Akka -How does one best address a goddess?

[Guest guest]

Hi Eric:

 

(Note: this message is as bit long, but I'm posting it because

this is a point that I feel has potential value for the entire group.

Otherwise, I would just post to Eric privately.)

 

Thanks for your message. I really appreciate the work you are

doing to understand love from a different perspective. I am sure

you are listening to your Goddess and following your heart and

moving in the right directions for you.

 

It sounds like you may not quite be understanding what I wanted

to communicate by posting the quote from the Book of Phillip,

and I want to try to explain it. Please let me know if you did

understand this before, or if you do after reading this.

 

I think that the quote from Paul that you mention is about

solidifying an unbalanced power dynamic through externalizing

male and female, having them project things onto each other

rather than owning all within each Self. Deepak Chopra has

suggested that lovers look to each other as Guru, and possibly

the Paul quote could come close to that idea. However, the

"ideal" of marriage or relationship that I see represented in that

quote does not allow for the full personhood of man or woman. I

think the route to the "reverence" outlined by this quote furthers a

divide within the Self, and between people. (I think this about the

"ideal" of tantric relationships, too, with their created "reverence.")

If each woman and each man can own the female and male

within themselves, and learn to be respectful of all parts of the

Self within, then true respect or reverence will exist in all

relationships externally as well. There would be no need for

"submission."

 

In the Book of Phillip quote I posted, Jesus asks his jealous

disciple to contemplate why he (Jesus) does not love the other

(male) disciples as he loves Mary Magdelene. To me, his

question opens the door to exploring the reason(s) for the lack of

loving warmth and the freedom to express loving warmth with

ease openly between men, or specifically between Jesus and

the men who would be jealous of Mary, take away her power,

and deny women a substantial role in spirituality (the church) or

in the world (allowing her only the unbalanced role prescribed by

Paul's quote).

 

I'd like to give an example of how I am attempting to love the

male within. I got a copy of a Nepalese picture of the

Arhanareshwari deity for my home. (There is the very same one

in Shakti Sadhana's library of photos of deities.) The picture

shows the male half on the right side, with more arms and

essentially, more bells and whistles. The female side is on the

left, has only one arm, and a lot less pomp and circumstance. At

first, I was annoyed by this. Typical, I thought! The male is made

on the Right, with more arms, symbolizing more power! I looked

within and said: Do I ever act bigger than I am? Do I ever attempt

to aggrandize myself for any reason? Yes, I do that sometimes.

So I can accept this depiction of the deity as showing the part of

me that sometimes attempts to make itself seem to be more

than what it really is. When I could see it as reflecting a human

tendency that I also contain, I was no longer upset by the image.

Sexism itself is one person needing to make himself seem

bigger or better than the other person. It doesn't mean that

sexism is okay! It just means that I don't need to walk around

feeling upset all the time because there is still sexism in the

world. I can do something about it within myself, and that in turn

affects how I relate with others for the better.

 

I hope that it makes some sense!

 

Love,

Mary Ann

 

, "Eric Otto"

<mkultra@f...> wrote:

> Hi Mary Ann -

>

> Yes, I am aware of the feminine within. Loving her without is a

> starting place. This weekend I came to understand that there

needs

> to be a shifting here about how I relate to women - all women.

If I

> am to understand "The Mother" I need to understand that my

biological

> mother is not all mothers. With my father, that was understood

> twenty years ago, i.e., the Father and my father were two

different

> things and the same thing, too. This is a good place to be.

>

> When you brought up Gostic Gospels, that is a different view of

Jesus

> and a human one. What has been a real puzzle for me was

the quote

> by Paul saying: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own

husbands, as

> unto the Lord." That angers a lot women in the US and

elsewhere on

> its immediate face and probably it was used to abuse and hurt

women.

> With the next eleven lines, he says to men that they have to love

> their wifes with a profound and deep love. The man and

woman are to

> be of one flesh. The man must love her as much as his own

body.

> Once that happens, then "the wife see[ing] that can reverence

him."

> What I'm getting is that the onus is on the men. The real

submission

> is for the man to woman.

>

> That's a big understanding and goes along with the Phillip

Gospel

> quote: "Why do I not love you as (I love) her?" I realize that

> perhaps I've not really known love. But I'm still working on that

> one.

>

> Yes, time for me to look at goddess more profoundly.

>

> Thank you for your comments and the others who have

commented. I'm

> going through a lot of change at the moment because of this

shift.

>

> Thank you again and love.

>

> Eric

>

>

>

> , "Mary Ann"

<maryann@m...>

> wrote:

> > Hi Eric: How beautiful, the goddess is in you! Your post made

> > me want to post the following: She is not beyond your eyes

and

> > skin. The woman is you as much as the man is you. It is

> > wonderful that you revere the divine feminine/female and

honor

> > women, but do not only project that outside yourself. She

lives in

> > every man. Love her there, too, in the same way you are

learning

> > to love her through her visits to you. Is loving the woman

loving

> > the man? Is loving the man loving the woman? Why and/or

why

> > not? Why do we love women and men differently?

> >

> > I came across this in the book The Gnostic Gospels by

Elaine

> > Pagels and wanted to post it awhile back, but now seems

like a

> > good opportunity:

> >

> > "...the companion of the [savior is] Mary Magdelene. [but

Christ

> > loved] her more than [all] the disciples, and used to kiss her

> > [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the discipled were

> offended]...

> > They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?"

The

> > Savor answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as

(I

> > love) her?" -- Gospel of Phillip

> >

> > For religious fundamentalists, the answer might be because

> > such love would be an abomination! But I feel the question

> > articulated by Jesus in the quoted passage is profound and

> > enlightening. I welcome more discussion on this topic.

> >

> > The Gnostic Gospels book is based on Pagels' research into

> > texts that were discovered in an earthenware jar at Nag

> > Hammadi in Upper Egypt by Muhammud Ali al-Samman, an

> > Arab peasant, in 1945. These gospels are claimed to be

books

> > that were rejected from the official Christian teachings

because

> > they support an inner relationship with the divine rather than

an

> > external one, with its hierarchy of domination, as traditional

> > Christianity came to be. It is said that these books are

> > influenced by Eastern philosophies.

> >

> > Love,

> > Mary Ann

> >