But when I consider spiritual teachings on the feminine and passive force, I am in question about the essence of femininity, receptivity, yin-- what it means to participate (actively or passively) in the holy denying principle. In a more global perspective, examples of denying represents passivity, stillness, non-doing, dark, cool, and negative (charge and pole). If all in existence is yin/yang per Chinese doctrine, everything organic from respiration (inhale/exhale) to tide activity have these qualities of affirming and denying; this would include gender. Exploring a non-formative understanding of the necessary denying force in oneself, would be a bigger leap to understanding the holy feminine in oneself.
In QiGong, several forms include the compelling gesture seen to the right. In relationship, common Chinese statuary have dual palms of the hands facing forward (compassion) or the palms in duality, with arms stretched one facing up, one facing down (heaven and earth), or the universal and quintessential gesture of reverence/prayer, the palms together. In the QiGong form Seven Star Big Dipper, one of the seven arm/hand mudras that coordinate with the lower body moving in the constellation's pattern pushes palm away (denies), than draws back (affirms) in toward the upper torso's central/mid line. This is powerful to do in the before mentioned constellation pattern, while moving in four directions. Affirming and Denying become related in the body's experience. In the organism, there seems to be a sensed alignment, a calling for a harmonious balance between these dual forces.
Lee van Laer (Zen, Yoga, Gurdjieff- perspectives on inner work) speaks about the feminine, denying
force as follows: “The transcendent is the principle from which all of material reality emanates. It can only ever be defined by negation. It receives — and this is one of the principal functions of the feminine. It is within her that all the legitimate generative processes reside. So the universe is a generative machine, a female entity meant to give birth to something. And that something is God's knowledge of himself — the action of self remembering.
The minute that material reality is born from the transcendent,
it becomes what we would call the "holy denying" force. It affirms
itself: it exists. But in affirming itself, it has lawfully denied the
transcendent from which it emanates — that is to say, it becomes a denying
force relative to God, the Transcendent principle. This is a lawful requirement
for all manifestation in reality, a sacred requirement — because God has to
lose himself in the infinite 'I am's,' or generative seeds, of
material reality, and allow each one of them to go on its journey and find its
way back to him.
Hence, when we say "I am — I wish to be" we are
denying God, and affirming ourselves. It is only when we say "Lord have
mercy" that we have reached the other side of the journey, and see that we
must surrender (deny) ourselves and affirm God in order to return. This is in
essence a birth.
Material reality is represented by the root chakra in yoga. It
is lunar and feminine; so femininity lies at the foundation of both reality and
Being. And we, as Beings, are all vessels into which the world flows — that is
to say, regardless of our gender, from a higher point of view, we are [all]
women, or need to become women, permeable, loving, emotive in order to help
give birth to that higher principle. When we deny the feminine, we damage that
process.”
A discussion about holy denying is near impossible without including holy affirming (and holy reconciling). Neither can exist in isolation and both in concert require the reconciling element to be made whole. Hence, marriage and/or children (possible reconciling force for a couple), the study of triads/trinity and exercises like the QiGong one mentioned above are ways in to understanding the universal and mysterious duality that is in us and in all existence.
Holy-Affirming,
Holy-Denying,
Holy-Reconciling,
Transubstantiate in me,
For my Being.
Holy-Denying,
Holy-Reconciling,
Transubstantiate in me,
For my Being.
--Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, GI Gurdjieff
via Patty de Llosa:
ReplyDeleteThank you Germaine. Very thought provoking. When I turn to study the feminine I immediately think of the conscious femininity that Marion Woodman has brought so clearly to the fore in her books (especially THE PREGNANT VIRGIN, for example).
Also, I have to disagree with Lee's comment that "when we say "I am — I wish to be" we are denying God, and affirming ourselves." If "I" is the conscious descent of the masculine force into the receptive feminine body, then "I" is God and the masculine and feminine, holy affirming and holy denying, have, for a moment, become reconciled in us!
I think you might want to read a bit more of the extensive commentary I've made on this subject vis a vis the enneagram resource, most particularly the reason there are two essential prayers in the Gurdjeiff work, and how they directly relate to Sufic and Christian cosmology. I've never met anyone else who has spent much (if any) time examining this question in any detail, and in my opinion it has received very little of the attention it deserves.
DeleteThe idea that the incarnation is, in essence, the "denial" of God— the affirmation of the self at, so to say, the "expense" of God (keep in mind, such terms are approximate at best)— is not just my own understanding, but an idea very deeply embedded in Sufism and other systems of esoteric thought. The manifestation of "I" as we usually experience it is firmly understood to stand in at least venial—and perhaps even mortal— opposition to God in multiple theologies. Hence the idea of holy denying itself—the denial of the holy. Egoism, and all it entails.
One can see that even Beelzebub himself fell victim to the delusional belief that he was an authority of his own; hence his banishment. The actions that triggered his banishment were, in other words, holy denial— an inner favoring of the personal self over God.
In the descent into the material, the Absolute "loses itself;" that is, the conscious manifestation of God fragments into an infinite number of what Arabi calls "the Names of God" (= all manifestation) all of which strive to return to the Absolute- first unconsciously, then (with effort) consciously.
This idea is ubiquitous enough in religions and spiritual cosmologies that I'm surprised one might take any issue with it.
Since all knowable manifestation, including holy denial itself, is ultimately ordained by The Absolute, or The Essence, one could certainly say, in a very general sense, what you are saying above. It would, however, be tantamount to invoking deus ex machina in such a Catholic way as to render all the other concepts meaningless by default. While true, I somehow doubt that it advances any helpful understanding of the question.
I'd recommend a reading of Arabi's "the Bezels of Wisdom" for what is probably the most sophisticated body of Islamic thought on this matter currently available in English. Although certainly Chittick's "The Sufi Path of Wisdom" is also a very good source.
In Sufic understandings, although all Being is, ultimately, God, the separations as we experience them are real, and can't be avoided. There is an insurmountable barrier between conscious manifestation, manifested, and the Absolute, which, as al 'Arabi points out, is lawfully forever beyond understanding. As such, although we can speak of the ideas you mention, they'll always be partial.