Esoterica > The Work
What is "feminine energy"?
Bluelamp:
For me the female-male analogy seems to be getting used differently in different places:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,7336.msg51994.html#msg51994
--- Quote ---What I am trying to get at here, what I am trying to understand, is the transition from the goddess worship to the god worship; the change from the understanding of cyclical time as expressed in the feminine cycles, and expressed as the goddess; to the concept of linear time, expressed as the masculine principle. It seems to me that these were stages of inversion of concepts which gradually led to the ideas that the Lizzies are imposing on us, and seem to have been working in this direction for millennia - the dominator experience which expresses as: believe in something outside yourself that will save you, otherwise you are damned because the world is gonna end, and you are going to get judged.
Black Holes are a natural force reflection of Free Will consciousness pattern of STS. Notice that Black Holes are located at center of spiral energy forces, all else radiates outward.
--- End quote ---
In the Active - Passive law of three sense, I guess male - female is being used to describe how one goes through the cycle (it could be either STO enlightenment or STS enlightenment).
Críostóir:
Thank you all for your replies, they have been most helpful. I am trying to process and reflect on all of the input and it seems that I must reflect on the beginning of my confusion.
In trying to understand what feminine energy is, I need to reflect upon the source of my confusion, which is, that I intuit, or, I sense that it is a universal principal, one that exists not only in the manifestations, or representations on this plane of existence, but throughout all planes of existence.
Let me explain, I know that numbers exist, although, I have never seen them. I have seen them represented as glyphs on a page, or represented through other objects, but I have never seen them, themselves. Still, I know that they exist. I know the quality of one, two, three and so on. I know the truth in their being and in their equations and operations. In fact, I do not need any manifestations, or representations to know them in the mind alone.
As I reason with myself, I propose that if feminine energy exist, it must be a universal principal, and it must be one which can be known through the mind in the same way as numbers.
Having thought this way, I propose an argument in order to discover if the feminine energy can be known through the mind alone.
I will start with the mind itself. I will clear my thoughts and perceive the mind. As I do this exercise, I clear my thoughts and blank my mind. As I do, I perceive the mind itself and my existence with in it. I am not sure if I am the mind, or that I exist within the mind separate from me. Both perspectives seem to be accurate when testing them.
When I perceive that I am the mind itself, I do not detect any rough edges of the mind, that is, I do not detect any corners. It seems to have no form, or boundaries, but the closest thing to a form would be the encapsulating impression that I have while perceiving that I am the mind itself. It is as if I somehow exist as a hollow orb encapsulating the hollow nothingness of a blank mind.
I admit that I must continually repeat this process to get the impressions of a blank mind, because I have great difficulty in preventing my mind from entertaining thoughts.
When I perceive myself as existing within the mind, the mind seems to be in some way encapsulating me and I get the impression of being encapsulated in a limitless orb of some sort.
I admit, in this exercise and analogy, the mind is like a womb. It seems as if the mind is the very substance of thought itself. In this regard, I can definitely see the feminine aspect as a universal principal that can be perceived with the mind alone, that is, it is the mind itself.
But what about thought? When I try to quiet my mind and perceive the mind itself, I am constantly trying to clear the mind of penetrating thoughts. I definitely perceive thoughts themselves to be of a different quality than the mind itself, but yet of the same substance of the mind.
Could it be that thoughts are like the child of the mind? If one nourishes a thought, doesn’t it take form? Doesn’t it grow, being nourished from the mind itself?
And, what of the thought’s origin? What penetrated the mind and impregnated it with the thought that is being nourished and is growing and taking form? Could this be the male principal?
Does this analogy explain the universal feminine principal which is known through the mind alone, the same way as numbers?
Does it explain the male principle in the same way?
This is an interesting discovery of sorts. I have to admit that I actually got goose-flesh when I made the realization. This seems to be an interesting analogy to work with and I’m sure that I have erred somewhere in my reasoning. Perhaps someone else could evaluate it and offer some valuable insight.
Bluelamp:
--- Quote from: Críostóir on July 19, 2011, 09:45:56 PM ---When I perceive that I am the mind itself, I do not detect any rough edges of the mind, that is, I do not detect any corners. It seems to have no form, or boundaries, but the closest thing to a form would be the encapsulating impression that I have while perceiving that I am the mind itself. It is as if I somehow exist as a hollow orb encapsulating the hollow nothingness of a blank mind.
When I perceive myself as existing within the mind, the mind seems to be in some way encapsulating me and I get the impression of being encapsulated in a limitless orb of some sort.
--- End quote ---
What you are describing reminds me of the Buddhist meditation experience where if you meditate outwards you get to the same place as when you meditate inwards.
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6structures.html
--- Quote ---When we zoom in extremely closely and inspect the 'emptiness' at the center, or zoom out an extreme distance away from the object and the donut seems to disappear and we have only empty space - this is like certain 'objectless' states of awareness that can occur in meditation. But the final goal is not to achieve the undifferentiated state itself; it is to come to the special perspective that allows us to continue to see all three aspects at once - the donut, the whole in the middle, and the space surrounding it - this is like the 'enlightened' state, in this analogy. 10 The innermost and outermost psychological 'space' (which is here a metaphor for 'concentrated attention' and 'diffused attention') are recognized as indeed the same, continuous.
By 'dilating' and 'expanding' the scope of our attention we not only discover that 'form is emptiness' (the donut has a hole), but also that 'emptiness is form' (objects precipitate out of the larger 'space') - to use Buddhist terminology. The emptiness that we arrive at by narrowing our focus on the innermost is identical to the emptiness that we arrive at by expanding our focus to the outermost. The 'infinitely large' is identical to the 'infinitesimally small'.
--- End quote ---
This torus-like structure could certainly be related to the structure of reality.
Herakles:
--- Quote from: Perceval on July 19, 2011, 11:38:35 AM ---
--- Quote from: Críostóir on July 19, 2011, 09:24:38 AM ---
--- Quote from: Bluelamp on July 19, 2011, 08:31:21 AM ---I think there's a description where the cosmos at its center has the femine giving/birthing aspect (service to others) and also the male taking into one's self aspect (service to self). The service to self aspect, if you stay on that path would at some point get recycled back to primordial matter (1st density) for a retry.
--- End quote ---
I can see the relationship between service to others as being a feminine aspect. A mother gives life to her young and nourishes it through pregnancy, then gives birth and gives it food through her milk and cares for it. But, if the male aspect is taking into ones self, or, service to self, how is that relationship articulated?
--- End quote ---
I don't think we can say that female energy is STO and male energy is STS. Rather, female energy is "passive" while male is "active". Both can be STS or STO inclined. In answer to your first question, feminine energy is creative energy in its perhaps purest form, as manifested in this density.
--- End quote ---
I agree and would add that the terms male and female appear relative to one another. In other words, if we are talking energy, that is one thing, and that which the question outlined. But if we are talking awareness, then the "active" and "passive" or "male" and "female" is relative to one another depending on context.
The terms man and woman implies gender whereas the terms male and female, at least as I am using them, refer to states of awareness.
Here on the physical plane, we can operate from either male or female awareness, which is reflected basically in our gender, but in the context of life we may be "female" or "receptive" to another, say a work relationship where a man has a boss that is a woman, in which the man is "female" in relation to the boss.
That is what I mean by relative.
The other way around, the woman who is a boss with subordinates, is "male" relative to those who support her.
Male awareness is positive in relation to female, another way to say "active" and "passive". Or the cause being positive in relation to the effect. This is reflected in conception.
The sperm impregnates, the womb conceives.
But does conception equate to creation? And is creation and creativity the same thing?
Female energy, or male energy for that matter, I am not so sure can be equated to awareness, though obviously there is a correspondence. I do not mean to sound vague, but, well, LOL, can any of us define energy? I have read a few technical and metaphysical accounts but I am not so sure they would be helpful here.
This question and all issues surrounding it seems, to me, to lie at the heart of the confusion in the world today.
Perhaps I am too rigid in defining terms. After all, I seem to recall reading of Fulcanelli appearing to his disciple in a female form, if I am not mistaken. If we can consider that to be a true account, then it would seem in some way Fulcanelli was able to literally transform himself. That or perhaps he appeared as a thought projection, or some "ethereal" versions of himself. Either way, kind of a nice thought in terms of its implications that we are most definitely not our bodies or these forms we roam around with here on the physical plane.
But do we incarnate with a purpose, that is, choosing either gender, which would seem to imply learning what it is to be male or female according to gender, or is it just a roll of the dice without any rhyme or reason?
Another thought earlier tonight while walking the dogs, if we use the terms positive and negative, again as relative terms without any paramoralistic nonsense, for male and female, active and passive, then does this not indicate something of magnetism? As in, actual magnets, with a positive and a negative polarity? And is that linked to the magnetic field of the earth. It might be a nonsense thought, but what came to me is that perhaps as the poles shift in the history of the earth, this affects the magnetic variable within our consciousness, i.e. how we perceive and behave in terms of male or female energy.
So what happens when the "positive" becomes "negative" and vice-versa, due to a shift in polarities?
I have no idea or if that even makes any sense, based on physics or what is known about pole shifts.
I also think we must take care not to ignore the fact that we have both male and female within us. It is merely temporary, perhaps, that we operate from one primary polarity, such as a man or a woman, based upon birth and the reason or purpose for this present lifetime. Considering we all accept we live multiple lifetimes.
One of the greatest mistakes throughout history I think has been equating "passive" i.e. "female", with weak.
This is changing rapidly in the days we live in.
Cheers.
Hildegarda:
--- Quote from: Perceval on July 19, 2011, 11:38:35 AM ---[..] female energy is "passive" while male is "active". [..] In answer to your first question, feminine energy is creative energy in its perhaps purest form, as manifested in this density.
--- End quote ---
This is how I think of it as well.
I also would like to comment on the word "passive". Sometimes, this word is used as to mean, "nothing is happening, the passive party isn't doing anything". IMO, in reference to the feminine energy, it rather has to do with being in tune with the world around and letting things ripen on their terms. This is directly connected to the meaning of creation as letting something new, separate from the creator, to manifest and appear. The creator's role as a DOer is still pivotal, however.
Similarly, in common parlance we often equate "active" with doing things. In reference to male energy, however, active would emphasize the direction of the force, the exertion of will to achieve a goal.
Both ways, both principles are used to get things done, just in different ways, and both have their time and place.
fwiw
--- Quote ---One of the greatest mistakes throughout history I think has been equating "passive" i.e. "female", with weak.
--- End quote ---
indeed!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version