Enlightenment is "Growing Up"

[dreamosis]

I came across a book by Alexandra David-Neel, a French female mystic, who visited Tibet and participated in their initiations in the 1930s. The book is called Initiates and Initations in Tibet and the picture it offers of Tibetan spiritual culture seems starkly honest and undressed-up.

She writes that in Tibet (or what was Tibet in the 1930s), enlightenment was thought of as "growing up."

I find this to be one of the most startling and practical definitions of enlightment that I've ever heard. But if you read the book, which shows that a lot of the spiritualism in Tibet was selfish, and that many Lamaic lines formed alliances with otherworld beings generally considered to be evil, the definition makes a lot more sense.

We live not in one world, but in a world interpenetrated by many worlds inhabited by many types of beings -- some nice and some not so nice. When we become enlightened, we begin to sense and see the great web of worlds. Enlightment is learning how to interact with all of these worlds, and beings, like a spiritual adult -- to cross the street by ourselves as it were; resolve conflicts by ourselves rather than appealing to mother or father figures, etc.

Thinking about this concept, too, has actually allowed me to see the value of both paths of dark and light. Undertaken consciously, a so-called dark path could be a very realistic attempt to cope with the realities of our world.

[CFTraveler]

That sounds very interesting, and somehow resonates with some things I've read about raising animals.
Some time ago I was doing research in wolves and other wild animals, and was shocked to learn that wolves and dogs are genetically the same- that the real difference is that domestication somehow has led to differences in psychology. The more distant an animal is from it's wild counterpart, the more domesticated it is, the less 'psychologically mature' the animal is. The scientists that did these studies on domestication also found physical characteristics that go with these traits, so it's easy to observe.
The theory was that when we domesticate an animal, be it dog or cat, what we are doing is stunting its psychological growth, keeping the animal in between the cub/teenage stage, in which the animal is dependent on their mother and/or pack- at a certain time in their life they 'grow up' and leave the pack and their attachment to the parent (at least males, females have a different way, but there is a change from puppyhood to adulthood also, as they become competitive with their mothers for the alpha female role). So when we domesticate an animal we are substituting the parent image for the dog (or cat) and keeping them in a subordinate state where they can't be the alpha animal-ever. We become their parents, and they never 'grow up'.
These scientists found that when they studied certain physical attributes ('patches/spots' in dogs) they found that it corresponded to a 'tamer/less aggressive' personality, and this patching/spots in dogs was found to happen when dogs are inbred (and by inbred I mean bred with other domestic dogs, as opposed to letting them reproduce on their own). When dogs go native, no matter what their original breed, if left to their choice, revert to those mutts we see in third world countries that are yellowish-brown and resemble small wolves, depending on the weather.
If I could remember what article I read this in (I think it was Discover magazine) I'd post more info on it.
Anyway, I see how this idea can be applied to what your author is talking about.

[dreamosis]

Wow, CF. What you wrote reminds me now of what I've been reading in the RJ Stewart books. He suggests that if we only seek pleasant, cozy experiences in our meditations and inner journeys, that our growth will be limited. We must be challenged (sometimes aggressively) in order grow. We live in the Wild, not on a farm or in a centrally-heated house.

I'd love to see that article if you find it.

[dreamosis]

make sense? or do i sound like a womanizer?

No, you don't sound like a womanizer -- but it appears that the suppression of the feminine has been weighing heavily on your mind. Your response does make me feel like I must have written a post endorsing patriarchy, which is confusing to me, because that wasn't at all my intent.

The post was inspired by the book of a female mystic. She doesn't give any indication in the book that it was exceptional for her to be initiated as a woman. Fifty pages into the book it seems to me like she was widely accepted wherever she went. It does appear that she mostly studied with men. I don't know enough about the old Tibetan culture to say whether it was patriarchal or not. In the introduction to the book she did say the polyandry -- women taking many husbands -- was a common and unshocking practice in Tibet. There are also pictures of other Tibetan women who received initiation.

now, on growing up, i must ask where is one to grow up to? where is this "up"?

You might be making only a semantical argument here. As far as I can tell from the book, Tibetan cosmology is anything but simple and vertical. They believe/believed in many worlds and many destinations. The heart of the concept seems to be in becoming a spiritual adult -- taking responsibility for your destination wherever that is.

many look down on religious intitiatory process because historically it excludes the feminine from participation. one might ask why is there this exclusion?

I don't agree with that at all, especially if you consider Western esoteric traditions. Interaction with feminine archetypes, if you're physically a man, seem to be the key to the whole shebang. As far as (physical) women being excluded from initiations, that's been true in the religious traditions -- although there are many female saints revered even in the Catholic church -- it hasn't been true in continuing land-based traditions. Nor has it been true in old traditions like Tantra.

The resistance to female energy is breaking down. Anglican churches now have female priestesses; many Episcopal churches do as well. Even Charismatic Pentecostal congregations are being led by male and female teams.

I agree that men are in need of the divine feminine; as women are in need of the sacred masculine. Both are to be found within, as well as without. A world-wide spiritual movement based totally in the feminine, and denying the masculine, would be as repressive as Abrahamic religious patriarchy.

As far as humankind being "meant" to be matriarchal...Why aren't we meant to be equal? Yes, men cannot give birth; but the number of women having babies without men is only found in mythology.

A part of "growing up," I would say, is becoming a complete in one's self and balanced between extremes. This spiritual growing up might be reflected in the Gnostic Jesus' saying that we only enter heaven when "the male becomes like the female and the female becomes like the male." (Gospel of Thomas).

And you saying that wisdom is inherently female reminds me of the Gnostic Christian tradition, too, in which a goddess figure (Sophia/Wisdom) plays a critical role. Although most what I would call "surface-Gnostics" look down on Sophia for being responsible for us falling into illusion. Sophia, in the Gnostic tradition, created the physical universe by consorting with herself instead of with the "Father." On the outside this seems patriarchal, but the concept of the Father in Gnoticism is beyond gender -- it's the illimitable, the innumerable, the Absolute.

My own experience of my subconscious is feminine. The embodiment of my subconscious in my dreams is always in the form of beloved woman or a goddess-like figure. Modern psychology talks about this, and apparently it's frequently the opposite for women.

[CFTraveler]

Interesting. When I receive information, it's frequently from an "Old guy" and when I hear voices in hypnagogia I hear one of each. The male voice is very male, booming and imposing.

[dreamosis]

Hmmm. What I hear in hypnogogia is rarely coherent, but a jumble of roaring sea and computer-like beeping and various indistinct voices.

I can think of one dream -- which was lucid -- in which my subconscious appeared to me as a female lover. We hung out and talked for what seemed like an hour, and she even gave me instructions for staying asleep and lucid so that we could keep seeing each other. We kissed, but didn't have sex. In the dream I thought she was a lover from a past life. I kept trying to piece it together, but she gently recommended I stop trying to analyze it. I believe all she wanted was for me to experience her energy, for me to experience union with a deeper part of myself.

[ButterflyWoman]

I think of enlightenment as expanding one's awareness (knowledge, wisdom, etc.). I'm not convinced there is a point at which you are "enlightened", just as there's no point at which you are "grown up". There are points where you can say you were less mature, less aware, or more aware, etc. etc., but I'm 44 and I'm probably not entirely "grown up" (my username is a play on the idea of that; I'm wiser now that I'm older, but that's because when I was younger I was wholly unaware, but as I get even older, I'll presumably and hopefully get wiser than I am now...).

I think the metaphor of spiritual enlightenment as "growing up" is a good one. There are things that I used to do or think or believe that I would never, ever consider harbouring now, because I'm just more aware of what they actually are, what effects they generate. It's just like the way that a little kid wants or tries to do stuff that isn't good for them, because they're just unaware of what the consequences might be...

[Timotheus]

[Timotheus]

[dreamosis]

kundalini serpent spoke, wound around, up and down, in me, but under my feet where it belongs.

Yeah, I think the enlightenment-as-growing-up metaphor is most definitely about living in the world, returning to one's community, coming down from the mountain.