Why?

RE: Why?

Hi Kim,

Just off the top of my head, could it be something to do with the TIMING, i.e. all great religions were started thousands of years ago, and women had no voice then?

We know there was a Matriarchal society for thousands of years which gave way to the Patriarchal, and it is in this part of history we hear the great religious leaders emerging.

Women became servants, wives, child bearers, nothing of much real importance, the odd Queen here or there, (and, yes, ISIS) but generally women have lived in subjugation to men for at least 6000 years, only emerging now as accepted equals in some parts of the Western world.

Who would have taken any notice of a woman saying the same as Christ?

Love Gillyxxx

RE: Why?

Dear Gillyann

Spot on that was exactly the message I received as I was writing the post.

GOD needed people that would be listened to and unfortunately
at that time the only people who were truly respected were men.

But it is is changing although hard to see at times!

thank GOD

roll on the GODDESS energy

Equality for all both male and female
Rich and poor
with or without faith
Unification

Love beyond measure

kim xx

RE: Why?

I think women were probably, most often busy with other things as well, like having kids to be in a situation were they are up for travelling around sharing messages from God etc.

Also, many women were actually very important in assisting these men, in recording, learning and sharing information, in supporting these people in many cases.

I don't think the gender issue is important, men and women are equal in front of God and neither more important, however they are different. Why is it men often seem to like certain activities more thn girls, computer games, car racing etc...girls like this stuff too, but men seem to spend more time on them and often get better at them. Maybe men are better at concentrating on things that women often find mundane, I think women are better at multi tasking, they like to be occupied with lots of things at one time, men often not so. Women are good at multi tasking as they have children, and if you have a few you will spend 24/7 for ever doing ten things at once!

RE: Why?

Why were all the religions started by men?

The old religions are female based.
You only have to look at the cave paintings, Alongside most of the Hunt paintings there are female figures.
In the west christianity saw this trend off.
In fact in the 13th century the church leaders met to decide wether women were in fact human............. It was a narrow win.
There is much in the history of the church that they would rather we didnt know.

The Goddess lives now as she always has. It is just wether we can see her.............

In Love and Light

Neil C

RE: Why?

I once asked this question of Benjamin Creme, the advocate of 'Lord Maitreya' (he who claimed to be an 'enlightened being' who supposedly showed up mysteriously at African meetings, but who continually failed to show up at London meetings.) Mr Creme thought about it and evenutally replied, 'Because the vibration isn't high enough for a female avatar.'

Sounds about right.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxx

RE: Why?

Correct me if I'm wrong but, from what my other half has been reading about Buddhism and I've gleaned from her, isn't Buddha supposed to be both Male and Female? Isn't a proper statue of Buddha supposed to show him/her with boobs, but most of those on sale make Buddha mistakenly appear to be male?

I'm gonna have to go off and have a look now.... 😮

RE: Why?

Hmm.... having trouble finding info... this Buddhism lark is quite vast isn't it.... 😀

Seems it may be something to do with the various manifestations of Buddha and perhaps something to do with a Vajraxxxxxx? entity or two.

I'll have to ask my other half when I next see her....

RE: Why?

ok, I've asked her and she says that I was right. Buddha is supposed to be androgynous, but is often mistaken as a male.

Love and Reiki Hugs

RE: Why?

Hi Giles,

So what sex was the 'original' Buddha? I have heard Buddha referred to as 'he', but never as an androgynous being.

Love,
Patsy.
[:-]

RE: Why?

ORIGINAL: songstress

So what sex was the 'original' Buddha? I have heard Buddha referred to as 'he', but never as an androgynous being.

I heard he was an Indian prince who learnt of the suffering of the poor.

ORIGINAL: Energylz
statue of Buddha supposed to show him/her with boobs, but most of those on sale make Buddha mistakenly appear to be male?

I'm gonna have to go off and have a look now.... 😮

any excuse to surf the web for pictures of breasts, eh? [8D]

RE: Why?

ORIGINAL: songstress
So what sex was the 'original' Buddha? I have heard Buddha referred to as 'he', but never as an androgynous being.

I'm only guessing, assuming that Buddha was a real person at some point, but it could have been a female who renounced all female qualities to take on a more neutral appearance, or it could have been a male who renounced all male qualities to do the same.
My knowledge of Buddhism is very small as I'm too busy learning loads of other stuff atm. It's the other half that's been doing all the reading on it.

ORIGINAL: DarrenFollowsThePath

ORIGINAL: songstress
So what sex was the 'original' Buddha? I have heard Buddha referred to as 'he', but never as an androgynous being.

I heard he was an Indian prince who learnt of the suffering of the poor.

I'll have a word with the other half again and get back to you all.....

ORIGINAL: Energylz
statue of Buddha supposed to show him/her with boobs, but most of those on sale make Buddha mistakenly appear to be male?
I'm gonna have to go off and have a look now.... 😮

any excuse to surf the web for pictures of breasts, eh? [8D]

Oh yeah, that'd go down well in the office. Suppose that's one way to get out of working quickly. [&:]

Love and Reiki Hugs

RE: Why?

ORIGINAL: DarrenFollowsThePath

any excuse to surf the web for pictures of breasts, eh? [8D]

LOL, yep, that's Giles, it seems.

Seriously, Buddhism derives from the semi-historical life of Gautama Buddha aka Siddhartha. He was definitely male! But I'm not a Budhist either, so no expert. Later on in Buddhism, or rather in its branches as there is not 'one' Buddhism, various supposed deities have also been called 'buddhas'. But the original was Siddhartha, a prince and father.

RE: Why?

ok, I've checked with 'her in the know' and you're right, the original Buddha was a prince as you describe above (the story is quite interesting from what I've been reading in the book). The prince was made by his father to marry a beautiful woman in order to try and keep him in the palace, as he had already stated his intention that he wanted to go out into the forest to seek enlightenment. He put no value on material things and, even after being married, was further guided to go to the forest to seek enlightenment. His father tried to stop him by providing many beautiful women etc. but this did nothing for him. Eventually he used his magic powers to cause all the gaurds to fall asleep, allowing him to escape from the palace. He then went to the forest where he cut off his hair and offered it to the Gods, and then he removed his princly clothing and offered that to the Gods. The Gods gave him the orange coloured robes that he donned to become a monk... and that was the start of things to come. 🙂

So although the original Buddha was male, apparently the correct representation for Buddha is as an Androgynous being. I think this is because of how he denounced material happiness, i.e. being male or female was not important in following a true spiritual life and reaching enlightenment. Also I think it could relate to how there have been more than one Buddha and the gender did not matter; although I don't know if there have been any female buddha's, I'll have to go off and check up on that now, if I get the chance....

Love and Reiki Hugs

RE: Why?

ORIGINAL: Energylz

His father tried to stop him by providing many beautiful women etc. but this did nothing for him.

Some young men have all the luck on their spiritual path, huh? 😉 I don't recall that in my early questings!

To me a key element to the story is that Siddhartha had only ever lived in the palace. His father protected his vision, awareness, and consciousness from any of the imperfections and unpleasantness of the outside world. On his first trip outside, it was then that he saw for the first time people ill and deformed, aged, dying. He had not known of the existence of these conditions before then. It shocked and saddend him. And so began his inner longing to find a solution to these great problems of life.

Actually a second key element in the story is that he attempted over years to find enlightenment through very severe austerities, and was on the verge of death from them when he realised the need for the "middle way" - that a strong body is not a hinderance but a help to the Path.

Oh, and a third element to it is that upon finding enlightenment and inner bliss, he was tempted, a bit like Jesus' temptations in the wilderness, to remain forever in that nirvana. But he refused, and returned to 'normal' life and consciousness in order to show others the way to what he had found.

V

RE: Why?

Cheers for that V,
seem like you've read a little more of it than I have.

RE: Why?

Hi Kim,

Following on from your musings, I'd say that there have been female light beings, too. Isis was a goddess, not a flesh-and-blood person like Jesus for example, so I don't know if I'd count her as a 'light being.' The trouble is, nobody has taken women very seriously.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxx

RE: Why?

Dear Patsy so very true!

Dear Giles

The Buddhist sutra's claim that Buddha had feminine incarnations and she is Quan Yin, known as Kannon in Japan and Kuan Yin in some of the other far eastern and indonesian countries. So certainly not androg more like male and female incarnations just like we have.

Her greatest shrine/temple is in Penang. Also in China where there is a mountain named after her.
You will find figures of her in most Buddhist temples.

The energy and words of Quan Yin are quite beautiful just like Mother Mary.

being love

Kim xx

RE: Why?

How about the concept not that women are always in 'subjugation' to men as per Gilly above (though I agree this has been true in some eras and some places on the globe, and even now in places), but rather that it's often the role of the female to be the equal to man yet in a supporting role? By that I don't mean inferior role, but that the male may be the figurehead, yet the female can be equally important and might in some cases even be the real unacknowledged power?

Sri Aurobindo is quite well-known, but his consort, The Mother, was his support. Ramakrishna is quite well-known, but his consort, Saradeva, continued much of his work and was the focal point for the bereaved disciples. In Jesus' case there were the Marys including his mother. St. Francis had his St. Clare, Abelard his Heloise, etc.

It works that way even in the opposite realm of darkness at times -- what was the name of that awful dictator ousted from Yugoslavia a couple of years ago, and it turned out that his wife was the one who took all the decisions behind the scenes?

So I'm suggesting it's often a gender role - male to the fore, female as a power from behind - and not that females are necessarily so overshadowed.

Venetian

RE: Why?

Hello David,

Women were once afforded great status in society. Many pagan and early societies revered women to the point where they made figures of them ('venuses') and it was realised that women were to be worshipped. It was only when religions became more formalised and when society changed from a nature/fertility type, to a more patriarchal one, that women lost that high status.

I do realise that in some Indian groups, the maternal energy is still worshipped, but this is the exception rather than the rule in many other religions.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxxx

RE: Why?

I do not think it means a women's status is less than a male because commonly they were seen in authority over religious messages or religions.

I believe men and women are equal but different, but women have been just as important in the formation or religions, after all they are often the ones who teach their children about religion.

If there were no women then there would only be half a religion, religion is just as much for them as the men. And as pointed out, women usually do have a huge role in the work anbd lives of their men.

The strongest men and women are often those who work in partnership together.

RE: Why?

Well said Hal.

Gxxx

RE: Why?

Havent been here for a while so may as well return with controversy :o)

Religions are started by 'males' because of the male role in the universe. This is a difficult topic to discuss because hammering through peoples ingrained gender understanding is not easy. Forget sexism in this context - forget gender war and forget 'whos better or worse'.

Its about polarity and the resulting qualities of that polarity. We ALL have both polarities in our totality (inclusive of higher+lower self). We MANIFEST with half in emphasis to help us achieve the goal for that lifetime. Regardless of how we have manifest, we STILL have both polarities at our behest, and, in fact, use them at all times, every day - whether this is realised or not....

It was an interesting point about a hermaphrodyte Buddha because, in essence, it is true - when you reach a particular stage (or 'initiation'), the fullness of both polarities in manifestation is available should we choose it. Regardless of how bizarre that sounds to those new to such things, it is something which is straightforward for any who have passed a particular point in their development.

Anyway, aside from that interesting point, the reason males have started the religions is not to do with 'who would be listened to' but because of the male polarity and the purpose it serves.

The male polarity is about 'pointing the way in the unknown'. This is why they are built the way they are - to withstand the force of the unknown. The very reason they are symbolically rendered as a 'line' to the female 'circle' is reflective of this.

Our creative force is on the outside, while a womens is on the inside (ovaries/testes - same basic things, pushed to different places and functions by hormones).

This is why males were 'hunter gatherers' and why they have certain behaviours for situation management. The male is actually better at something like 3 things compared to the female. They are all related to spatial awareness and 'travelling in the various spaces'. We could equally say that most famous explorers were men and so on. It is a common thread borne out of the polarity of energy expressed. Nothing to do with favouritism or social awareness of GO_ .

as a gross simplification for the purpose of this thread, you could say that the male role has 3 primary functions - to point out the way in the unknown, to prescribe the method of attainment, and to lead the way and demonstrate by example. This cascades into all sterotypical areas of life in such archaic expressions as 'the victorian male setting the boundaries for the family' and suchlike.

It is a funny quirk of wordplay that we can use genitalia in tandem with this understanding to say that not only is the male the one pointing something out, but the man is the one with something pointing out.

Interestingly, it doesnt matter where you are in life - at work, at home, with the kids or anything - whoever is 'pointing something out' is in the male role, or polarity (be they a man or woman - notice the difference between gender energy or polarity and manifest sex: a man cannot be a woman or vice versa, but both can fully utilise both gender polarities). we have a name for the male expression of the female, and that is 'the mother', since a mother is ALWAYS in the male role relative to her children, since she is pointing the way, prescribing the method, and (supposedly) demonstrating by example.

It is no coincidence in relationships that if the male demonstrates that he is adrift or has 'lost his sense of place/space in the unknown' (often demonstrated in the expression of certain vulnerabilities and weaknesses) that he naturally slips into the mans 'female mode' which is 'the boy'. This is why in relationships it is not uncommon to see that if a male, who is meant to be 'leading the way' slips, then his female/woman will naturally switch into Mothe

RE: Why?

Splendid summary Magpie,

not a one would say that their intention was to have 'followers' -

Perhaps, and this sounds rather damning ;)if the huge majority of mankind were willling and able to think more for themselves, they would not follow any individual orthe herd, in fact, not follow anything other than their own thoughts and beliefs.

i wont cover the female role unless anyone expresses interest!

Love to hear what you have to say;)

and require a true male to 'point the way') and that is a stronger, truer male model to lead the way to the next 'milestone' which is continuation and completion of the transition we have begun.

I disagree here though;) Why ever not turn the role over to the female - makes sense to begin this with a male and end with a female - good balance!

male and female roles are utterly, 100% complementary, 100% dependent on each other, and pretty much polar opposites

Yep!!!

The female's stronger male side is to push men, to challenge them to lead the way to the next step.

Oh yes, indeed, but we do this for ourselves also, and, no one is around to give us the momentum, we achieve this alone;)

tragically, if this happens to much, the woman loses respect for her man since he has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he 'is not strong enough to lead her', and thus she dwells almost permanently in mother mode since he has not demonstrated he is worthy of 'containing and leading her'.

Yes, I can confirm this from the experience of many women I know.

Nice to see you too:D

Gxxx

RE: Why?

Hallo Gilly.

Like the new avatar picture 😉

Thanks for the supportive comments on the thread. I'll try to address each point for you.

if the huge majority of mankind were willling and able to think more for themselves, they would not follow any individual orthe herd, in fact, not follow anything other than their own thoughts and beliefs.

Couldnt agree more, my friend. In fact, it is said that the very reason Christ 'has to come back' is because the vision he tried to convey at the time could not reach fruition because people of the time were still too devotional-centric, and therefore did not 'get his gist' which was to think for themselves, and act themselves, rather than 'following'.

Oh yes, indeed, but we do this for ourselves also, and, no one is around to give us the momentum, we achieve this alone

I agree. If there is no adequate male to follow (and this applies to men and women), then we call on our own 'maleness'. For a man, this is clearly 'on the outside' (or is MEANT to be), for women, this is meant to be on the inside. This is where our gender-naive society has its problems with boundaries and direction. A woman will naturally call on her inner male if there is no male around, and due to her divine design, this will serve her, but not as well as having an external true male (since the emphasis of the channeling of the polarity is maximised in the design of the male form). The same applies in the vice versa, but due to the nature of the differences in the polarities, the manifestation of a man calling on his femaleness is utterly different to a female calling on her maleness.

The level of understanding and application of this in the individual determines their skill at wielding gender energy when and where appropriate, since it is appropriate for all of us to be in 'male mode' at times, and 'female mode' at others.

with regards to the 'why not start with a male and end with a female' comment -the answer is we already do that! The best way to understand this is to call upon the Law of Analogy.

In the natural creative process, the male provides the spark, the seed. The female provides the form, and then nurtures and conceives that form to bring something new to birth. The male is supposed to be there throughout the nurturing process to provide continued guidance (as we see in biblical analogies of 'the gardener'), but essentially, he can do nothing to once the female is conceiving.

This is applicable in all references of gender energy. Whoever is in the male (or transmitting) role provides the spark, but then it is up to the female (or 'receiver') to nurture and conceive with that. As in nature, things can go wrong when we are talking about idea-sharing, and that is we have 'miscarriages' and 'abortions' where the conception process does not complete.

This is a very brief summary, but more detail on the fullness of the roles is available if you want to 'get into the nitty gritty'.

So, to return to the question, we cannot have a female lead the way to the next step because she cannot provide the spark. The part of you which adamantly demands that you can is your maleness. We are all now so close to treading the middle way between the pairs of opposites that it can be hard to distinguish when it is our maleness or femaleness causing a given action or reaction, but in this instance, it is your maleness that wants a woman to lead. Only because your subconscious divine femaleness is, quite rightly, disgusted by the disastrous direction the so-called senior males of the world are taking us. This can be satisfied in you with the prescence of a true male whom you respect and trust is devoted to the best for you (talking about us both individually and as a whole race in one go), and has demonstrated in his example that the direction he is pointing to is the right one. Until you get such an

RE: Why?

I'd love to be able to 'argue' with you over this;)but I find myself in much agreement with what you have written.

So I will just have to wait until someone else adds to this thread.;)

Gillyxxx

RE: Why?

OK here is another pebble for the pond relating to the hunter gatherer!

"After the fall of consciousness humanity divided into hunter and the hunted; we are being asked to break down these archetypes that are buried deep within human consciousness. Archetypes are inherited patterns of thought, symbolic imagery that is derived from the past collective experience. The victim and the perpetrator, the judge and the accused, the strong and the weak, the powerful and the powerless, men from mars and women are from venus, man being the breadwinner and woman the receiver. All are part of duality and the polarity of fallen consciousness. Many aeons ago. we were enlightened spiritual beings living in paradise, spiritual beings knowingly living a human experience in oneness with each other and the planet on which we lived."

The wrathful GOD came out of the aeon of Aries
Emotive religion came out of the aeon of Pisces
We are now moving into a totally new era of Aquarius more to share after publication.
All is part of the quality of consciousness.

As above so below, so below as above.

being love

Kim xx

RE: Why?

Yes indeed Kim as above so below. Gxxx

RE: Why?

Hallo again

While it is true that we fell, and that we must break down archetypes, the polarities themselves are an instrinsic part of 'where we fell to'. They must be traversed, and truly understood, con:-tained and consciously transcended "Treading the narrow path between them".

It is too prevalent in our modern world that because the unified nature of the soul is more commonly recognised, elements of the polarities are ignored or negated, and, before we know it, we are stuck in one or t'other of them. This manifests in the world around us with the failure rates of our relationships and marriages, the state of our communities, etc. These things have occured because we think we've 'covered' certain basic areas we actually havent, so we dismiss things like gender and everyday events as granted, and since our back is turned on them, their dis-containment within us and without bites us on the bottom!

We wander round shaking our heads about how terrible it is, all the while contributing to it with our own nuances of behaviours which negate fundamental requirements needed to re:-pent our energies so we may Rise again from the Fall. This must take place consciously and doesn't happen by itself.

The PROBLEM is that the modern mind thinks it is the soul/self! It isnt! So when the mind turns our attention away from those basic matters within, dismissing them as unimportant or meaningless, it is fooling us, and misdirecting us!

We literally de:-light ourselves with the shiny things in the world around us, take our priceless attention off what matters and onto the unreal. Thus do we get 'lost'. Thus do we lose our reference in/to The Real, and Thus have we lost our reverence.

So, while it is true that the polarities are transcended, and that we have all 'been there', the fact remains that The Path of Return is not called The Path of Return for no reason! And, with any path, you can look at it, you can think about it, and you can talk about it , but that wont get you anywhere - you have to put your feet on it and walk....

As you can tell, I raise gender a lot as a topic, simply because it is one of the major pairs of polarities we have lost our reverence/reference for. And, in the case of the journey you were referring to Sacredstar, first unlearning our arche-and-stereo-types, but then consciously using the material salvaged from the unlearning to re-build anew within, thus are we 'Built up as Living Stones' (quote from somewhere in the Bible) in its truest sense, and thus is no thing discarded or left behind....and with the terminology of 'gender' and the perfect analogy it offers, we can glean greater understanding of interactions on many levels almost immediately. Not only that, for mankind in the main, the gender models are so skewed and so awry that it really needs mentioned more!

Magpie

RE: Why?

ORIGINAL: TheMagpie

While it is true that we fell, and that we must break down archetypes, the polarities themselves are an instrinsic part of 'where we fell to'.  They must be traversed, and truly understood, con:-tained and consciously transcended  "Treading the narrow path between them".

Not necessarily, I know a man that has been working under the instructions of the GWB for the last 20 years dissolving these archetypes.

It is too prevalent in our modern world that because the unified nature of the soul is more commonly recognised, elements of the polarities are ignored or negated, and, before we know it, we are stuck in one or t'other of them.  This manifests in the world around us with the failure rates of our relationships and marriages, the state of our communities, etc. 

Well I would say this is because most people do not know what love is so are drawn to dysfunctional relationships in the first place due to unmet needs in childhood.

We wander round shaking our heads about how terrible it is, all the while contributing to it with our own nuances of behaviours which negate fundamental requirements needed to re:-pent our energies so we may Rise again from the Fall.  This must take place consciously and doesn't happen by itself. 

Agreed

We literally de:-light ourselves with the shiny things in the world around us, take our priceless attention off what matters and onto the unreal.  Thus do we get 'lost'.  Thus do we lose our reference in/to The Real, and Thus have we lost our reverence.

So, while it is true that the polarities are transcended, and that we have all 'been there', the fact remains that The Path of Return is not called The Path of Return for no reason! And, with any path, you can look at it, you can think about it, and you can talk about it , but that wont get you anywhere - you have to put your feet on it and walk....

Very true !

to re-build anew within, thus are we 'Built up as Living Stones' (quote from somewhere in the Bible) in its truest sense, and thus is no thing discarded or left behind....

I view this different to you in as much as putting down new foundations of Rock to replace the shifting sands.

I always enjoy reading your posts magpie please share some more of your thoughts with us.

being love

Kim xx