Some Technical Terms Defined

[Steppingfeet]

If you think about it, new humans are  created from woman, customarily with a small contribution from a man.  Same goes for other critters.  In the West, Nature is presented as a female, but in the best known Near Eastern scriptures, the god figure and Creator is a male deity.

In what we call Hinduism, there are layers of meaning.  The Creator God is a male, Brahma.  He gazes inwardly and finds in there Creation.  When he opens his eyes, a universe appears and when he closes his eyes it dissolves....and when he opens them.....on and on.

But Creation herself is feminine, known to us Maya.  This comes from the root maa, which means, "to measure" or, for our purposes, "that which can be measured."  In other words, limited phenomenal stuff as compared to limitless light.

In addition, there is Brahman, neither male nor female, which is unmanifest: Maya at rest, if you will.  So, Brahman/Maya are have the same conceptual relationship as Intelligent Infinity and Intelligent Energy.  One is the infinite potential, the other is the ever unfolding creative manifestation.  One is eternal, but totally boring, while the other "has a life," as we say these days.

"He gazes inwardly and finds in there Creation.  When he opens his eyes, a universe appears and when he closes his eyes it dissolves....and when he opens them.....on and on."

I love that so much. Whatever the gender or non-gender of the Actor or Principle or Prime Mover, the description of the universe coming into being and dissolving with the opening and closing of the eye. Damn that's good. I think there is something more than mere metaphor to this, particularly as primordial awareness itself, essentially, is described in Ra's testimony as the first thing in creation.

I recall coming across similar notions in Yogananda's work.

Thanks for the rest. Indeed we are all created from woman. Blessed is She.

Introducing idiosyncratic words understood by one into the definition could illuminate the target word less than intended. I'd suggest at least a clarifier.

I guess that was the whole point of the Creation: to Create.

If people keep using the same herd-based methods and terms, what worth would human beings have if not cattle-worth?

It doesn't matter if it's against the flow. What matters is that the message conveyed is clear. And Creatrix signals a clear message to me.

Also, to try and suppose Other-Selves intention is a terrible move, especially for spiritualized individuals.

"Less than intended" by whom? 

Wait, huh? I was supportive of Sacred Fool's term. I said it was a colorful change. I said I liked it. I quite simply, and with a friendly smile, and in a conscious intention to be supportive, suggested a clarifier.

That is:

"Hey, by 'creatrix' in this definition, this is what I mean."

If you want people to understand you, they need to be able to understand you. It's okay to use words or references or personal biographical experiences known only to you, but give the reader a leg-up by offering some clarity. I mean, one's goal in communication, particularly if attempting to *define* something, is for the other-self to understand what one is saying, yes?

I conveyed that without a clarifier, SF's "definition" might be less understood than he hoped.

Thanks for backing me up on this, meadow-foreigner.  I suspect that in Sf's world, these details are rather important, and that he was favouring me with the kind of scrutiny he would apply to himself when editing material to be published.  Your comment offers him catalyst which he could use to shift himself towards a bit more humility, given this particular context, should he wish to choose that path.

Not precisely. That is far from the type of scrutiny I would apply to myself when editing my material, or anyone's within L/L, or on any project that would seek to define these terms. I am a ruthless editor and did not apply that critical eye to your work.

Though a case could be made for application of said critique as you posted this to a public forum, I didn't think you were seeking such, nor that you would appreciate that sort of feedback, so I exercised sensitivity. I just made a friendly, positive suggestion in support of your word choice. Is there somehow I could have communicated better so that the support was clearer?

Also, just for general clarity, did you not share your post for constructive feedback/engagement/dialogue? Or was it just a one-way "This is what I did and no comments please"? I mean, the latter is a valid option. If you could just please build that into your OP, I personally would be happy to honor your needs.

And if a suggestion for clarifying an idiosyncratic term is perceived as overly critical and an opportunity for humility, then I'm interested in your self-assessment: what of your own character reviews of other-selves and their work? Be honest.


PS: Ymarsakar, well, it's high in fiber.