Spiritual Health Learning Community Center Exploring Life's Horizons   Cassiopaean Hermeneutics - Gender (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In The Curse of Cain, Dr. Regina Schwartz writes about the relationship between Monotheism and Violence, positing that Monotheism itself is the root of violence. She writes: "Collective Identity, which is a result of a covenant of Monotheism is explicitly narrated in the Bible as an invention, a radical break with Nature. A transcendent deity breaks into history with the demand that the people he constitutes obey the law he institutes, and first and foremost among those laws is, of course, that they pledge allegiance to him, and him alone, and that this is what makes them a unified people as opposed to the 'other,' as in all other people which leads to violence. In the Old Testament, vast numbers of 'other' people are obliterated, while in the New Testament, vast numbers are colonized and converted for the sake of such covenants." [Comment - Collective Identity is not, necessarily, the result of a covenant of Monotheism, but rather gives expression to a hermeneutic concerning the nature and significance of the relationship between the individual an the collective - an interpretation in which the emphasis is placed on the collective, rather than on a balance between individual meaning/identity and collective meaning/identity. There are political, sociological, philosophical, and religious perspectives which may posit the importance of such collective identity, but there is no inherent, necessary relationship which requires collective identity to follow from a premise of monotheism. Whether the idea of collective identity will be predicated as a necessary component of monotheism depends on the character of the hermeneutic which stands at the heart of the theology being considered. There is nothing in monotheism which precludes giving emphasis to the search for individual identity, nor is there anything in monotheism which precludes seeking a balance between individual and collective identity. Consequently, the initial part of the foregoing quote that was excerpted from The Curse of Cain really doesn't stand up to any sort of reflective analysis. A generalization is being made about monotheism which should be be narrowly focused and addressed to those hermeneutical instances when a particular theological perspective is being imposed on the idea of monotheism. From the viewpoint of most, but not all, approaches to mysticism, the critical dimension of monotheism is that such a framework should assist individuals to access their essential identity and unique spiritual capacity. Neither of these is a function of collective identity but of one's individual relationship with Divinity. To be sure, there is a need for the collective to be able to establish the safe space within which spiritual truths may be realized and applied, collectivization, per se, often seeks to destroy or veil the importance of the role which the individual has to play in the Divine Passion Play. More specifically, it is primarily through the individual that different facets of the Hidden Treasure are given manifestation - although the collective does, in its own way, give expression to certain facets of the Hidden Treasure, as well. Nonetheless, as noted above, one of the primary functions of the collective is to establish and protect the space needed by individuals to seek realization of individual, spiritual potential. The 'pledge' which is alluded to by Dr. Regina Schwartz in the aforementioned quote is between an individual and Divinity. The purpose of the pledge is not to form a collective identity, but, rather, the pledge is made as a step toward gaining access to certain truths about an individual's reason for being, rather than not at all. There can be no unity - either individually or collectively - without nurturing one's relationship with the full truth - a truth that does not, and cannot, exclude the ‘other’ ever, since the ‘other’, as an individual, has a relationship with, and, therefore, rights and entitlements of treatment, in relationship to Divinity. Finally, contrary to what Dr. Schwartz claims in her previous quote, transcendent Deity has not broken into history. History, itself, is rooted in the play of Divine Names and Attributes, and that which is permitted through the dynamics of the Divine Names and Attributes - in the form of, among other things, the set of: permissions and prohibitions, possibilities and limitations, on all levels (physical, emotional, mental, social, and spiritual) - constitutes the very nature of Nature. How can God possibly break into that which presupposes Divine Presence in order to exist at all?] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) So, we are seeing a clear example of what the Cassiopaeans have explicated in their remarks: "Lord of Serpent promises its followers infinite power which they must seek infinite knowledge to gain, for which they pledge allegiance infinitely, which they possess for all eternity, so long as they find infinite wisdom, for which they search for all infinity. ... those who seek to serve self with supreme power, are doomed only to serve others who seek to serve self, and can only see that which they want to see." [Comment - Actually, one is not seeing (for example, in the quote from The Curse of Cain) a clear example of what the Cassiopaeans may be talking about. Not all forms of monotheism are about promising followers infinite power - indeed, the very essence of authentic spirituality is about giving expression to essential identity and spiritual capacity through servitude to the Truth. If one obeys God with corrupt intentions concerning knowledge and power, then, one has strayed from the unconditional surrender to the Truth which needs to be at the heart of any covenant with God. Laura is referring to those individuals who, or those theologies which, misinterpret the significance of making a covenant with Divinity, but, unfortunately, she tries to universalize her point concerning monotheism in an untenable way - although I agree that those people who espouse the latter sort of theological hermeneutics tend to be lusting after something other than the truth and from this corruption of intention comes much evil and violence.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Dr. Schwartz also writes about the idea of the 'provisional' nature of a covenant, which the Cassiopaeans mention above: that it is conditional. "Believe in me and obey me or else I will destroy you." Doesn't sound like there is any choice, does there? And we find ourselves in the face of Nazi Theophany. [Comment - The conditional nature of the covenant may be more along the lines of - if you do not follow the guidance you are being given, you will end up destroying yourself. The conditional nature of the covenant is more akin to: if you jump off a cliff, you are likely to harm yourself, because in both the latter example as well as the spiritual context, the conditional character of the covenant concerns the fact that the universe operates in accordance with certain principles and laws - which one ignores at one's own risk. Love is unconditional. Guidance is not. Guidance is asymmetric and it is through this asymmetry that one differentiates the true from the false.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In an amazing book that should be read by everyone, When God Was a Woman, Merlin Stone reveals the sexual and religious bias of many of the scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which have been responsible for the general lack of knowledge about these most ancient times. Most of these male scholars were raised in societies that embrace the male-oriented religions of Judaism or Christianity, and this obviously heavily influenced their opinions. One of them, Professor R.K. Harrison wrote of the Goddess religion: "One of its most prominent features was the lewd, depraved, orgiastic character of its cultic procedures." "Despite the discovery of temples of the Goddess in nearly every Neolithic and historic excavation, Werner Keller writes that the female deity was worshipped primarily on 'hills and knolls,' simply echoing the words of the Old Testament. Professor W. F. Albright, one of the leading authorities on the archaeology of Palestine, wrote of the female religions 'orgiastic nature worship, sensuous nudity and gross mythology.' He continued by saying that 'It was replaced by Israel with its pastoral simplicity and purity of life, its lofty monotheism and its severe code of ethics.' It is difficult to understand how these words can be academically justified after reading of the massacres perpetrated by the Hebrews on the original inhabitants of Canaan as portrayed in the Book of Joshua, especially chapters nine to eleven. Professor S. H. Hooke, in his collection of essays Myth, Ritual and Kingship, openly admits, 'I firmly believe that God chose Israel to be the vehicle of revelation.' "Albright himself wrote, 'It is frequently said that the scientific quality of Palestinian archaeology has been seriously impaired by the religious preconceptions of scholars who have excavated in the Holy Land. It is true that some archaeologists have been drawn to Palestine by their interest in the Bible, and that some of them had received their previous training mainly as biblical scholars.' But he then proceeded to reject this possibility of impairment, basing his conclusion primarily upon the fact that the dates assigned to the sites and artifacts of ancient Palestine, by the scholars who took part in the earlier excavations, were subsequently proven to be too recent, rather than too old, as might perhaps be expected. The question of whether or not the attitudes and beliefs inherent in those suggested 'religious preconceptions' had perhaps subtly influenced analysis and descriptions of the symbolism, rituals and general nature of the ancient religion was not even raised for discussion." [Stone, 1976] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In most textbooks of archaeology, the Goddess religion is referred to rather deprecatingly as a "fertility cult!" And, as Ms. Stone notes, the word "cult" always has the connotation of something less civilized than "religion," and is nearly always applied when referring to the Goddess worship, while the rituals associated with that clever ET, Jehovah/Yahweh are always reverently referred to as "Religion," with a capital! Considering the extreme monotheistic, Judeo-Christian bias of the scholars who have written the words, directed the schools, published the books, and overseen our educations for the past 1500 years or so, how else can we think but that males have always played the dominant role, and that males have always been the "doers" and "creators" and "movers and shakers" of our cultural, social and technological development? [Comment - One can agree with almost everything that Merlin Stone and Laura say in the foregoing excerpts. Notwithstanding such agreement, the fighting of gender wars and arguing about what is more important - gods or goddesses - obscures the reality that Divinity is beyond gender, even if, for purposes of linguistic communication, gender enters into the discussion. Languages are gender oriented, and God - Who is infinite - does the best God can when seeking to communicate about the infinite in a finite, gender oriented medium (i.e., language). The ‘He’ of revelation is a place marker to refer to the presence of Divinity in Creation as remembered by Essence under certain circumstances. Does this mean that God is male? No, it doesn’t, it is just a way of talking about a situation through a restricted medium (language and concepts), and, unfortunately, men have misinterpreted or misconstrued this to suppose that the reality which is beyond everything is, somehow, ultimately just male - whatever that means in a non-biological context. When one is talking in terms of Divinity, the idea of maleness loses all meaning except as a way of referring to particular dimensions of Divine interaction with Creation under certain circumstances. God referred to Divinity as He in patriarchical societies and referred to Divinity as She in matriarchical societies - even though, in essence, Divinity is neither. Male and femaleness are just ways of making identifying reference to certain facets of manifestation under certain conditions and one cannot use this fact to extrapolate or interpolate about Essential Identity. Both men and women have misunderstood this.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) As children, most little girls of the Western world are told the story of Adam and Eve. Eve is made from Adam's rib to be his companion and helper because he was lonely. Next they are taught that Eve was foolishly gullible and was pathetically "easy" to the wiles of the serpent. She disobeyed God Almighty, and led Adam down the primrose path, and forever after, all women bore the blame for this perfidy! [Comment - Whatever the actual nature of the details concerning the fall from Eden, the fact of the matter is BOTH Adam (peace be on him) and Eve (may God be pleased with her) went against what they were given in the way of guidance. Whether the serpent whispered to Eve (may God be pleased with her), or to Adam (peace be on him), or to both of them, Eve (may God be pleased with her) couldn’t have misled Adam (peace be on him) unless Adam (peace be on him) permitted himself to be misled, and to the extent he did this, he is at fault. It may have been the fault of Eve (may God be pleased with her) for broaching the idea of going against guidance (if that is what happened), but it is the fault of Adam (peace be on him) when he listened and agreed. Both are equally culpable, and the issue of who started what, or who was more culpable misses the basic issue - both individuals transgressed against themselves and their Lord.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Not only that, but forever after, because of Eve's foolishness, all women must accept men as their masters, the representatives of the omnipotent male deity, whose wisdom and righteousness they must admire and respect with reverence and awe! [Comment - While acknowledging that the foregoing is how, unfortunately, many people have interpreted things and how many of them have chosen to proceed, such a perspective is not warranted by what happened between Adam (peace be upon him) and Eve (may God be pleased with her). Irrespective of what happened or who was at fault, no one should be the master of another, if by ‘master’ one means one who has the right to dominate, control, dictate, oppress, and arbitrarily rule. If making mistakes is what entitles someone else to dominate the one who makes a mistake, then, all of mankind should be in bondage - not just woman - for almost all of us have made mistakes ... as Jesus (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone." Furthermore, superiority is not determined by maleness or femaleness but is, rather, established through piety. However, even in this form of superiority, no rights are derived from it with respect to being the master of others, nor does one who is superior in piety have permission to ignore the rights that are due to others ... indeed, for a person of piety to do so would be a contradiction in terms for the very essence of piety is, in part, intimately caught up with observing and protecting the rights of all manner of being.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Over and over again, the legend of the loss of paradise has been utilized to impress upon us the natural inferiority of women. Only Man was created in God's image... woman came later and was a poor semblance of a human being! [Comment - Whatever the truth may be concerning the biological origins of Eve (may God be pleased with her), the soul is not derivative from Adam (peace be upon him) but, rather the souls of both Adam (peace be upon him) and Eve (may God be pleased with her) are derivative from the One Soul out of which all individualized manifestations arose. This One Soul is rooted in the Divine Himma (Aspiration) and that Soul is at the heart of the fixed form which encompasses the spectrum of possibilities of Creation for this realm of Being. Whatever linguistic label one places upon this (e.g., the Buddha Nature, Logos, the Muhammadan Reality, Atman, and so on), the essence of the Soul is at the heart of the reason why Creation was brought forth - so, that the Hidden Treasure could be known through the glasses of Created manifestation.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Joseph Campbell wrote about the Adam and Eve myth: "This curious mythological idea, and the still more curious fact that for two thousand years it was accepted throughout the Western World as the absolutely dependable account of an event that was supposed to have taken place about a fortnight after the creation of the universe, poses forcefully the highly interesting question of the influence of conspicuously contrived, counterfeit mythologies and the inflictions of mythology upon the structure of human belief and the consequent course of civilization." [quoted by Stone, 1976] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The religion of the Great Mother Goddess existed and flourished for many thousands of years in the Near and Middle East before the arrival of the patriarch Abraham, the first prophet of the dominator male deity, Yahweh. Archaeologists have traced the worship of the Goddess back to the neolithic communities of about 7000 B.C., some to the Upper Paleolithic cultures of about 25,000 B.C. From Neolithic times, at least, its existence has been repeatedly attested to well into Roman Times. Yet, Bible scholars agree that Abraham lived in Canaan as late as between 1800 and 1550 B.C., a veritable Johnny-come-lately! How in the world has such a recent appearance on the world scene managed to push itself into such prominence and domination? [Comment - Abraham (peace be upon him) was not the first Prophet, Adam (peace be upon him) was. Moreover, between Adam (peace be upon him) and Abraham (peace be upon him) there was time for countless other Prophets, as well as time for countless corruptions of the guidance which had been brought through such Prophets. The timeline being set by Campbell and others is irrelevant because things didn’t begin with Abraham (peace be upon him). The timeline is also irrelevant because it constitutes a human hermeneutical creation rather than something which necessarily reflects the truth of how history unfolded. In addition, the significance of the existence of various teachings concerning Goddess-based societies really depends on what was being taught in those societies, and the authenticity of the sources on which what was being taught was based. The existence of such teachings, in and of themselves, doesn’t necessarily mean anything vis-a-vis whether they were rooted in Truth or not. The fact of the matter is, too much time has passed and too many stories have been told to lend any certainty to the issues surrounding many of these matters. One can grant that many Goddess-based societies existed prior to the time of Abraham (peace be upon him) - so, what? What does this signify about what should be done now or what the truth is? Speculation, conjecture, possibilities, and stories are not substitutes for the truth, and, to a large extent, we can never know the truth about much of what went on in ancient times as far as the search for the truth about ourselves in concerned.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Up to this point in time, writing seems to have been primarily used for the business accounts of the temples. The arriving Northern groups adopted this writing and used it for their own purposes. "Professor Chiera comments: 'It is strange to notice that practically all the existing literature was put down in written form a century or two after 2000 B.C.' Whether this suggests that written language was never considered as a medium for myths and legends before that time or that existing tablets were destroyed and rewritten at that time remains an open question." [Stone, 1976] (emphasis, mine) (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Over and over again in the studies of the ancient religions it is noted that, in place after place, the goddess was debased and replaced by a male deity after the coming of the Northern Peoples. The transition was accomplished by brutally violent massacres and territorial acquisition throughout the Near and Middle East. [Comment - If we accept the foregoing perspective, then, written records began to be used for something other than the keeping of business dealings only relatively late in human history. Then, of course, there is also the issue of what transpired before written language came into being. In any event, the foregoing suggests there are vast tracts of time when human beings were present on Earth which are totally shrouded in obscurity about what went on, what was believed, what the ratio was of truth seekers to STS (service to self) people. Laura appears to be trying to argue that Divinity was a Goddess before becoming a male God, and that the latter idea was imposed on people, whereas the former was the natural order of things. Obviously, one can introduce speculations, conjectures, and opinions, and assert that the whole Adam (peace be upon him) and Eve (may God be pleased with her) 'thing' is just a story or a myth that never happened and/or that such a story is part of a conspiracy to hide the primacy of Divinity as a Goddess. However, if this is what Laura is trying to do or imply, there really is no evidence to prove her contention. The theology of gender arises out of the hermeneutics of experience, and if there were cultures in which experience was engaged in such as way that it led to the hermeneutical inclination to refer to Divinity as a Goddess, then, so be it, but this really has nothing to do with the actual identity and Nature of Divinity. Both maleness and femaleness are being thrust upon a Being for which such designations are irrelevant and distorting.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The Northern Invaders left neither tablets nor temples to explain why or how they came to choose a male deity. These "Sons of the North Wind, Aeolus" - these Nordics - are referred to variously as Indo-Europeans, Indo-Iranians, Indo-Aryans, or simply Aryans. [Comment - If they left no records, then, we have no idea what their hermeneutic was based on. Nor do we have any basis for understanding to what extent, if any, their perspective was corrupted by problematical hermeneutical stances concerning their understanding of the nature of Reality.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The invasions of the Aryans took place in waves over a period of up to three thousand years according to standard archaeology. The invasions of the historical period are attested to by literature and artifacts, and are agreed upon by scholars. Those of prehistoric times are suggested by speculative etymological connections. What is most significant in the historic records is that these Northern invaders viewed themselves as a very superior people. They were aggressive and continually in conflict with not only the peoples they conquered, but among themselves as well. Their coming revolutionized the art of war. They introduced the horse-drawn chariot, and the charioteer became a new aristocracy. Historical, mythological and archaeological evidence suggests that it was these northern people who brought with them the concepts of light as good and dark as evil and of a supreme male deity. [Comment - No! What these people brought with them were their own hermeneutical proclivities. The fact they introduced the equating of light with good and dark with evil says nothing about the truth or falsity of their understanding of the sources from which these ideas were drawn (whether from within themselves or from other peoples). Just because someone corrupts a message doesn’t mean there wasn’t truth in the original message, and just because a people uses their own hermeneutical take on the meaning and significance of light and dark, good and evil, to do all manner of evil things, this does not mean that there was no truth in the symbolism of light and dark and its relation to good and evil. One should not blame the original message for the hermeneutical mistakes of the messenger. Unfortunately, Laura seems intent on trying to say that the whole idea of the Goddess is right and the idea of a Male God is wrong, when, in fact both positions are wrong and just take one away from more essential and fundamental issues. In fact, this Divine gender war belongs with all the other material concerning secret societies, codes, symbols and number relationships - information devised to waste one’s time and keep one preoccupied with other than the essential. It really doesn’t matter what people like Laura argue. Other people are going to come along to give the material another spin in order to keep the cauldron boiling. That is the whole point of these controversies ... to keep the pot boiling, emotions stirred up and confusion and doubt running rampant.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The Aryan male god, unlike the son-lover of the Goddess, was frequently depicted as a storm god, high on a mountain, blazing with the light of fire or lightning. (Haven't we heard this before?!) In many of these myths, the goddess is depicted as a serpent or dragon, associated with darkness and evil. Sometimes the dragon is neuter or even male, but in such cases, is closely associated with the goddess, usually as her son. The Goddess religion seems to have assimilated the male deities into the older forms of worship, and survived as the popular religion of the people for thousands of years after the initial Aryan invasions. But her position had been greatly lowered and continued to decline. It was the assaults of the Hebrews and eventually the Christians that finally suppressed the religion. And here we come to the most interesting thing of all: it is in the accounts of the Aryans that we find the original religious ideas of the Hebrews. There is the mountain-top god who blazes with light; there is the duality between light and darkness symbolized as good and evil; there is the myth of the male deity defeating the serpent; and there is the supreme leadership of a ruling class: the priestly Levites. All of these are to be found in both the Indo-European and Hebrew religious concepts and politics! And this leads us to the obvious suggestion: The Indo-European patterns were either adopted by the Hebrews, or the Hebrews were Indo-Europeans from the start. The only thing that is certain is that these groups brought the worship of the male deity with them and the worship of the Goddess was systematically suppressed and eventually almost totally obliterated by monotheism, a new "variation" of the male dominator god thesis initiated by the Hebrews, and continuing into the present time as Christianity, and Islam. [Comment - Monotheism presupposes neither a Goddess nor a male God. In fact, the whole idea of insisting that Divinity has a gender is to ignore the fact that the finite cannot encompass the infinite, and, therefore, Divinity cannot be reduced down to any one quality - whether that be maleness, femaleness, spirit, materiality, itness, or anything else - whether taken individually or collectively. The gendering of Divinity is just so much hermeneutical meanderings of people who are wandering about in their own confusion concerning the nature of Divinity. What various hermeneutical perspectives among Hebrews, Christians and Muslims did with their respective engagements of experience reflects more on the defects in such engagements (from the human side) than it says anything of value about the nature of Divinity.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The oldest extant texts of the Old Testament in Hebrew are those found at Qumran which date only to 2 or 3 centuries before Christ. the oldest version before those were discovered was a Greek translation from about the same period! The earliest complete Hebrew text dates only from the tenth century A.D.!!! Something is wrong with this picture. [Comment - One of the things which is wrong with this picture is that there are vast periods of time for which we have no accurate, detailed, or reliable evidence concerning who was doing what and why. There is a great deal of speculative reconstruction going on, and this speculative reconstruction is situated on top of a massive landscape of unknowns which makes any of the conclusions people come to quite suspect and more reflective of someone’s hermeneutical perspective rather than a faithful reproduction of historical and spiritual truth.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) With the knowledge that the worship of the Goddess was violently overturned by invading Indo-Europeans, we may better understand the transitions and inversions that have occurred in our myths and legends. And, if we can come to some understanding of WHO and WHAT this Yahweh/Jehovah was, who spoke to Moses from the summit of Mount Horeb and Mount Sinai, we may discover an explanation for why the patriarchal laws and attitudes of the Levite priests were bent upon the destruction of the Goddess religion. [Comment - Even if one could establish the nature of the transitions and inversions which occurred in relation the worship of the Goddess tradition, none of this proves that the Goddess tradition is correct or that it best gives expression to the guidance from Divinity. Conceivably, the Goddess tradition could have been one of the corrupted interpretations of an even earlier truth which was overthrown by another corrupted interpretation of the truth - with remnants of the truth remaining lodged in both traditions, albeit it, in distorted forms.] For additional exploration of the ideas of gender, please link to: Voices in the Night, or to: Garden of Gethsemane Return to 'Food For Thought' Menu Copyright © 2004 Interrogative Imperative Insitute. All Rights Reserved.