Regarding the concept of the women being stronger with upper chakra abilities, and men being stronger with lower chakra abilities.

I disagree with this. Just because chakras, and sides of the soul, are "masculine" and "feminine", it does not mean the same as the biological sex of a human. Many women are lower-chakra strong, and many men are upper-chakra strong. Many women are left-brain dominant, and many men are right-brain dominant.

There are many men who are intellectual, communicative, wise, intuitive, and psychic. All of these have to do with the upper chakras.

A lot of men are more emotional (often ignoring logic), artistic, musical, imaginative, and so on.

There are many women who are very stable, responsible, sexual, powerful, athletic. All of these have to do with the lower chakras.

A lot of women are logical (often ignoring emotions), scientific, mathematical, business-minded, and so on.

It's a different meaning, the "feminine" and "masculine" parts of the soul and brain, it's not the same as biological gender/sex. They are not to be confused.

Look at the individual, and what they are capable of. Chakra function has nothing to do with the gender of the individual.

Lydia [JG said:

" post_id=364087 time=1654683233 user_id=57]
Regarding the concept of the women being stronger with upper chakra abilities, and men being stronger with lower chakra abilities.

I disagree with this. Just because chakras, and sides of the soul, are "masculine" and "feminine", it does not mean the same as the biological sex of a human. Many women are lower-chakra strong, and many men are upper-chakra strong. Many women are left-brain dominant, and many men are right-brain dominant.

There are many men who are intellectual, communicative, wise, intuitive, and psychic. All of these have to do with the upper chakras.

A lot of men are more emotional (often ignoring logic), artistic, musical, imaginative, and so on.

There are many women who are very stable, responsible, sexual, powerful, athletic. All of these have to do with the lower chakras.

A lot of women are logical (often ignoring emotions), scientific, mathematical, business-minded, and so on.

It's a different meaning, the "feminine" and "masculine" parts of the soul and brain, it's not the same as biological gender/sex. They are not to be confused.

Look at the individual, and what they are capable of. Chakra function has nothing to do with the gender of the individual.

Click to expand...

Gender does effect brain,due to different hormones and just how biologically male and female are built different, but that's only on biological level not on spiritual.

On spiritual level all is effected/decided by placements of planets which sets the energies in one's soul.

For example females are more emotional than men on average due to their estrogen hormone, but it does not mean that their throat chakra is more powerful, its purely biological.

Lydia [JG said:

" post_id=364087 time=1654683233 user_id=57]
Regarding the concept of the women being stronger with upper chakra abilities, and men being stronger with lower chakra abilities.

I disagree with this. Just because chakras, and sides of the soul, are "masculine" and "feminine", it does not mean the same as the biological sex of a human. Many women are lower-chakra strong, and many men are upper-chakra strong. Many women are left-brain dominant, and many men are right-brain dominant.

There are many men who are intellectual, communicative, wise, intuitive, and psychic. All of these have to do with the upper chakras.

A lot of men are more emotional (often ignoring logic), artistic, musical, imaginative, and so on.

There are many women who are very stable, responsible, sexual, powerful, athletic. All of these have to do with the lower chakras.

A lot of women are logical (often ignoring emotions), scientific, mathematical, business-minded, and so on.

It's a different meaning, the "feminine" and "masculine" parts of the soul and brain, it's not the same as biological gender/sex. They are not to be confused.

Look at the individual, and what they are capable of. Chakra function has nothing to do with the gender of the individual.

Click to expand...

I thought that the case was that for example even masculinity or lower chakra attributes in females still had to go through some sort of " filter" of their gender, spiritually speaking. Like for example even if some women are MMA fighters and extremely masculine they are still biologically and spiritually a woman and naturally went along with some basic influences of being a woman. Same case for men. I dunno really.

Lydia [JG said:

" post_id=364087 time=1654683233 user_id=57]
Regarding the concept of the women being stronger with upper chakra abilities, and men being stronger with lower chakra abilities.

I disagree with this. Just because chakras, and sides of the soul, are "masculine" and "feminine", it does not mean the same as the biological sex of a human. Many women are lower-chakra strong, and many men are upper-chakra strong. Many women are left-brain dominant, and many men are right-brain dominant.

There are many men who are intellectual, communicative, wise, intuitive, and psychic. All of these have to do with the upper chakras.

A lot of men are more emotional (often ignoring logic), artistic, musical, imaginative, and so on.

There are many women who are very stable, responsible, sexual, powerful, athletic. All of these have to do with the lower chakras.

A lot of women are logical (often ignoring emotions), scientific, mathematical, business-minded, and so on.

It's a different meaning, the "feminine" and "masculine" parts of the soul and brain, it's not the same as biological gender/sex. They are not to be confused.

Look at the individual, and what they are capable of. Chakra function has nothing to do with the gender of the individual.

Click to expand...

The reason I said this was because of what men and women are traditionally good at, in a broad sense, not based on exceptions. I don't mean to draw an incorrect correlation between the biological genders and a part of a soul, but I do think that the genders themselves reflect the polarity seen in nature.

Beyond the chakras themselves, I look at the planetary energies for their more direct gender associations. For example, the moon ruling the women in a man's chart. We also know that the moon correlates with fertility, a womb, breasts, etc.
Yet, a man with a strong cancer influence does not develop breasts, showing that there is something unique to the genders themselves.

On the flip side, the sun rules the men in a women's chart and is associated with one's father, confidence, vitality, and wealth. Traditionally, men found themselves in positions of kingship. In a household, anyone that occupies the sun's role is expected to provide wealth to everyone.

I distinguish these between biological gender to help people make sense of themselves on an individual and gender basis. Even though we don't perfectly align with one gender, generally we should consider balancing ourselves with the opposite energies.

Since each of these planetary energies is associated with a specific chakra, and since each chakra draws in energy related to its functions, that is why I grouped the genders along the chakra lines. Also, the heart chakra, being of love, shows the connection between not just our own soul, but the connections we seek with others. So that is why it makes sense as the "border" between the upper and lower groups.

Lydia [JG said:

" post_id=364087 time=1654683233 user_id=57]
...

Click to expand...

Just to add additional clarification, I view the genders as having inherent strengths and weaknesses, similar to how the races are. Even though each race may have individuals who fall outside the stereotype, so will the genders.

We can look at the Gods and see those like Astarte, who even though she is associated in part with Aries, also embodies a feminine persona. Yet, her ability to be aggressive, authoritative or other Aries qualities is way beyond any human male, and likely many demonic males as well.

So I don't look at gender in a rigid manner, but I believe it still gives some degree of difference, such as in the case when you compare two "equal" male and female candidates. For example, male and female twins of equal soul development. What differences would you see between them?

This is an interesting discussion. I would love to see the clergy comment with thoughts as well.

I strongly agree both with Lydia and Blitzkreig on this matter. The dominance of elements that we are born with in itself represents our strength and weaknesses one have - which our physical appearance might represent to a stronger/lesser degree. Example, Jupiter in the first house might give a large body in some way, but other planetary aspects might offset this. Also, genetics of ones family also correlates to ones physique, though exceptions are present in this too.

Biology gender is not equivalent to the soul aspect in raw form. If that makes sense? I am not sure how to properly articulate myself, though Lydia and Blitzkrieg have done that very well.

I am male, and am physically strong. Yet, due to my water dominance I am more feminine to a degree and "less" masculine/strong physically than other men. I am artistic, psychic, imaginative, yet intellectual, athletic and stable.

I have a friend who is a woman, very feminine by nature. But, her personality have more masculine energy to it. She is very logical, stable, authoritative, intellectual and powerful.

Very interesting topic btw, and important!

HAIL SATAN!!!

Lydia [JG said:

" post_id=364087 time=1654683233 user_id=57]
...

Click to expand...

By the way, I kind of felt like I annoyed you by my stance on this. Although I felt an impulse to communicate what I believe is true, I also don't want to do it at the expense of our relationship.

I also don't want this thread or discussion to become a headache for you, where you are forced to sift through all the arguments and details.

Maybe I came on too strongly, especially after you made this thread without directly replying to me. So please excuse me for that.

As Lydia explained, the spiritual rulership and definition of "masculine" and "feminine" don't manifest based upon the gender of the individual, and are in fact wholly separate parts of manifestation dependent purely upon the state of ones soul and the development of ones being.

These manifest according the soul state and development of the individual, not anything else.

These can also change overtime as one works on lacking aspects to bring them up to par with ones strengths as a result of advancement.


Separation between the spiritual rulership and the individual's gender create the existence of "feminine" men and "masculine" woman (people who exhibit traits and have strengths on aspects that are associated or ruled by "feminine" or "masculine" rulership, leaning further to either side of this duality).

The rulership here refers to the underlying energy from which this duality is born and what sustains and manifests these aspects of the individual, not what is defined as masculine or feminine.

The definition happens to mostly overlap as intended with the fundamental manifestation of masculine and feminine aspects, but this definition was born from the observation and realization on the nature of these individual aspects and not the other way around.

The Gods of the Greek pantheon as a prime example show a more wholistic picture of this, and show clearly the manifestation of this duality is separate from the gender of the being itself.

Hail Satan!

Blitzkreig [JG said:

" post_id=364891 time=1654856826 user_id=21286]

Lydia [JG said:

" post_id=364087 time=1654683233 user_id=57]
...

Click to expand...

By the way, I kind of felt like I annoyed you by my stance on this. Although I felt an impulse to communicate what I believe is true, I also don't want to do it at the expense of our relationship.

I also don't want this thread or discussion to become a headache for you, where you are forced to sift through all the arguments and details.

Maybe I came on too strongly, especially after you made this thread without directly replying to me. So please excuse me for that.

Click to expand...

Oh Blitz, you absolutely did not annoy me! And this was not to you directly, it was a general statement, which is why I did not make it as a reply to you. I have noticed people mentioning this subject for years, and even believed it myself until more recently without even thinking about it, so if I seemed annoyed, it was at myself for not meditating on this. Because I myself in the past have mentioned that men were more lower-chakra and women upper-chakra dominant.

(I have not read any other replies yet, as I am short on time, but I felt the urge to type my name into the search bar and came across this reply by you.)

Lydia [JG said:

" post_id=364932 time=1654867981 user_id=57]

Blitzkreig [JG said:

" post_id=364891 time=1654856826 user_id=21286]

Lydia [JG said:

" post_id=364087 time=1654683233 user_id=57]
...

Click to expand...

By the way, I kind of felt like I annoyed you by my stance on this. Although I felt an impulse to communicate what I believe is true, I also don't want to do it at the expense of our relationship.

I also don't want this thread or discussion to become a headache for you, where you are forced to sift through all the arguments and details.

Maybe I came on too strongly, especially after you made this thread without directly replying to me. So please excuse me for that.

Click to expand...

Oh Blitz, you absolutely did not annoy me! And this was not to you directly, it was a general statement, which is why I did not make it as a reply to you. I have noticed people mentioning this subject for years, and even believed it myself until more recently without even thinking about it, so if I seemed annoyed, it was at myself for not meditating on this. Because I myself in the past have mentioned that men were more lower-chakra and women upper-chakra dominant.

(I have not read any other replies yet, as I am short on time, but I felt the urge to type my name into the search bar and came across this reply by you.)

Click to expand...

You're an inspiration!

Demonic said:

...

Click to expand...

The verb is "affect". "Effect" is exclusively a noun. Grammarly explains it better.


As for the topic, I agree with both Lydia and VoE.

That actually seems to make more sense. I feel the way you said is wrong had way too many contradictions while this is more of nuanced thing which Blitzkreig put more or less in his clarification.

Stormblood said:

Demonic said:

...

Click to expand...

The verb is "affect". "Effect" is exclusively a noun. Grammarly explains it better.


As for the topic, I agree with both Lydia and VoE.

Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/efjcQUpP3V0