Abraham and the Divine Mother God.

S

Samuel Linton Boot

Subdued Member
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Nottingham
When God came to Moses with his charge to lead these fathers from bondage, he said that he had formerly been know to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the name of El Shaddai. (Exodus 6:3) Shaddai, in the Aramaic, is in the feminine gender. In the Hebrew it has closely associated words that have feminine meanings. In both the Hebrew and Aramaic, it means full breasted.
 
How 'bout this ... In The Secret Doctrine (by H.P.Blavatsky), there is the following comment on p.129 of Vol.I, as part of an intimate discussion of Cosmogenesis ("Creation"):
The monotheists have taken (and are still taking) advantage of the profound esotericism of the Kabala to apply the name by which the One Supreme Essence is known to ITS manifestation, the Sephiroth-Elohim, and call it Jehovah. But this is quite arbitrary and against all reason and logic, as the term Elohim is a plural noun, identical with the plural word Chiim, often compounded with the Elohim.*
​
The footnote reads:
The sentence in the Sepher Jezirah [Yetzirah] and elsewhere: "Achath-Ruach-Elohim-Chiim" denotes the Elohim as androgynous at best, the feminine element almost predominating, as it would read: "ONE is She the Spirit of the Elohim of Life." As said above, Echath (or Achath) is feminine, and Echod (or Achod) masculine, both meaning ONE.
​
The emphasis in the footnote is mine.

Certainly most esotericists would regard the Unmanifest or the Absolute (the Brahman of Hinduism) as beyond all gender differences. But the choice of referring to manifested Deity, or Godhead, in the 1st Aspect as masculine ("Father," Abba, etc.) seems arbitrary - or if anything, the reverse of what should be! Why, then, do we find Christ taking this approach? Could it be so simple & obvious as the likelihood that even his closest would-be disciples - let alone the masses - might not have taken him seriously if he had presented the radical view ... that G-d is essentially feminine (at least, relative to Humanity & gender as we know it)? Hmmm ....

The ancient Mystery Religions of the Greeks & Egyptians depicted Nature Herself as feminine ... and also taught that the only way to know G-d (or the Deity both Transcendent as well as in-dwelling, or within), was to understand oneself - which includes both Nature and Humanity at large, once we learn to put aside separativeness & selfishness (or self-cherishing). This of course, requires the transcending of the lower nature, even if but temporarily, in order to experience the Unity which G-d does not forget, but which we have (forgotten).

As the great Mason and esoteric teacher Manly Hall reminds us (see this webpage for reference), it was inscribed in the Temple of ISIS:
"I, Isis, am all that has been, that is or shall be; No mortal man hath ever me unveiled. The fruit which I have brought forth is the ‘SUN’."
​
If anything then, Deity - or Deity's external expression/representation (universally the SUN, according to all Mystery Traditions & ancient religions) - was masculine only relative to the greater feminine aspect ... Whom & which is veiled by this Golden Disc, as worded in the Hindu Gayatri:
"Unveil to us the face of the true spiritual Sun, hidden by a disk of golden light, that we may know the truth and do our whole duty, as we journey to Thy sacred Feet."
​
I hope that in the New Era, Deity will come to be understood as utterly beyond the gender-distinctions of our struggling Humanity ... though for some considerable time it will be useful, necessary - and the Greatest Honor - to approach Her and Revere Her ... as the Divine Mother of ALL.

We may call Her Sophia, we may prefer Mary or Maria, or any one of a thousand other appellations ... (what was it Shakespeare said about that rose???) ...

Peace,
protokletos
​
 
ahem,

i wouldn't listen to anything madame blavatsky has to say on the subject. besides being bonkers, she knew bugger-all about proper judaism, while being bang up-to-date on the anti-semitic front. there's really not much evidence of her understanding anything about jewish mysticism if she thinks it's all a monotheistic front.

there's plenty of Divine Feminine in judaism if you know where to look - but it would be a serious mistake to think that we consider G!D to be in any way gendered in the way that some people understand it. there are Divine Names that have a feminine element, just as there are some that have a masculine element, or a neutral one (like Ha-Maqom, "the Place") but all are One. that's the fundamental principle.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Hi Y'all, and Shalom to All Here--

I am in total agreement with bananabrain on this issue. The idea that G!d is predominantly one or the other gender, to me, is preposturous. "He" tells us through "His" Word about "His" very nature, which absolutely encompasses the characteristics that we humans cannot seem to keep from assigning to each other based on our own genitalia.:)

InPeace,
InLove
 
lol Oh that is the be all and end all for me...

I've heard the argument for the anthropormphic being from every side, making G!D in our image, the father/mother, he she arguments and discussions....

But for the life of me, that completely closes the door and visually tosses my childhood religious bigger than life G!D concept out the window...

But the thought of G!D with genitalia....that ends the debate...
 
When Moses asked God his name, he was told "I am that I am" (traditional trans.) Exodus 3:14

This is a staggering revelation, because it explicitly 'lifts' the human notion of God above the anthropological and locates it firmly in the metaphysical.

In the following verse "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers," LORD God is a translation of 'Jahweh Elohiym' - which encompasses both masculine/feminine and mono/polytheistic visions of the Divine in one Personal God ('of your fathers').

Equally and simultaneously the appelation "I am" identifies God as 'that which is' beyond all determination because it encompasses every possible and potential mode of being including that which was, that which is, that which has yet to be, 'non-being' and 'beyond-being'.

Thomas
 
Well, bananabrain, the beauty of it ... is that you are welcome to ignore Blavatsky on this, or any other issue. But she was no more "bonkers" than the kooks that kooked up any other religion or spiritual philosophy. I happen to think she was a whole lot more sound, in fact, but yes, that's my opinion.

Blavatsky had a lot to say about the Kabbalah, as well as the roots of Judaism, but please refrain from slandering her by daring to call her anti-semitic, or anything like that. This is a discourtesy not just to her, but also to myself, and to anyone that recognizes her as the Messenger that she was. You are free to disagree, and also to take issue with a particular point, but if are going to level a cannon against her, then I insist that you produce the source of your accusation. Otherwise, you're just spittin' in the wind, to put it politely.

HPB was slandered in her own time; she was blackmailed, blackballed, and vehemently attacked by fundamentalists & various small-minded folk, as well as by the Darwinists, and by scientists in general. This is notwithstanding her rigorously-researched and amazingly well-documented, insightful and illuminative writings, but then - those who criticize her are usually those least familiar with what she actually had to say. And anyone who has bothered to investigate, would certainly know (as you seem not to) - that her ideas were not cooked up on the spot, but were simply the presentation in a more modern form, of the Ageless Wisdom - so termed because it predates even the oldest spiritual traditions of the planet (Chaldean/Babylonian/Sumerian, Vedic, Canaanite, Native South American etc.). And yes, this is exactly what she painstakingly traces in her various writings! Hello ...

At best (or worst, if you insist!), HPB tried to organize her presentation based on those teachings which treat primarily of Universal creation (Cosmogenesis), then Humanity's own special development on this planet (Anthropogenesis), including extensive commentary on each subject from her Adept Teachers (the Mahatmas). Now you may question or debate the very existence of the latter, or you may question some particular teaching which raises concerns with your (understanding of your) Faith ... for example, the statement that the Jewish people are actually a far more ancient people, spiritually speaking, than the rest of Humanity (not to mention a much larger group than most folks recognize) - dating back even to a prior Solar System (meaningless as this certainly may be, to most people). If anything, I would be intrigued and enchanted by such a statement if I openly professed myself to be Jewish, but since I happen to claim that heritage as my spiritual past (if not my exoteric practice this time around) ... I would be rather a bit surprised with any other reaction!

Bananabrain, if you look back at my post, btw, I think you'll see that actually, you and Blavatsky are essentially in agreement on this issue. She gives reason why - if anything, the Divine might warrant presentation in a feminine guise, rather than the masculine with which we're all, all-too-familiar ... but she states clearly that we're dealing with a being (or beings) beyond these gender-distinctions, as you, Thomas, and others are pointing out. I pretty much said that, too, although in the New Era we are beginning to see the pendulum swing - and folks, the opposite of masculine ... is feminine, at least the last time I checked. Uhh, I mean, thought about it. You know what I mean. :p

If I ask, "and what would be wrong with letting women have a turn for awhile," since men just haven't quite achieved the perfect harmony and world cooperation that jibes with "Heaven on Earth," would anyone dare answer? Other than to say, things would be equally unbalanced, I should hope all would keep mum. Imagine, for a moment, the ring-experience of Galadriel when she and Frodo met, as he passed through her wood on the way to Mordor. No, that is not what I mean, or mean to suggest, when I say that I think our future is one of Matriarchal Rule & Order (both politically and spiritually). Alas, I'm afraid we have been so conditioned - that few can conceive of anything else. But you know, I for one ... believe that things can get better. This world has more Frodos in it, and more Gandalfs, not to mention Sams, and Fellowships, than most of us have any inkling. :)

Heaven on Earth ... what ever could He have meant ... ? :cool:

Peace,
protoclete
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top