[Opinion] The Divine Woman, Anima

[Magpie]

• Plato's "other half" - presupposing a human is an androgyne with half missing e.g. if you are a man, you can be say 80% male and the remaining 20% female is your hidden missing part, so if you found a woman that was 80% female and 20% male, it would be your "other half"
• Germanic Valkyrie, sleeping beauty, fetch of the opposite gender
• Greek Apollo and Artemis
• Hindu ascetics referring to a woman inside them
• Jung's anima
• And many other traditional or modern concept regarding a hidden female power/person inside a man

You get the idea, there is something of an opposite gender related to the being we are. I don't want to get into details of specific traditions, as the thread is not meant to be comparative analysis or a lecture on myths or philosophy, but instead I want it to be practical. I see in most traditions, that a unity with that "divine woman" is a prerequisite for further progress along the path. Many of you probably saw her in dreams, fleeting encounters, not being able to find her and "settle".

What do you think, what is that "anima" (let's call her that) and what does it mean to find her? What practice is required to unity with her?

 

[deci belle]

It is possible to conjure such primordial elemental distinctions in order to experience their dissolution (by using them together as a tool of sorts) in a process of reversion arriving at selfless knowledge of inherent wholeness.

Experiencing such Virtue of Receptivity might unavoidably be termed an understanding of the Creative, as the Creative's primal organization encompasses particulate polar distinction subsuming within wave energy [This is knowledge itself; there is no thing]. So, you might typify the Creative in terms of femme, as such, but yin and yang swirling about within her vortex are what they are (created, and therefore a polar relationship in action). It's just the way it is and no one knows why it is the way it is or why it is possible to experience reversion in terms of any realization (beyond the OPs subject), to experience selfless nonorigination. Upon returning, one must become its living expression.

Furthermore, it is possible to project categorical typification in the aftermath of realization, for the purposes of recreational philosophical speculation as to what sex nonorigination is, ie: progenitor/progenitrix. But let's not, because it is not. Why? Because there is always that which is beyond.

Since, per the OP, there is a decided (and properly) discriminatory distinction towards the femme aspect, it should be noted that "getting there", requires seeing a referential sameness "drawing from below", in order to blend (as milk and water). This is because knowledge is truly being, and knowing such, exacts that much, in terms of the process of reversion to seeing the nonorigination of human spiritual potential, as is.

So there is a necessary reason for employing the polar aspect in the first place, in terms of its (the Creative's) functional organization, not due to any sexual bias per se, and neither can we discount (or forget) its inherent potential, because the Creative, as well as the created, are, by virtue of an ineffably living aware potential, an inherently inconceivable selfless knowing, awake without beginning.

All such devices, as per the subject of the OP, are signposts along the way. When you see a stop sign or an arrow, wouldn't it be sheer foolishness to fixate on the sign itself? But I wouldn't begrudge the culturally derivative scenery along the way either.

 

[Magpie]

It is possible to conjure such primordial elemental distinctions in order to experience their dissolution (by using them together as a tool of sorts) in a process of reversion arriving at selfless knowledge of inherent wholeness.

Experiencing such Virtue of Receptivity might unavoidably be termed an understanding of the Creative, as the Creative's primal organization encompasses particulate polar distinction subsuming within wave energy [This is knowledge itself; there is no thing]. So, you might typify the Creative in terms of femme, as such, but yin and yang swirling about within her vortex are what they are (created, and therefore a polar relationship in action). It's just the way it is and no one knows why it is the way it is or why it is possible to experience reversion in terms of any realization (beyond the OPs subject), to experience selfless nonorigination. Upon returning, one must become its living expression.

Furthermore, it is possible to project categorical typification in the aftermath of realization, for the purposes of recreational philosophical speculation as to what sex nonorigination is, ie: progenitor/progenitrix. But let's not, because it is not. Why? Because there is always that which is beyond.

Since, per the OP, there is a decided (and properly) discriminatory distinction towards the femme aspect, it should be noted that "getting there", requires seeing a referential sameness "drawing from below", in order to blend (as milk and water). This is because knowledge is truly being, and knowing such, exacts that much, in terms of the process of reversion to seeing the nonorigination of human spiritual potential, as is.

So there is a necessary reason for employing the polar aspect in the first place, in terms of its (the Creative's) functional organization, not due to any sexual bias per se, and neither can we discount (or forget) its inherent potential, because the Creative, as well as the created, are, by virtue of an ineffably living aware potential, an inherently inconceivable selfless knowing, awake without beginning.

All such devices, as per the subject of the OP, are signposts along the way. When you see a stop sign or an arrow, wouldn't it be sheer foolishness to fixate on the sign itself? But I wouldn't begrudge the culturally derivative scenery along the way either.

Your post requires further thought to properly respond to, but there is one thing I must touch now - creative vs created dynamic. Are you saying that "the Creative" - so the same "thing" as I called the anima, is what conditions the material self?

I am asking that, because during my own meditations today, it occurred to me that the anima is simply the daimon, the double, the genius, whatever the traditional word for it is, in order words, the soul. The entity that takes that is bound to the material organism and through which the material organism is shaped. Which would also explain why alchemical mercury is neither male nor female, but instead is "dynamic". The soul would be the double. Which would make sense, as the knowledge of the "subtle body" or the soul is necessary for further progress...

 

[deci belle]

Oh great to hear from you, Magpie~ sure, well there is a bit to define, since I am so unfamiliar with Greek/Roman/Egyptian cosmology/mythical tradition. In spite of the content of my response/reply, the overarching thrust of my intent was to see if others who (in spite of being fans of yours), might still wish to dive into this seeming abyss of women's studies>>> hahaha~ I hoped to break up any jammed logs/stigmas and open it up a bit further per your introduction/invitation, by stripping off a bit of the femme atmosphere.

I'd would be willing to go with your momentum here, in terms of Anima and the aspect you've presented in picking up on "creative" vs "created dynamic". It might be a far reach, in retrospect, but at least we tried❤︎