| Part 1 | Part 2 | Next | Part 5 | Part 6 |
| Table of Contents |

"I don't know, Andrea, if what I'm about to say fits in with the issues you are raising," Ben stated, "but maybe the whole discussion about the qualitative differences between matriarchy and patriarchy is really a false dichotomy. Maybe, neither of these orientations is good or bad in and of themselves, but, instead, perhaps we need to take a look at whether an individual or society is approaching patriarchy and matriarchy through the essential, spiritual self, or the false, worldly self.

"For example, traditionally - possibly stemming from Bachofen's work - there are various stereotypic qualities associated with matriarchy and patriarchy. More specifically, among other things, the values of matriarchy are said to involve egalitarianism; selfless immersion in a greater whole - both cosmically and socially; sharing; peacefulness; a sense of changelessness or timelessness; as well as an awareness of and cooperation with the cycles of nature, while the values of patriarchy are said to consist of hierarchical religious, family and social arrangements; ambition; self-centeredness; a lack of respect for, and a tendency to disrupt, the cycles of nature; a sense of temporality, along with a concomitant notion of progress, and, finally, a proclivity for activity and fighting.

"Spiritually speaking, what these values actually mean will depend on whether they are being interpreted through the eye of our true selves or our false selves. As such, these qualities have the potential for being either assets to, and expressions of, realization of the true self, or these same values could be antithetical to this sort of realization and, therefore, an ally of the pursuits and interests of the false self.

"Consider, for example, the matriarchical quality or value of a sense of changelessness. Viewed from the perspective of the true self, this quality reflects the constancy of eternal spiritual verities concerning who we are in essence and what our relationship with the rest of being is. Yet, considered from the perspective of the false self, changelessness becomes a function of dogma, inertia, self-satisfaction, rigidity, and resistance to necessary changes in our lives.

"On the other hand, if we take a similar look at the value or quality in patriarchy that might be considered to be the corresponding counterpart to matriarchal changelessness -namely, activity or, perhaps, change, we get something along the following lines. From the vantage point of the true self, change becomes the medium of transformation through which we overcome our tendencies to remain entangled in the world and, by this means, move toward the realization of our spiritual potential. Alternatively, through the eyes of the false self, change becomes the means of serving the desires, whims and interests of our worldly inclinations.

"Let's run another set of corresponding matriarchal and patriarchal values or qualities through the manner of understanding things that is being suggested. Maybe, a good test case for this might involve taking a look at the egalitarianism/hierarchy pairing.

"Viewed from the perspective of the true self, the matriarchal value of egalitarianism reflects a belief in the essential equality and oneness of all people, if not of all being, as so many manifestations of the Universal Soul. Considered in this way, everything has a sacred dimension to it and must be accorded an appropriate modality of etiquette that is in concert with any given thing's reflection of, and role in, the cosmic scheme of universal being.

"When, however, one looks at the idea of equality from the orientation of the false self, then this value assumes an aura of relativism in which all ideas, values, beliefs, goals, purposes, desires and agendas are, more or less, the same. If things are considered from such a view, one has no right or basis to make any distinctions about the superiority of some points of view over that of others - indeed, the perspective of the false self is judged to be as legitimate as the perspective of the true self.

"Another possibility in this regard is that when the notion of egalitarianism is engaged through the false self, then all individuality must be extinguished or denied as contrary to the alleged priority of the collective spirit over that of the individual. This is one of the things Campbell had been horrified by, and sought to rebel against, following his journey to India.

"Hierarchy, as viewed by the true self, is, on the one hand, a recognition and acceptance of the fact that, among other things, there is a difference between illusion and reality, and there is also a difference between truth and falsehood. On the other hand, there is an understanding that we did not create ourselves nor our abilities, but, rather, these were gifts bestowed upon us through a Ground of Being that has priority over us.

"We have the opportunities of participating in, and coming to realize our rootedness in, that Ground through the largesse of that Ground and not through any virtue of our own independece of such a Ground. There is a logical and ontological priority possessed by that Ground that we do not have and, as such, whatever hierarchy which exists derives from this metaphysical fact.

"Humans are the ones who are caught up in illusion, not the Ground. The Ground has merely made illusion a possibility, like a spider spinning a web in preparation for the possibility of the hapless victim who makes a bad life-choice.

"Human beings are the ones who have to struggle to make the journey inward in order to realize our essential oneness with Reality or Divinity. Divinity already knows what we have not yet come to understand.

"The foregoing several points attest to nothing except the following. On a certain level, and from a certain perspective, we need to acknowledge that legitimate, hierarchical distinctions can be drawn between the One who makes our origin possible and we who are the originated and who must struggle to dispel the illusions generated through the agency of the false self.

"Nevertheless, to appreciate the nature and significance of metaphysical hierarchical relationships does not, in and of itself, automatically preclude the possibility of speaking about our essential identity with, and rootedness in, Divine reality. The issue need not be restricted to an either/or choice but can involve a much more complex arrangement than the logic of such choices permits us to consider.

"Viewed from the perspective of the false self, hierarchy tends to be colored by that self's presumed, but unverifiable and unjustifiable, right to dictate to others concerning the nature of metaphysical, social, political, cultural, family and personal relationships. In such a case, the false self arrogates to itself the role of Divinity and, consequently, inverts the true metaphysical order of things.

"If one explores the allegedly contrary pairings of matriarchy's supposed tendency to cooperate with the cycles of nature versus patriarchy's so-called inclination to ignore, if not disrupt, the cycles of nature, then one also can treat this pairing in a way consistent with the foregoing analysis. In other words, once again, the difference is not in matriarchy or patriarchy, per se, but in the nature of the self through which one engages these pairings.

"Thus, when the notion of cooperation with the cycles of nature is approached through the understanding of the true self, the individual recognizes one has a duty of care to live in harmony with the manner by which the Truth or Reality underlying nature is being manifested through, or reflected in, the principles and laws and etiquette inherent in the structural character of nature. To neglect or deny these duties of care is done at one's own peril.

"At the same time, one cannot suppose the cycles of nature are restricted merely to the physical, material and biological world. There are an array of psychological, emotional and spiritual cycles of nature to which one owes continuous duties of care as well.

"On the other hand, although the false self also recognizes the idea of a duty of care to the cycles of nature, these cycles are all a manifestation of the desires, whims, interests, goals, purposes and fantasies of the nature of the false self. As far as the false self is concerned, all other cycles of nature have value only as a function of the manner in which they can be made subservient to its own cycles.

"Alternatively, the false self is quite prepared to acknowledge the existence of, and live in harmony with, the cycles of nature, but this appreciation is restricted to the realms of the biological, material and/or intellectual. This sort of cooperation is a function of the false self's desire for a healthy, sustainable existence and the continued high quality of life that sound ecological surroundings make possible.

"The notion of a disruption of the cycles of nature, that is said to be stereotypically characteristic of the patriarchal orientation to things, also can be viewed in terms of its potential for either constructive or destructive ramifications. As before, the difference is a matter of which self is in control of the situation.

"When the aspect of nature being considered is the false self, then, spiritually speaking, the individual has an obligation to disrupt the cycles of nature operating through that false self. One does not have a duty of care to live in harmony with the false self, but, rather, one has a duty of care to oppose and resist the inherent tendencies of the false self to wreck havoc on, and exploit, all other cycles of nature.

"Nonetheless, the rest of nature does not have priority over us, anymore than we have priority over it except, perhaps, to the extent we have been given the spiritual capacity, and concomitant duty of care, to minister to the needs of the cycles of nature and, therefore, establish harmonious relationships with and through nature. Just as creation serves us, so, too, we must serve creation and help to keep things as balanced as possible across all cycles of nature.

"In one sense there always will be a certain tendency of various aspects of nature to encroach upon the lives of human beings, just as their is a reciprocal tendency of human beings to encroach upon the different facets of nature. Our job - and this is a duty of care that nature is not obligated to observe except through Divine permission, is to do justice in the maintaining a proper - that is, spiritual balance, between these two modalities of encroachment.

"One also can consider disruption of the cycles of nature from the perspective of the false self. This self does not think twice about its absolute, automatic, and completely presumed right to interfere with, and disrupt, nature in any way it chooses and for whatever reasons it desires.

"The false self recognizes no duties of care with respect to the cycles of nature. Instead, nature must be subdued and made to serve the goals, purposes and projects of the false self.

"Finally, let's take a look at the pairing of the values of selflessness and self-centeredness which is said to reflect, respectively, qualities of matriarchy and patriarchy. As before, the issue is not straightforward.

"Engaged through the understanding of the true self, selflessness gives expression to the desire for, and realization of, a disappearance of the pettiness, greed, anger, lust, jealousy, hostility, pride, envy, desires, and insensitivity of the false self. As if obeying some spiritual version of a Pauli-like exclusion principle, the false self and the true self cannot simultaneously occupy the same realm of consciousness, and, consequently, one dimension of the true self is to work toward the dissolution of the false self's reign over the affairs of the individual.

"With the ascendency of the true self, comes the understanding that only the real Self, or Divinity, has the right to say 'I'. The condition of selflessness is an acknowledgment of this Reality.

"Yet, in the hands of the false self, selflessness becomes a denial of both the Divine Self as well as the capacity of one's own true, essential, spiritual identity to reflect and, in a sense, be aware of and know the nature of that Divine Self. Moreover, since the false self has no essential reality, its endlessly changing states, moods, desires, whims, goals, purposes, interpretations, beliefs, values, motivations and interests, all give expression to a selflessness that is the exact opposite of the sort of selflessness that is sought after spiritually.

"If one considers the quality of self-centeredness, which is thought to be a feature of patriarchy, from the perspective of the true self, then this merely points to a basic truth concerning our metaphysical nature. If we are to function properly and harmoniously in relationship to the cosmos, the ecology, our communities, families and ourselves, then everything must be centered on the Self of Divinity that is reflected in our own true selves.

"The foregoing sort of Self-centeredness, is, of course, very different from the self-centeredness characteristic of the false self. The latter is deserving of our condemnation and needs to be opposed.

"So, if the foregoing outline is correct, then one is, in a sense, barking up the wrong tree when one tries to use the matriarchy/patriarchy axis as one's framework for analyzing metaphysical, social, political, cultural or educational issues. The deeper framework concerns the dichotomy between the false self and the true self.

"Both matriarchy and patriarchy have multiple dimensions for accommodating either the false self or the true self. To label some perspective as patriarchal or matriarchal is not enough to understand what is going on. One must see which dimension - the true self or the false self- is operative and, when one has done this, then the qualities or values associated with matriarchy and patriarchy begin, I think, to make more sense as far as being able to identify the character of the dynamics being given expression through those values or qualities are concerned.

"Furthermore, I believe the foregoing analytical framework allows one, if one wishes, to dispense with the idea that part of our spiritual task is to try to balance masculine and feminine components within us. Rather, the true self of both women and men entails a variety of capacities, dimensions and facets, that are able to be active relative to certain levels of reality while, simultaneously, being receptive relative to other levels of reality.

"The issue no longer would be a matter of when, or under what circumstances, we should exercise our masculine sides or feminine sides, nor would one necessarily even have to struggle with trying to understand what is meant, metaphysically, by masculinity or femininity. The task, for both women and men, becomes a matter of knowing when, and in what way, to be in a properly spiritual active mode, and when, as well as how, to be in an a spiritually appropriate receptive condition."

| Part 1 | Part 2 | Next | Part 5 | Part 6 |
| Table of Contents |