Shaivism and Shaktism

[JField]

What are the main differences between the theology of these two sects ? Does Shaivism believe that shakti is required for the creation of the physical world ? And if Devi is supreme in Shaktism, does that mean that Shiva is another form of The Godess ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

In Shaivism, Shakti would be necessary, it is a part of Shiva. In Shaktism, the mother can manage all on her own.
Shiva is not a Goddess, though he can go as far as being half-male and half-woman (Ardhanarishwara).

 

[DeviChaaya]

My understanding is that both sects value their respective consort. Shakti is absolutely required because if we get right down to it, shakti means energy. Without shakti nothing can be done.

In Shaktism we say that Shiva without Shakti is Shava, with Shava meaning corpse. Therefore Shiva without Shakti is inanimate and ineffective. But at tthesame time Shakti without Shiva is unfocused because Shiva represents cconsciousness.

And then if we get really sectarian we will find sects who seem to 'ignore' the other. Shiva Siddhanta, and Vinayaka babaji please correct me if I'm wrong, Shakti as a female personification is ignored because Shiva is Shakti and Shakti is Shiva and Shiva is neither male nor female for everything is Shiva. The same goes for certain Shakti sects where Shiva may be mentioned as Shakti consort but is generally left by the wayside.

Shaktism shares many things in common with Shaivism, much of the theology is similar, especially when it comes to tantra but if you look at some of the iconography it shares much with Vaishnavism - we offer Devi Ma saris and jewelery, hair pieces and make up. We dress her lavishly and lavish attention upon her in much the same way that Vaishnavas do with Vishnu/Krishna. But then we also worship the Sri Yantra/Chakra in much the same way that Shaivas worship the lingam. There are places where only the Yantra is installed rather than a murti just as in Shaivism there are places (much more commonly) where only the lingam is worshipped.

For example I can go to 4 temples within 30 minutes of my house and every one of them has a lingam because that is how we worship Shiva in general. But I can also go to those same 4 temples and there will be several different forms of Devi.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think DeviChaaya summed it up nicely. It's never a matter of ignoring the other, but a matter of where the devotee's focus is at, and that varies greatly as there are many schools within each sect.

Mystically also, because one is cause, and the other effect, when the agamic rituals beckon the energy, the Shakti type causes more 'dance' than the Siva rituals.

 

[JField]

So is the view that both Shiva and Shakti are viewed as different forms of Brahman by both of the groups ?

 

[Poeticus]

What are the main differences between the theology of these two sects ? Does Shaivism believe that shakti is required for the creation of the physical world ? And if Devi is supreme in Shaktism, does that mean that Shiva is another form of The Godess ?

Shaivism is bad. Shaktism is bad. Both are bad. May I interest you in a Cobb Salad, instead ?

 

[Vinayaka]

So is the view that both Shiva and Shakti are viewed as different forms of Brahman by both of the groups ?

Again, depends on the school. Some might say, for example, that Siva or Shakti is Brahman, not a form of Brahman. This idea of Brahman manifesting as separate forms is Vedanta, I think.

 

[JField]

Shaivism is bad. Shaktism is bad. Both are bad. May I interest you in a Cobb Salad, instead ?

That sounds good, but I'll pass. Why are they "bad" ?if I may ask

 

[Vinayaka]

That sounds good, but I'll pass. Why are they "bad" ?if I may ask

Off topic, but have you managed to return to the temple we discussed earlier?

 

[JField]

Off topic, but have you managed to return to the temple we discussed earlier?

Sadly, no. I've been busy with work, we've also had some car troubles. The terrible irony is that I work at an auto shop XD I do plan on returning, however, once I've straightened things out and probably sometime when more people are there

 

[Poeticus]

That sounds good, but I'll pass. Why are they "bad" ?if I may ask

Obviously they are not bad. They are sublime, in fact. My post was a failed attempt at relaying the fact that the OP has been asked a myriad times before.

EDIT: DeviChaaya's post is of wonderful significance, in the aspect that it succinctly yet powerfully gives closure to the questions asked in the OP.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So is the view that both Shiva and Shakti are viewed as different forms of Brahman by both of the groups ?

No. Shakti is Shakti. She stands alone.

 

[JField]

Obviously they are not bad. They are sublime, in fact. My post was a failed attempt at relaying the fact that the OP has been asked a myriad times before.

EDIT: DeviChaaya's post is of wonderful significance, in the aspect that it succinctly yet powerfully gives closure to the questions asked in the OP.

I had the feeling I was probably beating a dead hoarse with this question my apologies

 

[Vinayaka]

I had the feeling I was probably beating a dead hoarse with this question my apologies

But please don't stop asking questions because of this. People who are newly interested in Hinduism come along all the time, and everyone has to start somewhere. This was a far more advanced question that some of the stuff we've been asked. There are a ton of misconceptions, and we'll never help to rid the world of them if people don't ask questions.

 

[JField]

But please don't stop asking questions because of this. People who are newly interested in Hinduism come along all the time, and everyone has to start somewhere. This was a far more advanced question that some of the stuff we've been asked. There are a ton of misconceptions, and we'll never help to rid the world of them if people don't ask questions.

Thank you for understanding, this certainly won't be my last post of question