The Sacred Feminine

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Limbo

I'm interested in different views of the Sacred Feminine in the Abrahamic religions.

Sacred Feminine, feminine aspect of Divinity, Goddess, Mother, however you think of Her...how is she represented in your religion and what is Her name?

Dear Limbo,
'Jehovah' is the name of the "Supernal Mother", it seems.

Here are some quotes I've posted before:
I was pleased to see that Jehovah was indeed depicted as feminine by
many authors,as it is in the Jewish tradition. Jehovah is shown in the
Zohar as the third Sephiroth (moreover a feminine passive potency) Binah.


From W.W. Westcott:
PREFACE
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;.....

Blavatsky:
Theosophy article "Tetragrammaton" by Blavatsky
Now "Tetragrammaton" is Father-Mother and the "Son" in one. It is
Jehovah, whose name is written IHVH, ...... It is composed of two
masculine letters (IV) and two feminine characters (two H, he); or the
"superior" and the "inferior" H. The first is the "supernal mother" or
"the female Jehovah, as Binah"; the other is the inferior H," or the
10th Sephiroth, Malkuth, the foundation of matter."

"Jehovah," in its best aspect is Binah, "the Upper mediating Mother,
the Great Sea or Holy Spirit;" therefore rather a synonym of Mary, the
Mother of Jesus, than of his Father; that "Mother, being the Latin
Mare" the Sea is here also, Venus, the Stella del Mare, or "Star of
the Sea."

The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, Vol 1, bk 2, ch 9
For the [Church] "Fathers" -- such as Origen or Clemens Alexandrinus
-- the Moon was Jehovah's living symbol: the giver of Life and the
giver of Death, the disposer of being -- in our World.


-Br.Bruce


from Edward R. Smith's monumental work:

"it was necessary for another ELOHA TO SACRIFICE ITS MALE ELEMENT,
THUS BECOMING PREDOMINANTLY FEMALE. THAT ELOHA WAS YAHWEH, who then went to the Moon.

Yahweh by NOW BORE PRIMARILY A FEMALE CHARACTERISTIC, Moon-like. The female menstrual and human birth cycles take their characteristic from
that aspect."

[Thomas]

Hi Limbo —

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

"Jehovah," in its best aspect is Binah, "the Upper mediating Mother,
the Great Sea or Holy Spirit;" therefore rather a synonym of Mary, the
Mother of Jesus, than of his Father; that "Mother, being the Latin
Mare" the Sea is here also, Venus, the Stella del Mare, or "Star of
the Sea."

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.

Also Judaism ... and 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.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, Vol 1, bk 2, ch 9
For the [Church] "Fathers" -- such as Origen or Clemens Alexandrinus
-- the Moon was Jehovah's living symbol: the giver of Life and the
giver of Death, the disposer of being -- in our World.

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.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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.

Namaste Thomas,

I wonder how this would look with a little word substitution. I contemplate how comfortable this shoe is, if it fits, and how many would agree it be appropriate?

As ever, the Christians love puffing themselves up by attributing their own texts to the modern scientific community, 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 so many rebuke them so soundly and scholars ignore them completely.

Back to the OP me thinks some may enjoy this book... Amazon.com: The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine: Books: Margaret Starbird

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

I wonder how this would look with a little word substitution. I contemplate how comfortable this shoe is, if it fits, and how many would agree it be appropriate?

It's a specious argument, though, isn't it? Christian writers tend to follow more rigorous and scholarly principles.

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.

Or do we simply throw all basic academic standards out the window — allow anybody to make up anything they like about anything — and it be true, just because they say it?

Originally Posted by wil

Back to the OP me thinks some may enjoy this book... Amazon.com: The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine: Books: Margaret Starbird

Indeed they probably do, and others will, but it seems that Margaret Starbird has fallen foul of the same fundamental errors as Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln ("Holy Blood, Holy Grail") and good ole Dan Brown ("The DaVince Code")...

... or rather DB has seen where the money is to be made ...

Of course, as historical accuracy and scholarly rigour is not required of populist authors, their work carries little or no weight in scholarly circles.

All of them seem to assume that poetic fictions of the Holy Grail stand as factual evidence of some sort, and none of them acknowledge that the author from whom the whole lot is assumed to have derived, Chretien de Troyes, was writing 1,000 after Christ and referred, in his epic poem, not to The Holy Grail, nor even to The Grail, but simply a grail, that is, a dish, in which was carried the Eucharistic Bread — his point being it was not the dish, but its contents, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, that was of miraculous powers ... but then, you'd have to inquire of a scholar, not a money-making populist.

The fact that no such legend at all exists in the East, in fact nowhere outside the confines of 'old' Europe (none in the Slavic states, either), strongly suggests it was always a European literary fiction.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

It's a specious argument, though, isn't it? Christian writers tend to follow more rigorous and scholarly principles.

Indeed they probably do, and others will, but it seems that Margaret Starbird has fallen foul of the same fundamental errors as Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln ("Holy Blood, Holy Grail") and good ole Dan Brown ("The DaVince Code")...

Namaste Thomas,

err...Margaret Starbird is a Christian writer. It appears rigorous and scholarly is a matter of opinion. Some would say Bishop Spong others would deny same.

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.

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.

Saying Christian writers tend to do anything I'd say is specious. 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...

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

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.

Originally Posted by wil

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.

Originally Posted by wil

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.

Originally Posted by wil

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]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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.

Originally Posted by Thomas

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/Acro.../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

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by 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

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 () 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by wil

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]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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?")