Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrond  In my value judgement, new age spirituality is heavily biased towards a feminine approach, and I don't know if that is a good approach or not. But from my own worldview, this approach seems imbalanced. |
I would agree that the "approach" is feminine. But the "reception" is masculine.
What do we need to do? Nothing! (Feminine)
And what do we get for it? Everything (Masculine)
3 other permutations would be:
- Do nothing for nothing. (The passivist)
- Do everything for everything. (The working man's ethic)
- Do everything for nothing. (self sacrifice)
I really like the "Do nothing for everything" approach. My life is moving in the direction of doing less and less IN ORDER TO receive more and more. It doesn't mean I'm not very playful in life and don't have lots of energy to play around with, it's just that I don't do things as a form of payment to get things. It's free lunch everyday!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrond There is no perfection because perfect gets improved upon all the time, and this expansion never ends. One could conceptualize beingness as feminime and consciousness as masculine. Without beingness, there would be nothing for consciousness to experience. Without consciousness, there would be noone to experience beingness. Without consciousness, there would be noone to focus and thereby take thought beyond where it has never been. Without Source, there would be no life to be borne from this expansion. |
In this case consciousness would be the creator, beingness the experiencer. Without the creator there would be no experience. So I would agree in this sense, that creating is an important part of experiencing. But I don't see consciousness as the only form of creation. Consciousness does other things too. It brings an environment into it to determine the available options of what can be expressed now, and then chooses some form of expression that makes sense within the environment it is perceiving. The sun is a symbol of pure expression. Pure creation. It does not need to "feel out the environment" in order to express. If it did, it would express the same thing anyway. Imagine that regardless of what the environment was, you were going to express whatever you choose to, and you didn't need to evaluate it's effectiveness because you believe fully in your capacity as a creator. In that moment you would have no need for consciousness, because one set of circumstances really wouldn't be any different than any other. Consciousness will never die, but when it's usefulness is no longer apparent, it will be laid aside because it isn't necessary to do what you love to do most anyway.