In the previous article I wrote about the differences between male and female approaches to spirituality and there are some things I’d like to add.
The most important thing is that the female approach to spirituality is what is commonly known as spirituality. That’s what everybody implicitly assumes to be spirituality – fight ego, be nice and smily and kind, meditate, please God, try to be acceptable to God, that kind of stuff. If the male approach is even mentioned, it’s mentioned as “bad guy stuff”, as something you are warned against, the dark side of the Force. Essentially, if you turn into a slavegirl you’re on the light side of the force, and if you develop balls you’re on the dark side. Apparently, God favours femininity.
Except not. You see, when I have to take account of the most impressive historical spiritual people of all times, what do we get? Buddha, male approach. Jesus, male approach. Marpa and Milarepa, male approach. Lahiri Mahasaya and Yuktesvar, male approach. Shankaracharya, male approach. Devpuriji, male approach. Ram Gopal, male approach. Most Zen masters, male approach. Vivekananda, male approach. Me, male approach. As for female approach, we have Theresa of Avilla, st. Francis, John of the Cross, Ramakrishna, and, most notably, Caitanya.
It’s not that female approach is without representation among the saints. It obviously produces results. However, considering how incredibly represented the male approach seems to be among those who are the most worthy of emulation, I think some things require reassessment.
First of all, the difference between male and female approach is not necessarily a radical one; sometimes it’s merely a matter of fine accent. For instance, female approach is to worship and admire your husband (or God), and find fulfillment in contemplation of his person alone, without self. This is then misinterpreted as ego-less state, while it’s in fact merely the female approach to samyama. The male approach is to train with a master as an apprentice, to acquire skills and to become a worthy artisan and eventually a master. You learn by accepting an admirable worthy authority over yourself and diligently practice and absorb skills which you immediately employ in practice, so that they can be honed and further refined. With progress, you develop pride in your achievement, which motivates you further.
The end-result of the female approach is to be inseparable from the object of your affection and a worthy wife, and the end-result of the male approach is to become a master of your trade.
If you ask a spiritually successful woman about her secret, she’ll tell you about all the things to do in order to be acceptable to and inseparable from God. If you ask a spiritually successful man, he’ll tell you about all the skills you need to master, all the self-control you need to have and sacrifices you need to make in order to obtain qualities that matter. A woman will describe enlightenment as sacred spiritual marriage. A man will describe it as spiritual mastery.
Ask Caitanya, he’ll tell you how to love Krishna and be inseparable from him even in separation. Ask Shankaracharya, and he’ll tell you how to attain realisation of brahman and cast aside all illusions and ignorance, understanding that you are that reality.
Ask a male-approach saint and he’ll tell you about all the things that need to be overcome and conquered, all the enemies to be defeated, all the pitfalls to be avoided, all the allies one needs to have, all the sacrifices one needs to make, and all the qualities one needs to hone. Ask a female-approach saint and she’ll tell you how you need to renounce ego in order to be acceptable in the presence of God, how to renounce everything that gets in the way of the love for God, how to persevere when not in the presence of God and remain faithful, and how you need to surrender to God who will remove all impurities from your soul and remake you into his image.
Both approaches work. It’s not that one is an inferior version of the other, or a set of spiritual flaws that need to be polished away on that other path. You just need to be aware of what they are. It’s not that the male approach is ego-driven and female approach is ego-less. That’s all bullshit, because males and females have a different ego-structure, different animal biology with different instincts and reactions. The term “ego” is woefully ill-applicable and is firmly entrenched in the 19th century understanding of those things. To a female, being judged as attractive and acceptable is as much of an ego-boost as power and control are to a male. That female ego is passive and male is active makes no difference. It’s just that we are used to accepting a female who just got a major ego-boost as ego-less.
Satisfied female ego looks like an ego-less state, and satisfied male ego looks like an egoistic state. For instance, when a woman lies in bed with her husband after sex, she is satisfied, calm, without thoughts, without desires, at peace with herself. It looks like no ego, but it’s satisfied ego, ego that has what it wants. A satisfied male ego is also a state of accomplishment, pride of achievement, of job well done, in peace and no thoughts and desires.
Most talk about overcoming ego comes from female-approach teachers lecturing men on how to become good women, or even worse, how to make men non-threatening to women. It’s all crap, it’s worthless and only damages men spiritually and hinders their progress. I’ve seen the results of such schools; they produce happy and empowered female students and wrecked, feminized, insecure and tightly restrained male students. Also, the male-approach teachers can produce strong and empowered male students, and insecure, fractured, shriveled-up female students. That, too, is a shitty outcome, but since the teachers seldom understand how things actually work and how you need to adapt your approach to work with students’ strengths in order to overcome their weaknesses, and they rarely even know what actually worked for them, it’s not unexpected.
How do I know all this? It’s because I use both approaches when appropriate. I can start with female approach and then switch to the male approach; for instance, I use female approach when I’m insecure about something and I want to absorb all that I can, and I switch to male approach when I know what I’m doing. Similarly, if a woman uses mostly the female approach, it’s great, but she needs to be able to use the male approach when necessary, because not all problems can be solved with one way alone. Sometimes you need tools that help you endure and change, and sometimes you need to own the power. Sometimes you need to pray for the Force to be with you, and sometimes you need to factually state that it is with you, at the present moment. That isn’t a fall to the “dark side”, it’s a necessary prerequisite of success, because it’s ok to be uncertain and doubtful when you’re trying, but once you’ve succeeded, you need to claim it or you are effectively rejecting it.