>>What is the practical use of emphasizing the sex divide?

in what sense? symbolically of course, we've already established the value of archetypal forces being represented by gender difference. in day to day life, it is certainly different, although human men and women are not identical. equal, yes, but different. one of the ways that certain branches of feminism went astray IMHO was the belief that to achieve equality a woman had to perform all of the tasks that men did with the same level of competence. now of course there are exceptions, but nature has built us differently; men are just genetically built to have more upper body strength than women, for example. conversely, no matter how devoted I am to Devi, I'm not likely to start bleeding every month or have the ability to bear a child.

now be sure not to take it like I think women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen (although I tend to be barefoot in the kitchen, and so does my girlfriend, and I expect she wouldn't start wearing shoes in the kitchen just because she got pregnant, heh - but we both cook for each other)... but enjoying differences doesn't negate equality, and equality does not equate sameness. my girlfriend is a pretty radical feminist with a great interest in gender studies, and agrees with me on the point of equality in difference as opposed to equality in homogeneity.

>>when you really get down to it, the deities are really just figments of our own imagination.

I would disagree with the wording here - I would say that They have as much independent existence as we do (which can be interpreted more than one way, of course) - They (and we) are expressions of the singular Unity.

>>Not that God does not exist - of course It/He/She does - but no matter what concept we conceive of Her/Him/It, including any concept of gender or sexual identity/activity, the only thing that can truly be said for it is: "false due to inadequacy".

certainly to an extent, although I would not go the Neti, Neti route and call it false - limited yes, false, I don't believe so. God (Ultimate Reality, Existence, call it whatever) is surely beyond gender. however I don't think that precludes approaching divinity via gendered representations of It. after all, we ourselves are gendered expressions of Divinity, and I don't think that it is necessary to eliminate that in ourselves to experience Reality - I don't believe there is a false self and a true one; they are both equally real, it is just a matter of from what perspective we are looking at it and being able to hold multiple perspectives is IMO very important. theologically I am in agreement with a great amount of Shaiva thought, and ultimately no matter what labels or forms we have for God up to a certain point, I tend to agree with most Shaivas I speak with on the nature of Ultimate Reality - it doesn't matter if we call it the Adya Shakti, Paramashiva, Brahman, ﷲ or יהוה. but I don't think that nullifies the manner in which we get to realization of That, whether it be gendered or not, nor what gender it is that we use; what is more important is the efficacy of our Sadhana and the question as to whether we have allowed a gendered representation of God to limit our conception of the ultimately formless yet simultaneously possessing-all-forms nature of God.

Dear Adya & Saul:

I feel a close connection to both of you through your discussion.
Saul: by gender divide I mean sex-consciousness. Preoccupation with gender as a defining aspect of identity or self.
I feel that perhaps Adya has a better intuitive grasp of this than we do, Saul, because she is a woman. (There's that pesky gender divide, again!)
To elaborate: As a man I feel like my attachment to and captivation by women is the principal force keeping my consciousness from expanding. When I think about it, it strikes me as absurd, or at least an obvious case of mistaken identity. Because I am mistaking this (male) body for the self, the female body becomes this maddening mystery because it seems like the other missing half of "me" and I long to unite with it. This is the gender divide or sex-preoccupation I am speaking of. To this extent what I'm saying probably applies to women as well, toward men.
But I wonder if it's not, after all, easier for women to transfer their sexual preoccupation with men toward the non-physical Atma or Siva, than it is for us men to do the same - again, due to the preoccupation with sex.
For me it's not difficult to conceive of God as a man, or God as a woman, or even God as an elephant riding on a mouse or God as this, that, or the other - but all of these concepts are false, like I said, due to inadequacy (Saul would say true, but not the whole truth).
What IS difficult is conceiving of God as BOTH man and woman.

I guess what I'm asking is your opinion on whether it is equally easy (or difficult) for a man to transfer his love/attraction for women to a higher, divine Woman (Adya Shakti) than it is for a woman to do the same toward a male God-idea.

Of course, that's a separate question than whether or not this is the right way to go. Still, this sex energy is so strong, so defining, so seemingly full of endless possibilities, so alluring, that it strikes me as key in the "quest" for liberation. I don't see any way to skirt (pun intended) the sex question. It has to be confronted and addressed in some way. So far I've concluded that its useless to deny it. I have to integrate it somehow, but how to reconcile my male-ness with a God who is both male and female?

The only logical response is that the idea of male-ness is false and must go. But, on the other hand, denying the sex idea is a pointless exercise. Is there a way to both embrace it and deny it at the same time?

On another note: Would you agree that liberation from the sex-compulsion - the sex-preoccupation, the tendency to view self and the world in terms of male and female, opposites or complements - is the same thing as liberation from birth and death?

Narayan

Yes, yes, Adya, these are questions for the Guru. Not that I haven't put the questions to him - I'm still chewing on the (somewhat cryptic) answers he's already given me. And your post, Adya, echoes those answers. Essentially what my Guru said was this: sexual passion is a force that is present in Nature and can never be satisfied.

This, thankfully, brings me back to my original point, on which I ask your views. I haven't found much info on this in my reading, the exception being Georg Feuerstein's book "Sacred Sexuality". In that book, Georg says that, at the human level, both male and female genders are part of God-as-Mother. My Guru's statement seems to agree with this.

The implication for me is that the whole sex-preoccupation thing (thank you, Adya, for labelling it an obsession - so true) - both sides of it, female and male - is playing out entirely within Mother Nature. In other words, the male sexual force that I feel is not Siva at all! At the level of physical reproduction, it's all Sakti - movement of energy.

Again, Adya (regardless of your actual gender, in my mind's eye I still see you as a beautiful woman), you are correct that I'm approaching this from a perspective of duality. I can't help myself :-) There's no point in claiming to be an Advaitin when I'm caught up in sex, now, is there?

Yet, I feel that the place I'm being led is non-dual. As I try to peer forward, I can't avoid the conclusion that the elusive Siva I'm searching for doesn't exist as an object to be found. Nor does sex, i.e. union of Siva and Sakti, exist as an object "out there". (As Rupert Sheldrake says: There's no "out there" out there!) I, Siva, am swimming in an ocean of Sakti. When my fingers touch the teacup or the keyboard or my lover's body, I am making love with Her. As a feeling it is real (and so much more real with a human female instead of a keyboard and monitor!) but of course I know this is a false notion. The boundary between "my" fingers and "Her" keyboard, or "my" penis and "Her" vagina, though perceived and felt in varying intensities as sex, is an illusionary non-entity. It is my own conviction about its existence that gives the power it undeniably has over me.

But for now this non-duality is just a suspicion that I feel. You know? As I go about my life-as-sex, I have this nagging thought in the back of my mind, that the whole premise is flawed. That there's this 900-pound gorilla here with me (the Self) that I'm somehow refusing to see. And I believe it's the obsession with female bodies, emanating from a deeper conviction that this particular male body is my Self, that is preventing me from seeing it.

Bhai, is this the Lord's veiling power, Maya, that the Puranas sing of so eloquently? If so, then prostrations to It. It has me hog-tied, tarred and feathered!