The Sacred Feminine

[Thomas]

err...Margaret Starbird is a Christian writer.

She actually claims to be a Roman Catholic theologian ... but then again, so can I.

Had her work been rigorous or scholarly, it would recieve widespread academic acclaim, as 'breakthrough' texts usually do ... that it has not says something in itself.

Have you read the Goddess of the Gospels or the Alabastar Jar, or any of Margaret Starbird? Or are you judging a book by its cover.

I'm judging a book by its premise, which is published on the internet.

When it comes to Christian writers and rigorous and scholarly principles I'd like to point out that there are shelves full of books by these folks attempting to prove Genesis as scientific fact, or the potential of someone living in the belly of a fish, even though we know that is metaphor, an Op/Ed piece.

Strawman arguments don't count.

I'm simply pointing out that there isn't any denomination or religion which doesn't live in a glass house and should be careful prior to picking up stones...

I disagree. When words are put in Origen's mouth, to make him say the opposite of what he has in fact said, and when those words are fabricated, on the assumption that "this is what I believe, so logically he must believe it also" then I have every right to point out why such a falsehood is being promulgated.

Origen is a favourite of the Theosophists ... they use him to:
a - add weight to their speculations, when in fact he would oppose them;
b - undermine the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church by spreading falsehoods about one of its own.

Let me repeat, anyone, Margaret Starbird, HPB, you or I, can speculate on anything, and we enjoy the right to question those speculations.

Starbird I question on the general scholarly principle that she and others appears to assume that a fiction founded on a fiction is a fact;

When others misquote or even make up attributions to heavyweight sources as evidence in support of their speculations, then that is worse.

I apply no less a rigour to 'approved' sources, by the way.

Thomas

 

[wil]

She actually claims to be a Roman Catholic theologian ... but then again, so can I.

Had her work been rigorous or scholarly, it would recieve widespread academic acclaim, as 'breakthrough' texts usually do ... that it has not says something in itself.

Like Galileo? Seriously, the books that the RCC chooses to acclaim will be books that agree with their point of view.

Starbird I question on the general scholarly principle that she and others appears to assume that a fiction founded on a fiction is a fact;

Isn't that the description of the orthodox fundamentalist Christian? Both Jewish Scholars and Christian Scholars today know that some of their scripture is fiction. So wouldn't that apply to all those who take the entire New Testament and Old Testament as gospel?

When you say "Christian writers tend to follow more rigorous and scholarly principles." How is indicating that their are libraries full of Christian writers which are not so scholarly, in your or my opinion a straw man? I was simply indicating your statement is a generalization which doesn't appear to be true, I'd say as all writers, Christian writers tend to identify passages and instances which tend to prove their point and provide defense for their agenda. Not to say that is wrong, simply true.

 

[Bruce Michael]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1896/introkab.html

It was the learned Kabalist, W.W. Westcott, who wrote:

The Kabalah, indeed, is full of Jehovah, IHVH, the Divine Four-Lettered Name, the Tetragrammaton, but it is as the Name of a group of Divine Conceptions, of Emanations from a central Spiritual Light whose presence alone is postulated; from Absolute God there is a series of Emanations extending downward to reach Jehovah, Who is the Divine One of Binah, the Supernal Mother; other stages of Emanation lead to The Elohim, the group of Holy Spiritual attributes, associated with the Sixth Sephira, the Sun of Tiphareth.

H.P.Blavatsky calls Jehovah a Moon God. She also says that the meaning of the name is "male - female". The Catholic, Eliphas Levi, says that we are dealing with a class of beings.

From C.G. Harrison's groundbreaking work "The Transcendental Universe" we get the following: Abraham, Isaac & Jacob did not know him/her by the name (Yahweh). Exodus 5:3

From Edward Smith:
I Am

the most exalted one of the Elohim sacrificed its higher state and WENT TO THE MOON (the Moon sphere, compressed more closely to Earth than any other) in order from that vantage point to work more closely with human development on the Earth. Though it occupied the Moon sphere along with beings lower than earthly humans, it was itself too high to descend into the Earth sphere itself, nor could it have carried out its mission by doing so. This particular Eloha is the one called Yahweh. Yahweh became the "one God" of the Hebrew people, the source of its Shema. In the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy we thus read, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." And the Hebrew people thus took for themselves a calendar based upon the MOON rather than the Sun."

Under the Shadow of Your Wings Jehovah,
Br.Bruce

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman
clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a
crown of twelve stars

 

[taijasi]

Just to point out this is Theosophic speculation, and would be soundly disputed and disproved by Christianity, who would regard it as nonsense hardly worthy of their attention.

As ever, the Theosophists love puffing themselves up by attributing their own texts to Christian luminaries, explained according to their own ideosyncratic doctrine, whilst references are usually out of context, if not entirely fabricated, and rarely if ever qualified ... it's a disreputable if not dishonest habit, and one which persists ... and then they wonder why Christians rebuke them so soundly and scholars ignore them completely.

And again, if the Theosophists have a point or purpose, let them state it in their own words, on their own authority, from their own doctrines ... but please will you desist from spurious quote attributed to others, in an attempt to validate their own speculations by riding on the back of giants.

There is nothing to stop a Theosophist deriving any manner of meaning and implication from a text, but there is every reason to highlight their practice of claiming that is how someone else reads it, especially when that person is recognised within the context of a specific tradition ... and when it comes to light that even quoted texts are in fact fabrications, then that is a deceit and a calumny, and I for one shall speak in defence of the reputation of those so maligned.

Origen is a favourite of the Theosophists ... they use him to:
a - add weight to their speculations, when in fact he would oppose them;
b - undermine the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church by spreading falsehoods about one of its own.

Thomas, am I anti-Catholic, or are you - ANTI-Theosophic?

Answer yes if you like, even BOTH, if you must ...

... but don't set a frisbee on your head - and tell me it's a halo.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Andrew,

Thank you very much for your kind response. I am still pondering what you said and at this point have nothing to offer in exchange save my thanks for a very interesting and thought provoking response.

I don't really know how to explain this so I'll just blurt and maybe you'll understand. Nothing has ever come easily to me in this life. Everything has been hard. I have no natural luck. I've come to realize that I live under the influence, the hard tutelage if you will, of a feminine force that cuts me absolutely zero slack. I try to avoid anthropomorphizing, but you might recognize this feminine force as it is portrayed as the Sword Queen. I've learned to live with her harsh justice. I know what I can get away with and what I can't, and I'm very careful not to piss her off. Very careful!

Chris

 

[taijasi]

Andrew,

Thank you very much for your kind response. I am still pondering what you said and at this point have nothing to offer in exchange save my thanks for a very interesting and thought provoking response.

I don't really know how to explain this so I'll just blurt and maybe you'll understand. Nothing has ever come easily to me in this life. Everything has been hard. I have no natural luck. I've come to realize that I live under the influence, the hard tutelage if you will, of a feminine force that cuts me absolutely zero slack. I try to avoid anthropomorphizing, but you might recognize this feminine force as it is portrayed as the Sword Queen. I've learned to live with her harsh justice. I know what I can get away with and what I can't, and I'm very careful not to piss her off. Very careful!

Chris

Thank you for sharing that, Chris. Commenting on the teachings that I quoted wasn't something that I found easy, yet I feel I might understand what you're saying about the Sword Queen.

My own case has been one of amazing Grace, continuing to this very day ... and I'm not sure if there's any other way to describe it. Even a cautious, forgiving assessment might be that I am determined to piss Her off ... yet the Mother understands us, through Love-Wisdom, and although her Eye would seem to observe better than we realize, her Heart does not return the (dis-)favor. That's all I'll say.

I do not argue that Law is arbitrary, and Jim Morrison's opening comments at the beginning of The Soft Parade are about as Gospel as Gospel gets. Thankfully, however, there are Forces at Work, the plenitude of Whose Grace (understanding, forgiveness ... application of discipline, and of the Law) - no man hath sounded the depths.

Makes me almost eek wanna stop trying!

Peace,

~andrew

p.s. - if you will bear with me, and forgive the ravings of a lunatic, I would like to post an image (or at least link to it, the Astrol artwork of FF Long) ... then a commentary, which has been for many months - or years - emerging into my awareness. there are several beautiful works that complement each other, yet the piece with most relevance to this thread is `Ode to Inner health' - http://www.goodartworks.com/fflong/350_ode_to_inner_health.htm

If that sparks a different line of discussion, it could always be taken up on another thread. Too tired now, will resume soon ...

cheers

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

I really don't understand why you're labouring this point?

Any Christian writer who fabricates quotes and puts therm in the mouth of another to add weight to their argument and belittle the tradition for which the other stands deserves the same condemnation that I heap on Theosophists, for the same reason.

Any tradition that depends on such fabrications is fundamentally intellectually dishonest and not worth a light in my book.

I do acknowledge that man is often sore tempted, and indeed can become subject top a myth of his own generation ... Remember Piltdown man? Or that 'cold fusion' furore?

Are you suggesting we accept Piltdown man as authentic archaeology, or the 'cold fusion' fiasco as good science?

Thomas

 

[wil]

Hi Wil —

I really don't understand why you're labouring this point?

Any Christian writer who fabricates quotes and puts therm in the mouth of another to add weight to their argument and belittle the tradition for which the other stands deserves the same condemnation that I heap on Theosophists, for the same reason.

I don't believe I'm laboring the point. I'm agreeing, I'm just saying that same finger points quite strongly right back at the Gospels. Between M, M, L & J there are number of quotes that are entirely contradictory. So one Christian author put words in another's mouth to add weight to their argument...and it has been going on for 2000 years in our religion why should we fault others for doing the same?

 

[Thomas]

I don't believe I'm laboring the point. I'm agreeing, I'm just saying that same finger points quite strongly right back at the Gospels. Between M, M, L & J there are number of quotes that are entirely contradictory. So one Christian author put words in another's mouth to add weight to their argument...and it has been going on for 2000 years in our religion why should we fault others for doing the same?

Because I am not talking about discrepancies between four separate witness testimonies, four subjectivities addressing different concerns and issues facing different audiences.

I am talking about a single author misrepresenting the views of an historical personage, to the point of fabricating a text to suit their own argument.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Because I am not talking about discrepancies between four separate witness testimonies, four subjectivities addressing different concerns and issues facing different audiences.

I am talking about a single author misrepresenting the views of an historical personage, to the point of fabricating a text to suit their own argument.

Thomas

Exactly!

(Why do I feel I am stuck in a new version of "Who's on first?")

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Limbo —


Just to point out this is Theosophic speculation, and would be soundly disputed and disproved by Christianity, who would regard it as nonsense hardly worthy of their attention.

Your comment is of the mark, Thomas. The quoted is the view of Christian Kabalists.
Binah (Kabbalah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The name of God associated with Binah is Jehovah Elohim,

Blessings,
Br.Bruce

 

[Thomas]

Your comment is of the mark, Thomas. The quoted is the view of Christian Kabalists.
Binah (Kabbalah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Not really ... Kaballa, Hermeticism generally ... all this is secondary and subsequent, a 'personal flavour' if you like, but should determined by the data of Christian revelation.

I think it is often the case that Kaballists, or Hermeticists, often make the mistake of interpreting Christianity according to their favourite system, whereas it should be the other way round.

It's here, in putting things in the wrong order, that confusion is introduced and the Absolute Simplicity is lost sight of ... first by looking for an explicit indication of what is implicit, and then necessarily inventing one when the reality eludes them.

In my experience Kabbalists, Hermeticists, etc., like things complex. I have come to prefer things simple, so I always wonder, why complicate matters?

Thomas

 

[Bruce Michael]

Not really ... Kaballa, Hermeticism generally ... all this is secondary and subsequent, a 'personal flavour' if you like, but should determined by the data of Christian revelation.

The Christian Hermeticists were the recipients of Christian revelation.

It's here, in putting things in the wrong order, that confusion is introduced and the Absolute Simplicity is lost sight of ... first by looking for an explicit indication of what is implicit, and then necessarily inventing one when the reality eludes them.

What part of life is simple? You are not simple, your computer is not simple and even the smallest weed in your garden is not simple.

As a wise man once said, Christianity can be comprehended by the simplest of minds, but is also a challenge to the greatest of minds.

In my experience Kabbalists, Hermeticists, etc., like things complex. I have come to prefer things simple, so I always wonder, why complicate matters?

Thomas

What you are speaking of is simple religious devotion of the soul. The seeker of knowledge/gnosis wants to find these things out in full consciousness and detail.

As the Good Book says, some stick to their milk and others are ready for meat.

Have a look at the night sky. Our Universe is undenyingly complicated.

Cheerio,
Br.Bruce

 

[Thomas]

The Christian Hermeticists were the recipients of Christian revelation.

That is what I've said. One is not required to be a Hermeticist to be a Christian, that's the point.

What part of life is simple? You are not simple, your computer is not simple and even the smallest weed in your garden is not simple. As a wise man once said, Christianity can be comprehended by the simplest of minds, but is also a challenge to the greatest of minds.

God is simple (in the traditional and metaphysical sense), God is One.

What you are speaking of is simple religious devotion of the soul. The seeker of knowledge/gnosis wants to find these things out in full consciousness and detail.

Because of his devotion. The love of knowledge precedes the quest for knowledge.

As the Good Book says, some stick to their milk and others are ready for meat.

The simple is the meat of the matter.

Have a look at the night sky. Our Universe is undenyingly complicated.

Yet any scientist will tell you that the laws that govern it are fundamentally simple. E=mc2, for example. The trick is not to get caught up in the variety and diversity. No two people are the same, ever, and yet humanity is one.

Thomas

 

[bananabrain]

at the risk of getting involved in yet another handbag fight between our omniscient theosophists and the people who dare to doubt their superior insight, ww westcott was not in fact entirely what one might call a "learned" kabbalist. a talented amateur, certainly, but the way he writes about these esoteric subjects is not conducive to an understanding of their purpose - the english is simply too misleading. for a start, it is a simple and common mistake to attribute all mentions of the Tetragrammaton in the Torah simply to one sefirah. also, to describe binah as "passive" is quite a large misunderstanding of the purpose of the left pillar.

as for HPB's comment about a "moon god", it isn't what *we* understand by it. we have never associated G!D with the moon, let alone "going to the moon" - that's just nonsensical. the moon is merely a luminary and should never have divine qualities associated with it - that would be "worshipping the postman", or idolatry if you prefer. and her comments about the meaning of the Name allude to some of the concepts it embraces whilst missing other rather important ones, namely the concept of how many different ways the Tetragrammaton can be configured into different partzufim. the tenth sefirah is so much more that the tiny concept quoted. as for the further christian and hermetic correspondences, they are a matter for others - all i can say is that whatever interface floats your boat, you're welcome, but this is still a system that doesn't actually require christian doctrine (much less some pseudo-egyptian mumbo-jumbo) to function as an integral field of knowledge.

as for the "moon" calendar, we may have a lunar month calendar, but we also have a solar year. i don't think anyone should draw any far-reaching conclusions from that. in short:

I think Farhan's explanation of the feminine within Islam shows how orthodoxy can include the cosmic from a metacosmic perspective without distorting the picture or introducing spurious claims.

precisely.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

as for HPB's comment about a "moon god", it isn't what *we* understand by it. we have never associated G!D with the moon, let alone "going to the moon" - that's just nonsensical. the moon is merely a luminary and should never have divine qualities associated with it - that would be "worshipping the postman", or idolatry if you prefer. and her comments about the meaning of the Name allude to some of the concepts it embraces whilst missing other rather important ones, namely the concept of how many different ways the Tetragrammaton can be configured into different partzufim. the tenth sefirah is so much more that the tiny concept quoted. as for the further christian and hermetic correspondences, they are a matter for others - all i can say is that whatever interface floats your boat, you're welcome, but this is still a system that doesn't actually require christian doctrine (much less some pseudo-egyptian mumbo-jumbo) to function as an integral field of knowledge.

How many Partzufim are there? I had thought it was just five or six.

Chris

 

[Raksha]

I think it is often the case that Kaballists, or Hermeticists, often make the mistake of interpreting Christianity according to their favourite system, whereas it should be the other way round.

It's here, in putting things in the wrong order, that confusion is introduced and the Absolute Simplicity is lost sight of ... first by looking for an explicit indication of what is implicit, and then necessarily inventing one when the reality eludes them.

Thomas,

It sounds to me like you're the one who has it backwards. Hermeticism predates Christianity. There are two books in the Nag Hammadi Library (I'm too lazy to get up and check which ones at the moment) that exist in both a non-Christian and a Christian version, but otherwise are very similar.

As for Kabbalah, it's true that the "full" version, or what we call Kabbalah nowadays, developed in Spain in the Middle Ages, but there is no reason to believe it was influenced by Christianity. All of the great medieval masters like Isaac Luria and Moses de Leon were Jewish and lived there entire lives in a totally Jewish religious environment. Christian Kabbalah was a later development of Jewish Kabbalah. I believe it was first adopted (and adapted) by the alchemists of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The alchemists were already closet Hermeticists so it came naturally to them.

From there it spread underground via the fraternal orders like the Masons and the Rosicrucians to their successors like the Theosophists and the Golden Dawn in the late 19th-early 20th centuries. This seems to be the tradition Bruce Michael is referencing.

I truly hope you aren't the kind of person I call a "Gatekeeper," i.e. a self-appointed guardian of the mysteries, because we're going to have problems if you are. There is nothing I despise more than a Gatekeeper, no form of human life lower than a self-appointed spiritual nanny who takes it upon himself to determine who may enter the inner sanctum and who may not.

As you see, I entered the inner sanctum a long time ago. I didn't need your permission then and I don't now either!

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

What you are speaking of is simple religious devotion of the soul. The seeker of knowledge/gnosis wants to find these things out in full consciousness and detail.

Bruce Michael,

Absolutely true! I'm what the Hindus would call a jnani type myself, not a bhakti (devotional) type. What Thomas doesn't seem to realize (or doesn't want to admit) is that a seeker of gnosis is born that way, and the desire/need for complexity is also innate. The actual knowledge comes later, but the desire is there right from the beginning. No amount of "simple devotion" will ever satsify it.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

...it is a simple and common mistake to attribute all mentions of the Tetragrammaton in the Torah simply to one sefirah. also, to describe binah as "passive" is quite a large misunderstanding of the purpose of the left pillar.

bananabrain,

"Receptive" is a much better descriptive word for Binah than "passive." I've written quite a bit on this subject recently, both in e-mails and in some long posts on a topic I started on another forum called "Creativity." I may posts some excepts here later on. I have a feeling this forum is a much better one for my kind of writing than where I was posting before. The "Creativity" topic was going fine for a while, and I actually had hopes of reviving the Religion & Spirituality board on that forum, but then I ran into some problems with the resident "prophetess" and her sidekick. About the time she pulled anti-Semitism out of her posterior (and NOT for the first time) I got pretty fed up with the whole thing. Chris has been trying to drag me over to Comparative Religions anyway, and it looks like he was right! I've known him for a while now, and he tends to be right about most things.

I think you're being a little too hard on Westcott and the rest of the Golden Dawn types. I first got interested in Kabbalah in the mid-1960s when there was very little material available in English, and virtually NOTHING from Jewish sources. And you can blame that entirely on the despicable and shortsighted Gatekeepers within our own tradition! Can you really imagine them allowing a "shiksa" Reform Jewish female like me into the inner sanctum? To get anywhere near it, I had to go through a Christian Gnostic and Golden Dawn gate, and to this day, I don't apologize for that to ANYONE!

--Linda

 

[Pathless]

The bold part is sweet Thomas! God releases that which he wishes to make known- love that!

I see the Divine Feminine as a truly scary thing. She suffers no fools, and she absolutely obliterates all useless and inefficient forms. She is not to be messed with. We come to the Father because he is the friendly and generous one.

Chris

This is very interesting and odd to me, Chris. For me, the Father is the stern one, the patriarch who is intolerant and is bent on destroying, in one way or another, those beings who fail to conform to His traditions.

In my personal cosmology, the Goddess or Divine Feminine is much more generous, patient, and loving. She is the nurturer and the embodiment of unconditional love. The Divine Feminine is where I go especially when I am feeling unloved or depressed, although I more or less worship in her house all of the time. Her house, by the way, is full of great spaces: beautifully decorated rooms with lots of pillows and endless intriguing artifacts, a corner room with lovely diamond-paned windows and a big, warm bed by a generous fire on a frozen day.

That said, I want to be clear that she's not an uber-femme doll clinging to the arm of the Father. She's independent, strong, and confident. She doesn't need a man and doesn't particularly like them much, in general, either, unless they have a good amount of feminism in themselves. Perhaps she's proud.

That's the Divine Feminine from my particular post-Abrahamic pagan Buddhist perspective.