From Shekinah to Shakti - from Mary to Tara - from Isis to Kali.......we've heard every now and then about what is considered a "feminine principle" or POV of religious teachings and doctrine. I'm currently reading a couple of fantabulous books that nurture and support the feminine principle in Tibetan Buddhism that usually is described as the "dakini." And I'm discovering many esoteric and exoteric texts that were developed by and large by women who write eloquently and teach passionately without needing to be put through the male filter.
The two books I've been studying closely lately are Passionate Enlightenment by Miranda Shaw and Dakini's Warm Breath.... by Judith Simmer-Brown. I have plans on expanding my interests toward women's contributions in other traditions soon enough, though.
How important is it to emphasize the female POV in religious teachings? Does it provide balance to the masculine POV, or does it serve to confuse followers? Is it better to strive for androgyny and a genderless approach? Are the teachings and religious doctrine already considered genderless, and therefore women's religious studies are erroneous in it's assumptions of misogyny in religious institutions? Or are women's religious studies and POV's long overdue?
What say you?
The two books I've been studying closely lately are Passionate Enlightenment by Miranda Shaw and Dakini's Warm Breath.... by Judith Simmer-Brown. I have plans on expanding my interests toward women's contributions in other traditions soon enough, though.
How important is it to emphasize the female POV in religious teachings? Does it provide balance to the masculine POV, or does it serve to confuse followers? Is it better to strive for androgyny and a genderless approach? Are the teachings and religious doctrine already considered genderless, and therefore women's religious studies are erroneous in it's assumptions of misogyny in religious institutions? Or are women's religious studies and POV's long overdue?
What say you?