely deeper

> than

> > our other possessions, and so it burdens us with a lot more

> baggage

> > and carries a lot more social and spiritual implications than

> does the

> > car we drive or the house we live in. But ultimately, so the

> > scriptures teach us, it's just another label we've got to get past.

> >

> > You note that Malyavan Tibet "mentioned male priests

> dressing up as

> > the feminine to 'lay down the ego.'" And asked, "Is it considered

> the

> > same for female priestesses who dress as male (a laying

> down of ego)?"

> >

> > I don't think Malyavan Tibet's statement means that ritual

> > cross-dressing is a humbling or ego-deflating experience in

> the sense

> > of, "Oh, I'm dressed as a woman; how embarrassing." I think

> it's

> > better understood through Ramakrishna's example -- just as a

> method of

> > further detaching one's mind from identifications that are

> ultimately

> > just "possessions" to be shed. To loosen up one's

> > gender-identification just as you might want to loosen up your

> > profession-identification or possession-identification. So I

> guess a

> > woman could achieve the same thing, if she lived in a context

> in which

> > wearing male clothing was considered transgressive and

> unorthodox

> > enough to shake up her usual sense of self.

> >

> > You say, "I would raise any sons I might have with love for who

> they

> > were, just as I love my husband for who he is, and love my

> father and

> > brothers and nephews for who they are."

> >

> > I think that gets to the heart of a lot of what has been argued

> over

> > here. Your answer is nice to read because it expresses what

> we would

> > hope any religious pursuit would give us -- a sense of love,

> empathy,

> > compassion and kindness that extends beyond our immediate

> selves, or

> > "our kind."

> >

> > Whenever a person -- of whatever religious tradition -- begins

> using

> > that tradition to reinforce a belief that s/he is "better" than some

> > "other" defined by whatever difference, it's a pretty sure bet that

> > they're no longer on the spiritual trajectory and instead have got

> got

> > a serious social ax to grind.

> >

> > Thus, Christian fundies who kill abortion doctors for Jesus, or

> > Muslims who crash planes into buildings for Allah ... or witches

> who

> > abhor men for Diana ... have reached a spiritual deadstop. And

> they've

> > got to drop a few of their psychic suitcases before they advance

> any

> > further.

> >

> > My two paise ...

> >

> > DB

[Guest guest]

Fundamental errors Ellen!!

1. There was no aryan invasion of India. It was a figment of Colonialist spin

doctors.

2. At higher levels the gender differentiation disappears in the Shakta

tradition. So there is nothing great in the gender. Then she/he becomes Shakti -

just power.

 

Ellen McGowen <ellen.mcgowen wrote:

Hi Devi Bhakta,

 

I do not doubt that Tantrics have social consciences or can be true

saints, any more that I would doubt this about Mother Theresa. That

is not in question. Frankly, though, I would have been far more impressed

to hear of a woman who is a foremost living exponent of Shakta Tantra

and runs a non profit, or to be directed to classic literature written by

famous women rather than to an arguably part female oral tradition filtered

through presumably all male literary tradition.

 

I am not trying to discredit the tradition, I am trying to get past all the

male voices speaking for Devi so that can hear Her speaking through Her

women's voices. Chandra Alexandra, who runs a small Devi Mandir in

San Francisco, lived in India and was initiated as a priestess of Kali

there, and she was able to talk to female devotees of Kali personally. She also

talked with Indian University women who believe the old Goddesses are harmful

for Indian women. I cannot go to India and do this myself. I hope that is not

the only way to get such information, but it may be.

 

The main "draw" of Indian Goddess traditions for me is their continuity into

the past and the possibility of glimpsing pre Aryan invasion Goddess beliefs

of India. I suspect those beliefs bore very little resemblance to later

patriarchalized ideas, that Devi would have been more of an Earth Mother, and

that reincarnation was a comfort, not something to escape. Earth had not been

turned into Hell yet.

 

Blessings of Bahuchara Mata,

Ellen

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

ellen.mcgowen wrote: I am not trying to discredit the tradition, I

am trying to get past all the male voices speaking for Devi so that

can hear Her speaking through Her women's voices.

 

I have problem trying to accept this statement. You see Ellen my

guru is a Male. Yes! A Man. Many often I hear the voices of Devi

through his voice. In my opinion, the gender is not an issue. If you

have seen DEVI, able to Feel her then DEVI is everywhere even

through the voice of a Male.

 

What I see is this, when a person is stuck with an issue example

this gender issue, they remain stuck and unable to see beyond

anything. I always see is as a butterfly concept. Many a times we

carry this burden of us. This little cocoon we built around

ourselves. Our safety net. If we do not try to find a way to break

away from this cocoon, we will die. Die a premature death. For its a

nature of the butterfly to eventually break free, to spread her

wings and be free. That is what we are here for : to be free.

 

Free from this baggage we carry along with ourselves. To me DEVI

herself is the healer. Before you can try to heal others first you

need **** to heal that wound of yours ****.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/2/2004 8:28:16 AM Mountain Daylight Time,

omprem writes:

> There is no difference between male voices speaking for Devi or

> women's voice's speaking for Devi. In either case, there is a

> fatal distortion if those speakers see or feel a world polarized

> between male and female. The way to spiritual liberation is to

> move beyond the world of opposites, to resolve those 'opposites'

> into their commonground. When one has moved beyond the

> opposites and moved beyond space and time, ego and desire,

> one speaks for Devi not as a male or female but as a Seer, Sage

> or Saint.

>

 

How can there be no difference? They live in different bodies. Each person

whether male or female offers a unique perspective. What Nora says is not

identical with what Devi says or with what anybody says. Otherwise we wouldn't

all be here in a group. Otherwise one person wouldn't prefer one guru over

another. No two people are the same, so how can a man and a woman be the same.

 

If you mean they have come to regard one another with compassion and respect,

then I understand. Qualitatively, it is different and enjoy hearing the

perspectives an Wisdom of men as well as women.

 

Sadly, women are not as inclined to take on the authority and express it

openly.

 

Even two theoretical quantum physicists cannot speak about quantum-physical

reality the same and that topic is not even obviously related to gender, so

gender has nothing to do with it in a way, but everything.

 

Blessings of the Goddess,

Cathie

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" I am trying to get past all the male voices speaking for Devi so

that can hear Her speaking through Her women's voices."

 

 

There is no difference between male voices speaking for Devi or

women's voice's speaking for Devi. In either case, there is a

fatal distortion if those speakers see or feel a world polarized

between male and female. The way to spiritual liberation is to

move beyond the world of opposites, to resolve those 'opposites'

into their commonground. When one has moved beyond the

opposites and moved beyond space and time, ego and desire,

one speaks for Devi not as a male or female but as a Seer, Sage

or Saint.

 

 

Om and Prem

 

 

, "Ellen McGowen"

<ellen.mcgowen@w...> wrote:

> Hi Devi Bhakta,

>

> I do not doubt that Tantrics have social consciences or can be

true

> saints, any more that I would doubt this about Mother Theresa.

That

> is not in question. Frankly, though, I would have been far more

impressed

> to hear of a woman who is a foremost living exponent of

Shakta Tantra

> and runs a non profit, or to be directed to classic literature

written by

> famous women rather than to an arguably part female oral

tradition filtered

> through presumably all male literary tradition.

>

> I am not trying to discredit the tradition, I am trying to get past

all the

> male voices speaking for Devi so that can hear Her speaking

through Her

> women's voices. Chandra Alexandra, who runs a small Devi

Mandir in

> San Francisco, lived in India and was initiated as a priestess

of Kali

> there, and she was able to talk to female devotees of Kali

personally. She also talked with Indian University women who

believe the old Goddesses are harmful for Indian women. I

cannot go to India and do this myself. I hope that is not the only

way to get such information, but it may be.

>

> The main "draw" of Indian Goddess traditions for me is their

continuity into

> the past and the possibility of glimpsing pre Aryan invasion

Goddess beliefs

> of India. I suspect those beliefs bore very little resemblance to

later

> patriarchalized ideas, that Devi would have been more of an

Earth Mother, and that reincarnation was a comfort, not

something to escape. Earth had not been turned into Hell yet.

>

> Blessings of Bahuchara Mata,

> Ellen

[Guest guest]

There is no difference between male voices speaking for Devi or

women's voice's speaking for Devi.

 

 

----I agree with Omprem for once here, and must say that if one is humble in

front of their own woman then they fulfill all necessary religious prerequisits

also for the Path. One can only relate to the Goddess with as much faith as

shown in daily life.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Om Prem

 

One could do worse than studying the GENUINE methods

of Ramakrishna Paramahansa..the fact that he

essentially attained by means of the Left-Hand Path is

downplayed in almost all the literature I have read on

him! He would sit on the banks of the Ganges with shit

in one hand and money in the other and contemplate

them both, and say to himself "shit is money, money is

shit", and then throw them both into the Ganges

together.Tibetan novices are required to meditate in

charnel grounds, slaughter houses, and latrines until

they can see God there also. To say with words that

God is present everywhere and then fail to live up to

that premise in deed by denying His/Her presence in

places like this is to fall into the error of duality.

You simply cannot make any real spiritual progress

until this false distinction is destroyed in your

mind! When God is truly present to you, then even shit

becomes a sacred substance! To get a clearer picture

of the method, you may wish to read the "Aghora: At

the Left Hand of God" trilogy by Robert Svoboda, a

tale of a real, modern-day encounter with a true holy

man, the Master "Vimalananda". Of all the books on

Tantric methodology I have read, these stand out as

the ones from which I can say I truly learned the most

about what I needed to know to attain to God. These,

and the reading I have done on Ramakrishna, that is.

If your mind is sincerely fixed upon attaining God,

you are in no danger whatever of falling into Tamas

with these methods. I know; this is how I attained. It

is only the deluded and insincere who fall from the

Path with Left-Hand methods.

Lilith M.

[Guest guest]

"How can there be no difference? They live in different bodies.

Each person whether male or female offers a unique

perspective."

 

Different bodies, different perspectives are both true at a very

elementary and dense level. But the entire purpose of sadhana

or spiritual practice is to change our consciousness and rise

above our conditioning and the imperfect information of the

senses and see beyond the names and forms to the common

background of all, i.e. Brahman.

 

Bodies and perspectives are only different configurations of

energy. If, through intense and continuous sadhana, one

manages to change the vibration of their consciousness they will

see a different universe. As this process of becoming aware of

other planes of existence continues, eventually one recognizes

that their true self, their soul, is exactly the same as the soul of

anyone or anything else and is the same as Brahman, the

background from which the universe arose. Here, one is literally

God Incarnate. There is no sense of difference.

 

Those different perspectives and bodies to which you refer are

the result of ego and desire plus incomplete and imperfect

understanding and vision . Regarding each other with respect

and compassion is part of the initial step to overcoming that

sense of difference. To me, compassion means recognizing

human aspirations and frailties but without judgement and guilt

because you see them as souls on the way to recognition of

their own divinity who make mistakes and learn from those

mistakes during their journey.

 

We all eventually over many lifetimes arrive at the same place

and share the same view. Some of us, through sadhana arrive a

little earlier. Some who linger to indulge in the senses, desire,

and judgement take longer.

 

Om and Prem

 

 

,

SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/2/2004 8:28:16 AM Mountain Daylight

Time,

> omprem writes:

>

> > There is no difference between male voices speaking for

Devi or

> > women's voice's speaking for Devi. In either case, there is a

> > fatal distortion if those speakers see or feel a world polarized

> > between male and female. The way to spiritual liberation is

to

> > move beyond the world of opposites, to resolve those

'opposites'

> > into their commonground. When one has moved beyond the

> > opposites and moved beyond space and time, ego and

desire,

> > one speaks for Devi not as a male or female but as a Seer,

Sage

> > or Saint.

> >

>

> How can there be no difference? They live in different bodies.

Each person

> whether male or female offers a unique perspective. What

Nora says is not

> identical with what Devi says or with what anybody says.

Otherwise we wouldn't

> all be here in a group. Otherwise one person wouldn't prefer

one guru over

> another. No two people are the same, so how can a man and

a woman be the same.

>

> If you mean they have come to regard one another with

compassion and respect,

> then I understand. Qualitatively, it is different and enjoy hearing

the

> perspectives an Wisdom of men as well as women.

>

> Sadly, women are not as inclined to take on the authority and

express it

> openly.

>

> Even two theoretical quantum physicists cannot speak about

quantum-physical

> reality the same and that topic is not even obviously related to

gender, so

> gender has nothing to do with it in a way, but everything.

>

> Blessings of the Goddess,

> Cathie

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

These,

and the reading I have done on Ramakrishna, that is.

If your mind is sincerely fixed upon attaining God,

you are in no danger whatever of falling into Tamas

with these methods. I know; this is how I attained. It

is only the deluded and insincere who fall from the

Path with Left-Hand methods.

Lilith M.

 

-----The left hand path is the path of seeing the divine in tamas. Ultimately

all evil things as well break down into their components as soon as they relax

and become spiritualized and assimilated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Who knows if the stories attributed to supposedly highly-evolved

spiritual leaders are real or apocryphal.

 

Your story of Ramakrishna seems a bit too over the top to be

believed. Why would he find it necessary to sit by the Ganges

with a handful of shit and the other hand full of money and find it

necessary to ponder the relative worth of both? Was his intellect

so dense that he could only use this graphic means to arrive at

the conclusion that neither was more or less important or

desirable than the other and that in the end neither was of any

consequence? This story makes no sense unless one

assumes that he was either very tamasic or very rajasic and

needed such a dramatic gesture to capture his attention and

intellect. You would probably not want to accept that he was

anything less than sattvic. Even if it is claimed that he was just

demonstrating what he already knew, one can suggest that to do

so involves an ego that still has yet to be fully under control.

 

Learning to meditate in such places as you describe is yet

another attempt to teach a lesson graphically. What is it about

the personality of these people or their teachers that makes it

necessary for lessons to taught graphically? How is the

acseticism of Ramkrishna and the Tibetan novices different from

the mortification of the flesh practiced by those great Catholic

saints of past centuries, especially the sixteenthe and

seventeenth centuries.

 

And more to the point of this thread, how are the methods you

describe any less ascetic than the Shaivite methods? In fact, I

would say that the Shaitvite methodology is almost libertine

compared to your descriptions of the `left hand path'. In the yoga

world, sannyasins withdraw from the world to learn their

lessons, purify their consciousness and raise prana. They are

reminded that the true test of their spiritual focus will be when

they return to interact with the world. Shaivites learn that desire is

merely the ego misguidedly seeking to maximize its happiness

using flawed information received from the outer projection of the

senses without the moderating effect of a rigorous intellect being

applied to that information. Isn't this what Ramakrishna was

attempting to do. The only difference seems to be that Shaivites

don't have to play with shit to learn anything.

 

It seems to me that the types of lessons to which you refer are

somewhat obvious to anyone who has done any work on

themselves and do not required the techniques that you

describe to teach them unless the student is excessively tamis

or sattvic.

 

Although I am left-handed, I find that your `left hand path' is both

unnecessary and unconvincing.

 

Om and Prem

 

 

 

 

, Lili Masamura

<sephirah5> wrote:

>

> Dear Om Prem

>

> One could do worse than studying the GENUINE methods

> of Ramakrishna Paramahansa..the fact that he

> essentially attained by means of the Left-Hand Path is

> downplayed in almost all the literature I have read on

> him! He would sit on the banks of the Ganges with shit

> in one hand and money in the other and contemplate

> them both, and say to himself "shit is money, money is

> shit", and then throw them both into the Ganges

> together.Tibetan novices are required to meditate in

> charnel grounds, slaughter houses, and latrines until

> they can see God there also. To say with words that

> God is present everywhere and then fail to live up to

> that premise in deed by denying His/Her presence in

> places like this is to fall into the error of duality.

> You simply cannot make any real spiritual progress

> until this false distinction is destroyed in your

> mind! When God is truly present to you, then even shit

> becomes a sacred substance! To get a clearer picture

> of the method, you may wish to read the "Aghora: At

> the Left Hand of God" trilogy by Robert Svoboda, a

> tale of a real, modern-day encounter with a true holy

> man, the Master "Vimalananda". Of all the books on

> Tantric methodology I have read, these stand out as

> the ones from which I can say I truly learned the most

> about what I needed to know to attain to God. These,

> and the reading I have done on Ramakrishna, that is.

> If your mind is sincerely fixed upon attaining God,

> you are in no danger whatever of falling into Tamas

> with these methods. I know; this is how I attained. It

> is only the deluded and insincere who fall from the

> Path with Left-Hand methods.

> Lilith M.

[Guest guest]

<SNIP> I know; this is how I attained. <SNIP>

 

If you know you have attained, ..........no attaining as yet has taken place.

 

*****

> It

> > is only the deluded and insincere who fall from the Path with Left-Hand

methods.

> > Lilith M.

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" Those metaphors were introduced during patriarchalization.

Patriarchy first created this problem of percieving diversity as

opposition through a concepual error that arises from

masculation."

 

 

Oh, please. Give us break. This is such utter, self-serving

nonsense. Most of us on a spiritual path are attempting to

decondition our thought processes, emotions, and

consciousness. You are gleefully deepening your conditioning to

a concrete-like consistency. Your motto seems to be, "Don't

bother me with the truth, my mind is already made up."

 

In reading your manifesto, I am reminded of a quote by William

Sumner, "Ideals are very often formed in the effort to escape from

the hard task of dealing with facts."

 

The facts are that our senses give us the illusion of a world that

is composed of separate objects. Conditioned by this mistake,

some of the more inquiring infer that we are individuals with

individual souls. With this sense of individualism, arises ego.

We have a desire for happiness and an intention to avoid

unhappiness. We tend to see the world and its inhabitants as

either conducive to or obstructing our march toward happiness.

And, of course, we tend to see happiness or, at least its means,

as lying outside of ourselves. From the first illusion of separation

arises longing, fear, conflict, estrangement , abuse, war, death

and resentment. We are only too quick to blame others for our

unhappiness. But we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first and

the lesson afterwards. Most never understand the lesson.

 

Two other quotes seem appropriate here:

 

"Our anger and annoyance are more detrimental to us than the

things themselves which anger or annoy us." -Marcus Aurelius

 

"Egoism is the anesthetic given by a kindly nature to relieve the

pain of being a damned fool." -Bellamy Brooks

 

Happiness will never be achieved as long as the senses are

projected outward and not rigorously monitored by the intellect

and as long as the ego is allowed to retain its licenticious sway

over us. We cannot blame others for our state of spiritual

awareness. At all times, under all circumstances, we have only

one freedom, and that is the freedom to choose how we respond

to the events of our lives. We have no rights, we have only

responsibilities. Our main responsibility is to make ourselves

capable of choosing how to respond in a positive, sattvic way to

the events of our life. As Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead stated,

"I think every human being should be a conscious tool of the

universe."

 

But first you have to tune into what underlies the universe. Hatred

and polarization doesn't get you there.

 

Om and Prem

 

, "Ellen McGowen"

<ellen.mcgowen@w...> wrote:

>

> Om and Prem,

>

> I do not think that males and female are "opposites". There

again

> we have the exchange metaphors of balances and equations,

dualities

> and opposition. Those metaphors were introduced during

patriarchalization.

> Patriarchy first created this problem of percieving diversity as

opposition

> through a concepual error that arises from masculation. Then

patriarchy

> creates this "solution" to its own problem: deny the reality of

diversity.

> For a detailed explanation of this conceptual error seel

Genevieve Vaughan's

> book For Giving: A Feminist Criticism of Exchange, which is

available (for

> free) at www.gift-economy.com

>

> Biology tells us that the female condition is the general one.

There are

> species that are all female, but there cannot be a species that

is all male.

> The relationship is neither equality nor opposition but

derivation: males

> are derived from females, evolutionarily and developmentally.

Gender is

> a form of biological diversity.

>

> The best metaphor is to think of the female as including the

male. In early

> art, the Goddess is often represented as blended with animal

or male

> characteristics: She is all of biological diversity. But such a

conception

> is incompatible with domination, hierarchy, and the rule of men

over

> women, so it was replaced by the patriarchal gender binary,

which is

> in turn "solved" by collapsing it to an abstract unity: "if we could

just

> get rid of biological diversity entirely, the problem would be

gone".

>

> But so would we.

>

> Ellen

>

>

> ---- Original Message -----

> omprem

>

> Saturday, October 02, 2004 7:26 AM

> Re: Gender Identification &

Spirituality

>

>

> " I am trying to get past all the male voices speaking for Devi so

> that can hear Her speaking through Her women's voices."

>

> There is no difference between male voices speaking for Devi

or

> women's voice's speaking for Devi. In either case, there is a

> fatal distortion if those speakers see or feel a world polarized

> between male and female. The way to spiritual liberation is to

> move beyond the world of opposites, to resolve those

'opposites'

> into their commonground. When one has moved beyond the

> opposites and moved beyond space and time, ego and desire,

> one speaks for Devi not as a male or female but as a Seer,

Sage

> or Saint.

>

> Om and Prem

[Guest guest]

"The left hand path is the path of seeing the divine in tamas. "

 

Now we seem to getting closer to the answer to my question.

This quote seems to be saying that the left hand path is intended

for those of a tamasic nature with the intention of bringing them

to a realization of their true divinity using methods to which they

can relate.

 

Om and Prem

 

,

"Detective_Mongo_Phd" <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

>

> These,

> and the reading I have done on Ramakrishna, that is.

> If your mind is sincerely fixed upon attaining God,

> you are in no danger whatever of falling into Tamas

> with these methods. I know; this is how I attained. It

> is only the deluded and insincere who fall from the

> Path with Left-Hand methods.

> Lilith M.

>

> -----The left hand path is the path of seeing the divine in

tamas. Ultimately all evil things as well break down into their

components as soon as they relax and become spiritualized and

assimilated.

Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms

of Service.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I disagree on that. Kaula is not tamasic but the higher reaches of sadhana

 

omprem <omprem wrote:

"The left hand path is the path of seeing the divine in tamas. "

 

Now we seem to getting closer to the answer to my question.

This quote seems to be saying that the left hand path is intended

for those of a tamasic nature with the intention of bringing them

to a realization of their true divinity using methods to which they

can relate.

 

Om and Prem

 

,

"Detective_Mongo_Phd" <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

>

> These,

> and the reading I have done on Ramakrishna, that is.

> If your mind is sincerely fixed upon attaining God,

> you are in no danger whatever of falling into Tamas

> with these methods. I know; this is how I attained. It

> is only the deluded and insincere who fall from the

> Path with Left-Hand methods.

> Lilith M.

>

> -----The left hand path is the path of seeing the divine in

tamas. Ultimately all evil things as well break down into their

components as soon as they relax and become spiritualized and

assimilated.

Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms

of Service.

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

None of the three <gunas> appears unalloyed. There is always a

combination of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas.

 

I do not see Tantra as a path for people in whom Tamas predominates.

 

I seem to recall one Sage defining "Left Hand Path" as the path of Shakti

(Goddess/Energy), of Immanence, and the world of Form. Right Hand Path

is he path of Transcendance, and the world of Ideals. As I said

elsewhere, you need both views to have a complete comprehension.

 

-- Len/ Kalipadma

 

 

 

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:18:55 -0000 "omprem" <omprem writes:

>

>

> "The left hand path is the path of seeing the divine in tamas. "

>

> Now we seem to getting closer to the answer to my question.

> This quote seems to be saying that the left hand path is intended

> for those of a tamasic nature with the intention of bringing them

> to a realization of their true divinity using methods to which they

> can relate.

>

> Om and Prem

>

> ,

> "Detective_Mongo_Phd" <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> >

> > These,

> > and the reading I have done on Ramakrishna, that is.

> > If your mind is sincerely fixed upon attaining God,

> > you are in no danger whatever of falling into Tamas

> > with these methods. I know; this is how I attained. It

> > is only the deluded and insincere who fall from the

> > Path with Left-Hand methods.

> > Lilith M.

> >

> > -----The left hand path is the path of seeing the divine in

> tamas. Ultimately all evil things as well break down into their

> components as soon as they relax and become spiritualized and

> assimilated.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

-------

-----

> > Links

> >

> >

> > /

> >

> > b..

> >

> >

> > c.. Terms

> of Service.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------ Sponsor

> --------------------~-->

> $9.95 domain names from . Register anything.

> http://us.click./J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM

> --~->

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

______________

Get your name as your email address.

Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more

Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!

[Guest guest]

I'm with you and Kochu on this one.

 

The Tamas ~ Tantra correspondence is a case of the right terms being

used in the wrong combinations. Or as Mark Twain put it, a case of

knowing the words but not knowing the tune.

 

The whole thing is just infinitely more complex and nuanced that that.

 

DB

 

, kalipadma@j... wrote:

>

> I do not see Tantra as a path for people in whom Tamas

predominates.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/3/2004 9:00:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

kalipadma writes:

> I seem to recall one Sage defining "Left Hand Path" as the path of Shakti

> (Goddess/Energy), of Immanence, and the world of Form. Right Hand Path

> is he path of Transcendance, and the world of Ideals. As I said

> elsewhere, you need both views to have a complete comprehension.

>

> -- Len/ Kalipadma

 

I like this definition of left hand and right hand paths...

It seems to me much preferable to the common notion in my country that

"left hand path" involves cursing people while "right hand path" involves only

positive magic.

Though I could see how when the feminine is degraded and untrusted, Her

path might have become distorted through lack of understanding to mean "black

magic" or "cursing" as She also has been cursed by Patriarchy in the West.

Of course I am making the assumption that right hand path is associated

with Masculine Deity since you said Left hand path is Shakti or Goddess, and

typically I have read that immanence is associated with the Goddess and the

Feminine while Transcendance is associated with the Masculine ( stemming from

biological reasons such as women have the womb which is inside ( immanent )

requiring intuition and introspection for women to "see inside" to their

feminine

processes, while men have the Phallus which is external/objectivily-observable

leading to peeing ina Transcendent arc and all sort of worldly accomplishment

that looks outside the body and into the world.

 

Thanks for this definition. Truly.

 

Blessings of the Goddess,

Cathie

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/3/2004 8:20:38 AM Mountain Daylight Time,

omprem writes:

> "The left hand path is the path of seeing the divine in tamas. "

>

> Now we seem to getting closer to the answer to my question.

> This quote seems to be saying that the left hand path is intended

> for those of a tamasic nature with the intention of bringing them

> to a realization of their true divinity using methods to which they

> can relate.

>

> Om and Prem

 

I hate to be asking another question that everyone else knows the answer to

but me, but what is Tamas? Is Tamas the "worldly nature"?

 

Blessings,

Cathie

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/4/2004 7:13:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

SophiasHeaven writes:

I hate to be asking another question that everyone else knows the answer to

but me, but what is Tamas? Is Tamas the "worldly nature"?

 

Blessings,

Cathie

There are essentially 3 fundamental qualities that pervade creation

 

Sattva- is the centripetal force that draws together and creates. It

concentrates energy and thus binds the world together, therefore it is

associated with

Vishnu who embodies it.

 

Tamas- is the centrifugal force associated with darkness and inertia. It aims

to pull apart and disperse energy. If concentrated energy is light (sattva)

disintegrating energy is darkenss. It is the liberating force which returns all

to formlessness. It is assocaited with Rudra for reasons like this.

 

Rajas- is the revolving tendency from which comes all motion and interaction

between the gunas. It is personified by Brahma and through it all action takes

place. It compliments the other two.

 

These three while being seperate in principle are truly interconnected. There

are many ways to look at the Gunas. From a material standpoint Tamas would

seem lowest since in the physical world disintegration does not lead to success,

but from a spiritual viewpoint action (Karma) entangles one more with the

physical world.

 

In the Shiva Purana Brahma narrates:

 

"Vishnu is of Sattva attribute, I (Brahma) am of Rajas and Rudra is of Tamas

attribute. This is only in view of the activities in this world. But in fact

and in name it is otherwise."

 

2.16.38

 

"Vishnu is of Tamas nature within but externally Sattva; Rudra is of Sattva

nature within but of Tamas nature outside, I am of Rajas nature throughout."

 

2.16.39

 

The three powers are seen as the expression of the formless Shiva according

to the Purana. The expression itself is the Goddess Shakti who is of the 3

natures.

 

As a trinity Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are often referred to as "preserver,

creator, and destroyer" this should give you a basic concept of the Gunas.

Calling Shiva a destroyer sounds a little loaded to me and I prefer to think of

him

as a transformer.

 

I would also like to say that I believe the 3 Gunas are associated with the 3

colors Red, White and Black. My guess would be Sattva white, Rajas Red and

Tamas Black, but I am not certain. Anyone know the answer to this?????

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks Om and Prem, for your reply.

There's so much to keep track of. I feel as tho my head is amid a cloud

of Hummingbirds in flight, as you all navigate with great ease agility and

swiftness these complex and intricate questions, as if they were great bushes of

Flower..

I know there was another this morning, about this topic, in addition

to Devi's. And several replies to the question of the 5-M's. Each one ads a

little to the picture. So much to consider ! :-)

 

Blessings,

Cathie

In a message dated 10/4/2004 12:26:42 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

omprem writes:

> Tamas, Rajas and Sattva are known as the three gunas. They

> are qualities of the phenomenal world and have been compared

> to the three strands of the rope that binds us to the illusory world.

> These gunas are present in varying degrees in everyone and

> everything and they continually change their quantity.

> Sometimes you are tired or resistant to change or overcome with

> fear, and are thus Tamasic. Other times you are charge

> fearlessly ahead and accomplish much in the world and are

> thus Rajasic. Other times, you are filled with a sense of purity,

> devotion and wisdom and are thus Sattvic. The couch potato is

> tamasic, the type A person is rajasic, the saint is sattvic: but not

> all the time.

>

> As long as we have attachment to the things and events of this

> world we under the thrall of the gunas. Sattva binds us with an

> attachment to happiness, Rajas binds us with an attachment to

> activity and Tamas binds us with an attachment to delusion.

> Tamas wants to destroy us, Rajas wants to bind us to the world

> through busyness and rob us of our spiritual treasures, and

> Sattva sets us on the path to spiritual freedom but also binds us

> to the resulting happiness. Tamas can be overcome by Rajas,

> Rajas can be overcome by Sattva, and Sattva can be overcome

> by overcoming the ego.

>

> Only God or Brahman stands outside of these three gunas.

>

> OM and Prem

>

>

> ,

> SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

> >In a message dated 10/3/2004 8:20:38 AM Mountain Daylight

> Time,

> >omprem writes:

> >

> >>"The left hand path is the path of seeing the divine in tamas. "

> >>

> >>Now we seem to getting closer to the answer to my question.

> >>This quote seems to be saying that the left hand path is

> intended

> >>for those of a tamasic nature with the intention of bringing

> them

> >>to a realization of their true divinity using methods to which

> they

> >>can relate.

> >>

> >>Om and Prem

> >

> >I hate to be asking another question that everyone else knows

> the answer to

> >but me, but what is Tamas? Is Tamas the "worldly nature"?

> >

> >Blessings,

> >Cathie

> >

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Tamas, Rajas and Sattva are known as the three gunas. They

are qualities of the phenomenal world and have been compared

to the three strands of the rope that binds us to the illusory world.

These gunas are present in varying degrees in everyone and

everything and they continually change their quantity.

Sometimes you are tired or resistant to change or overcome with

fear, and are thus Tamasic. Other times you are charge

fearlessly ahead and accomplish much in the world and are

thus Rajasic. Other times, you are filled with a sense of purity,

devotion and wisdom and are thus Sattvic. The couch potato is

tamasic, the type A person is rajasic, the saint is sattvic: but not

all the time.

 

As long as we have attachment to the things and events of this

world we under the thrall of the gunas. Sattva binds us with an

attachment to happiness, Rajas binds us with an attachment to

activity and Tamas binds us with an attachment to delusion.

Tamas wants to destroy us, Rajas wants to bind us to the world

through busyness and rob us of our spiritual treasures, and

Sattva sets us on the path to spiritual freedom but also binds us

to the resulting happiness. Tamas can be overcome by Rajas,

Rajas can be overcome by Sattva, and Sattva can be overcome

by overcoming the ego.

 

Only God or Brahman stands outside of these three gunas.

 

OM and Prem

 

 

,

SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/3/2004 8:20:38 AM Mountain Daylight

Time,

> omprem writes:

>

> > "The left hand path is the path of seeing the divine in tamas. "

> >

> > Now we seem to getting closer to the answer to my question.

> > This quote seems to be saying that the left hand path is

intended

> > for those of a tamasic nature with the intention of bringing

them

> > to a realization of their true divinity using methods to which

they

> > can relate.

> >

> > Om and Prem

>

> I hate to be asking another question that everyone else knows

the answer to

> but me, but what is Tamas? Is Tamas the "worldly nature"?

>

> Blessings,

> Cathie

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Actually, Ramakrishna Paramahansa is one of the

best-documented Masters we have available to us, and

as an avatar of Kali Ma, he certainly bears close

study by those who are genuinely desirous of

attainment to the Goddess, rather than those who

prefer to simply sling around high-falutin' Sanskrit

terms and methodologies whose validity they have no

real means of judging, except as it appeals to their

limited sensibilities of "good" and "bad". I have no

idea why he chose that particular sadhana; I assume he

did what he sensed was necessary and also expedient in

order to purify his awareness in preparation for the

descent of the Goddess. It also must be noted that all

these weird and discomfiting practices were a PHASE in

his spiritual journey..once the purpose of these

practices had been accomplished, they were left

behind. He also did NOT recommend them to anyone else;

everyone must find the Path in their own way, and this

way was HIS way! If you thought that handling shit was

a repulsive spiritual practice, you may as well know

that at one point, while he was still seeking, in

order to obliterate his pride in being a Brahmin,

seeing it as an obstacle to true attainment, he also

cleaned the latrine of his gardener with his long

hair.

One thing that stands out however, is that he had an

unimpeachable reputation for telling the truth. It is

said that he gave up everything to the Divine Mother,

but Truth he refused to relinquish. The fact that you

claim to be a "Left-Hand" practitioner and yet fail

completely to grasp the essential premise behind these

spiritually valid practices by an unquestioned Master

suggests you have a LONG WAY to go yet. Ramakrishna

Paramahansa attained to the Mother. Only one who has

attained may truly speak about attainment, and

Ramakrishna unquestionably attained. Nothing more need

be said.

Lilith M.

 

--- omprem <omprem wrote:

>

> Who knows if the stories attributed to supposedly

> highly-evolved

> spiritual leaders are real or apocryphal.

>

> Your story of Ramakrishna seems a bit too over the

> top to be

> believed. Why would he find it necessary to sit by

> the Ganges

> with a handful of shit and the other hand full of

> money and find it

> necessary to ponder the relative worth of both? Was

> his intellect

> so dense that he could only use this graphic means

> to arrive at

> the conclusion that neither was more or less

> important or

> desirable than the other and that in the end neither

> was of any

> consequence? This story makes no sense unless one

> assumes that he was either very tamasic or very

> rajasic and

> needed such a dramatic gesture to capture his

> attention and

> intellect. You would probably not want to accept

> that he was

> anything less than sattvic. Even if it is claimed

> that he was just

> demonstrating what he already knew, one can suggest

> that to do

> so involves an ego that still has yet to be fully

> under control.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________

 

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.