Of Male Masters and Naturally Surrendered Females

[Guest guest]

Hi Sel

Well written however it is up to the male to attract the female to rise.

And for sure we have been trained to accept certain customs of

procreation that is subject to the guidelines to societies hold over the

value of truth. When electrify was first being investigated as a usable

benefit the early scientist beloved that the positive pole was attracted

to the negative. Father research proved the opposite and that is now the

general acceptance

It is only a matter of getting the two energies to unite. One method is

to draw the sakti up from the base this will align the three centre

bellow next to awaken the heart centre and unite siva and shakti in

mathuna as in the perfect marriage of two souls thirdly the marriage in

the space of the inner cave of the head,when this happens the switch is

closed sakti becomes pituitary siva become pineal the energy flows down

enlightening all of the centres. the hormones respond by altering the

chemical make up of the DNA as the two centre are vibrating in resonance

to one another the whole physical structure becomes enlightened to

perform it duty as a human monad in Christ consciousness. The spine

become completely alive to be of vale as to the adepts performance the

pineal and pituitary in unison becomes the gateway to the energies and

knowledge to be drawn from the universal collective consciousness. It is

here that physical gender has no distinct function except for the

creation and bearing of children.

It is only when we only understand the physical and emotional plane

existence that we are swayed into society conformation.

My method and understanding of it may well be a different take because I

have come to understand that there is the method of the old Egyptian

school that is primarily designed to open the agna chakra as that is the

pronounced significance of the snake protruding from the forehead of

there graphics and sculptures.

 

where I am a disciple of kriya and as such at the moment as to where I

am now see energies move in cycles between centres of interest that

always tends to have a flow and return. I say so to the position to as I

am now because I still have a limited view of understanding. I don't

believe in this life time my DNA has come to the point of altering at

all. because although i belive I am conscious of spiritual realms I am

still functioning in the physical/emotional areas of thought much of

the time. Although as either time and age gives or my thoughts are being

raised I am becoming more and more disinterested in physical/emotional

gratitude. Though I have an increasing need to know and understand the

truth that I can only find within. what I mean to say if I ask a

physical /emotional question most times I am not happy with the answer I

get. I am better off in most cases not asking it in the first place

though better off meditating trying to tune into the cosmos or asking my

inner self through mental projections. We may become robots it seems

because sometimes it is difficult to share thought with others as they

everything seems to be based on such abstracts when we try to

communicate higher ideals among ourselves.

 

Jaganatha

 

HYPERLINK

" %40 " Kundalini-Awaken

ing--Systems--1 (AT) (DOT) -com, " selena230 "

<selena230@.-..> wrote:

 

Of Male Masters and " Naturally " Surrendered Females -

>

 

Just a word of caution on gendering the metaphysical: A quick look at

> how gender roles and dominant ideas about masculinity and

femininity

> vary across time and space is enough to show that there is very

little

> " nature " indeed in the way we construct and represent gender roles

> today (or in the past, for that sake). Gender (which is not the

same

> as sex) is a social and cultural construct. The claim that " women's

> nature is passive, submissive, receptive (etc.) " is the product of

an

> ideological constellation whose only purpose is to put women in

their

> place (usually the kitchen).

>

> Surrender is not a " natural " behavior for women. Rather, we learn

it

> the hard way, since the day we are born. If we are not good at

> surrendering by the time we are adults, we get punished in a

variety

> of ways--some of which are subtle and almost intangible (scorn,

> neglect, social pressure), others are pretty brutal (physical

> violence, denial of reproductive rights, rape, etc.).

>

> Historically, gender domination began about ten thousand years ago.

> Prior to that time, most hunter and gatherer societies had very

little

> in the way of gendered division of labor (yes, women hunted, and

> yes, men cooked and took care of kids). With the onset of

agriculture

> as a mode of production, however, the division of labor intensified

> along lines of gender, class, and ethnicity. As a matter of fact,

all

> of these social categories were conveniently devised to serve the

> purposes of dominant groups. Hence, the same social, economic, and

> political processes that led to gender inequality produced social

> stratification by class, ethnicity, and race, just to name a few.

Over

> the last few centuries, the spread of capitalism and Christianity

> through colonialism further intensified the " natural-ness " of

gender

> roles as we have them today in much of the world. Saying that it is

> " natural " for women to surrender and obey to men is equivalent to

> claiming that one race is " naturally " superior to others, or that

> certain nation-states have the right to invade and dominate others

> because they are more " civilized " . The fact that nowadays gender

> inequality is regarded as " natural " and more acceptable than other

> types of social injustice is very unfortunate, but it also speaks

to

> the power of ideology in numbing our minds to what is really going

> on at a deeper level.

>

> Please don't take me wrong: I am not saying that there are people

in

> this list who are willingly reproducing patriarchal domination. God

> forbid. The point is: ideology is so powerful because it works

below

> the level of consciousness, and is taken for granted by most. As a

> famous sociologist put it, ideology " goes without saying, because

it

> comes without saying. " Hence, a lot of people to pretty

> nefarious ideologies not because they are power-hungry or evil

> individuals, but rather because they do not question the status

quo.

> Others realize that, if they ask too many questions, they will be

> punished--so they give up the struggle and opt for the path of

least

> resistance instead. Generally speaking, we spiritual folks are so

> concerned with exploring other spheres of existence that we

> occasionally forget to keep in touch with the social, cultural, and

> political implications of life on the physical plane. As we do so,

we

> may overlook the extent to which these dymensions shape the way we

> conceptualize spiritual experience. Enlightened though we might

be, as

> physical beings we are still members of a society and a culture

after

> all (even though we might not like it). Hence, I hope my frankness

did

> not offend anyone's sensibility.

>

> From the perspective of the female tantrika (and born-again Hindu

> LOL!): In the complex constellation of beliefs and practices that

goes

> by the name of Hindu Tantra, the female energy Kundalini Shakti is

> invariably represented as fiercely active. Shiva, the male

principle,

> is passive. This is why much of tantric iconography depicts Kali

> (i.e., Shakti) as she dances wildly on Shiva's body. The latter

lies

> flat on the ground, in an unquestionably passive and receptive

> pose. Interesting, isn't it?

>

> Love, light, and laughter,

>

> Sel

>

> PS I am going to try and upload a tantric Shakti/Shiva pic in the

> Photos section.

>

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.5/616 - Release Date:

4/01/2007

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Hence, I hope my frankness did

> not offend anyone's sensibility.

on the contrary, I find your perspective refreshing and it's in

fact a distinct pleasure to read your words. this of course does

not mean I also agree with everything that is expressed!

 

> > From the perspective of the female tantrika (and born-again Hindu

> > LOL!): In the complex constellation of beliefs and practices that

> goes

> > by the name of Hindu Tantra, the female energy Kundalini Shakti is

> > invariably represented as fiercely active. Shiva, the male

> principle, is passive.

in the Western tradition at least as far back as Golden Dawn

(late 19th to early 20th century) it was taught that the

'opposition' between the genders applied in all ways or 'planes';

the physical was inverse to the psychic was inverse to the mental

was inverse to the intuitional. in other words, the male pole

[lame puns all intended] in the physical was active, the feminine

passive, while psychically the female is the active potency and

the masculine the passive, and so forth. I think it's a pretty

balanced perspective on what's " natural " or

unconscious/instinctual, especially so soon out of the Victorian

era!

 

> > This is why much of tantric iconography depicts Kali

> > (i.e., Shakti) as she dances wildly on Shiva's body.

> > The latter lies flat on the ground, in an unquestionably

> > passive and receptive pose. Interesting, isn't it?

very. and from the Western perspective, if it's depicting the

psychic rather than physical relationship, that's a perfect

representation of the shakti as an esotericist would see it.

 

-brian