Print

[blue]

Carysta wrote:

Wait, I just read the notes on the Old Laws, so that puts everything into perspective a little more. 
The Old Laws are certainly an interesting read.  I think it's interesting that this document exists, and while it certainly gives an interesting historical perspective, a couple of things made me wonder (besides the above post).  For example:


Quote
For the Gods love the Wica, as a man loveth a woman by mastering her.

...if the man is the 'master' how did they reconcile that with the High Priestess being the nominal head of the Coven?  I realize that this document is intended to be from the older times and perhaps based on historically handed down information; it still made me go 'huh'.

Blue:

This is one of the first things that comes up during a discussion of the Laws of Wicca. Women seem to key on it right away.

 Master   Really !  Huh ??

 It's only my opinion but i think there's much more to this than meets the eye. Early trad Wicca had a formal system of teaching. You were duely initiated and spent the first year and a day at the first degree. After that time, enough was revealed that you could make an informed, free will, choice as to whether Wicca was right for you or not.

 In the second and third degrees more was revealed to you.

 Do you see how the learning / teaching was done in stages ?

 One concept might have been introduced to you as an initiate. Once you gained mastery of that concept another truth might be revealed to you in the second degree which would cause you have to completely re-evaluate the situation.

 There's this process of tearing down and building up .... constantly progressing from one level of understanding to the next.

 It's interesting, because someone that understands this can address a mixed group of firsts, seconds, and thirds. The speaker's words are the same words mind you .... but how those words are interpeted is dependent upon the level of understanding of the recipient. A first might come away with one understanding .... a third degree it's polar opposite.

 I wish there were a simpler way to describe how this works but ....

 To me :  When the Ardennes speak of a man having a mastery of a woman it means many different things. Wicca is a demanding path. It's not for weaklings or the feint of heart. This "mastery" thing puts a huge demand upon a man to be a real man. He is after all a Representative of the G-d. That's no place for pantywaists or fops.

 To the ladies ... ever had a gent walk into the room that just turns your knees to jello ? Ever had the disappointment of later finding out that that he was just a poser and a player ?

 It's only my opinion but a true Representative of the G-d is the real deal. He's a man of strength, power, compassion, understanding, honor, love, dignity, and honesty.

 He's the kind of man that almost any representative of the G-ddess could love, honor and respect of her own free will.   He is worthy ....

 In this sense he truly does have mastery of a woman doesn't he ?

Carysta wrote:

Quote
Training

153. It has been found that practicing the art doth cause a fondness between aspirant and tutor, and it is the cause of better results if this be so.
154. And if for any reason this be undesirable, it can easily be avoided by both persons from the outset firmly resolving in their minds to be as brother and sister or parent and child.
155. And it is for this reason that a man may be taught only by a woman and a woman by a man, and women and women should not attempt these practices together. So be it ordained

Blue:

 I think that this refers to one's training. It's done cross gender partly because it makes the learning process go smoother. When you have two of the same gender egos get in the way but of you have a teacher and a student of opposite gender there's a useful sexual tension which exists to some degree or another.

 Some degree of attraction between student and teacher is normal. I think what the old laws are saying is that both parties have to decide, and be very clear from the outset, whether this to be a sexual or nonsexual relationship so that no harm comes later on.

 Carysta wrote:

...reference to homosexuality?  What is the (modern) Wiccan perspective on relationships between people of the same gender?

Blue:

 Well ... the Ardains are only advise ....

 I think you have to bear in mind though that Wicca is a fertility religion and celebrates the union of the G-ddess and the G-d in it's ritual.

 Maybe, on another level , does a guy that goes both ways really turn you on ?  Most women don't have a problem with gay men being gay but the thought of their man ever being with another man puts them off. This isn't true of all women, some find it to be a turn on, but most have some kind of problem with it on a gut level.

 As always .... only my opinion and not necessarily well informed. I haven't done the Wiccan degree thing.
 

[Carysta]

Blue, you bring up some very good points in your post. 

To me :  When the Ardennes speak of a man having a mastery of a woman it means many different things. Wicca is a demanding path. It's not for weaklings or the feint of heart. This "mastery" thing puts a huge demand upon a man to be a real man. He is after all a Representative of the G-d. That's no place for pantywaists or fops.

 To the ladies ... ever had a gent walk into the room that just turns your knees to jello ? Ever had the disappointment of later finding out that that he was just a poser and a player ?

 It's only my opinion but a true Representative of the G-d is the real deal. He's a man of strength, power, compassion, understanding, honor, love, dignity, and honesty.

 He's the kind of man that almost any representative of the G-ddess could love, honor and respect of her own free will.   He is worthy ....

 In this sense he truly does have mastery of a woman doesn't he ?

While I can agree in principle to the above - who wouldn't want a man such as you describe - why does  he have to have 'mastery' of the woman?  Why can she not also be a woman of strength, power, compassion, understanding, honor, love, dignity and honesty?  If the God and Goddes are truly both sides of the same Deity why can there not be an assumption of equality between the man and woman?  My two cents - some of my later posts show my thought progression on this issue   Where it's mastery of self that matters, living as the type of person you have described, in order to best serve the God and Goddess by being one's own master and by mastering the teachings of Wicca.

It's only my opinion but i think there's much more to this than meets the eye. Early trad Wicca had a formal system of teaching. You were duely initiated and spent the first year and a day at the first degree. After that time, enough was revealed that you could make an informed, free will, choice as to whether Wicca was right for you or not.

 In the second and third degrees more was revealed to you.

 Do you see how the learning / teaching was done in stages ?

 One concept might have been introduced to you as an initiate. Once you gained mastery of that concept another truth might be revealed to you in the second degree which would cause you have to completely re-evaluate the situation.

 There's this process of tearing down and building up .... constantly progressing from one level of understanding to the next.

 It's interesting, because someone that understands this can address a mixed group of firsts, seconds, and thirds. The speaker's words are the same words mind you .... but how those words are interpeted is dependent upon the level of understanding of the recipient. A first might come away with one understanding .... a third degree it's polar opposite.

This idea of the three degrees is one I've come across several times but you explain it a lot more clearly   Food for thought, indeed.

Well ... the Ardains are only advise ....

 I think you have to bear in mind though that Wicca is a fertility religion and celebrates the union of the G-ddess and the G-d in it's ritual.

Definitely something I hadn't even thought about, at the time of posting.  Personally I have no issues with anyone's orientation - it was simply the wording of that particular passage that prompted my thought process there.

[Arnemetia]

While I can agree in principle to the above - who wouldn't want a man such as you describe - why does  he have to have 'mastery' of the woman? 

As FW brought up earlier ITT. Think of the definitions of "mastery". Could it not mean "fully understanding"? Such as, "I have mastered the operation of the lawn mower"

[C_A]

As FW brought up earlier ITT. Think of the definitions of "mastery". Could it not mean "fully understanding"? Such as, "I have mastered the operation of the lawn mower"

Indeed.  Think of the "position" I mentioned earlier ITT...

Substitute the word "MAESTRO"....

[theosophia]

If the God and Goddes are truly both sides of the same Deity why can there not be an assumption of equality between the man and woman?

I'm not Wiccan.  Never have been.  Likely never will be.  But I do seem to recognize some of the principles at work here so I'll chip in my ignorant two-cents:

"Equality" is over-rated.  No two things in the Universe are ever completely "equal."  And if the God and Goddess are "truly both sides of the same Deity" then there is no possible way for them to be actually "equal" else you wouldn't be talking about "two sides" but just one monotonous "deity."

But neither "inequality" nor "mastery" have necessarilly anything to do with one thing being more or less important or even "powerful" than the other.

While I can agree in principle to the above - who wouldn't want a man such as you describe - why does  he have to have 'mastery' of the woman?  Why can she not also be a woman of strength, power, compassion, understanding, honor, love, dignity and honesty?

Like I said, my "tradition" is not Wiccan, but it does have everything to do with "Mastery" so I'll comment from my perspective:

In my Spiritual "practice" I recognize what could in a way be considered to be a simplified version of Kabbalah where on one "side" there is Love, Compassion, Forgiveness, etc and on the other side there is Power, Strength, Courage, etc. 

"Mastery" works both ways:  The side of Love & Compassion is to be mastered by Strength & Courage and the side of Strength & Courage is to be mastered by Love & Compassion with Wisdom in the middle.

If you're talking about a sexual relationship (in, for instance, a pagan fertility religion) it works just as well the same:  If the man really actually has no "mastery" of the woman, then he's either a feeble wimp who may want to do something good for her but has no clue what he's doing or else he's an overbearing jerk who doesn't care.  (Being overbearing and powerful in and of itself is most definitely not "mastery" and will always lead to sub-optimal results.)

So, with regard to sexuality:  To turn your question around, what woman would not want a man who has the proper "mastery"??

[Carysta]

As FW brought up earlier ITT. Think of the definitions of "mastery". Could it not mean "fully understanding"? Such as, "I have mastered the operation of the lawn mower"

Ah, in this we are in agreement.  However the way I understood Blue's post (and this is only my interpretation not in any way necessarily Blue's original intent) (also we won't get into how I still dislike the wording of the Ardanes in this particular instance) is that because the man is the embodiment of strength, power, compassion, understanding, honor, love, dignity, and honesty thus he has mastery of the woman.  I know men who could fall under those categories who STILL don't understand women...  not in the general sense but in the totally-clueless sense.  I also know women who can fall into those categories and be clueless about men.  I personally don't have 'full understanding' of men either lol.  I'd hope once I found a life partner it would be because there was good understanding between us (although I'd want there to be some mysteries left on both sides or really, there would be none of that amazing sense of discovery about the other person, but that's more a personal note on relationships than anything else).

As far as the physical side of a relationship - What about in a case of two people of relatively little experience?  It could be said neither has mastery of the art, yet part of the joy may be the journey together to finding that mastery.  I don't actually think any given two partners would have 'mastery' of each other in this sense right off the bat - because while someone might have a lot of good technique, what if none of those techniques work well on the person they are currently with?  So the discovery of what works in any given pairing will eventually lead to that mastery for both.  Which really works as a metaphor for understanding anything - everyone starts out not having mastery of something, but should find joy in the journey to having that fuller understanding.

Anyway this all leads back to that phrase in the Ardanes that I am going to learn to understand...

So in the interest of the debate, let's put the terms "full understanding" into the passage of the Ardanes that's still giving me so much trouble.

As a man loveth a woman by mastering her,
So should the Wicca love the gods by being mastered by them.

If we assume that 'mastering' is in the sense of fully understanding...

As a man loveth a woman by fully understanding her,
So should the Wicca love the gods by being fully understood by them.

This is where I get hung up.  It's semantics I know, but you can't take out the being-by and just make it "by fully understanding them" and still have the same sense of the original passage.  Why would we love the gods by being fully understood by the gods?  Hence my original feeling that in this case the sense of the word 'mastery' is still the sense of being controlled.  That's why I then postulated that perhaps since the God and Goddes are within us all, the control comes from within and by having control of ourselves and following the laws do we have 'mastery' and also are we 'mastered by' the God and Goddess.


One last note on 'equality' - I think the better term that I should have used might be 'balance'.  Kind of like not being able to have right without left, day without night - there are two sides to every coin.  Except those trick coins that are heads on both sides... anyway, by 'equality' in this sense I truly meant 'balance' as in, there should be balance between the relationship of the man and the woman.  Implying that a strong (etc) man thus has mastery of the woman bugs me because someones qualities, be they ever so wondrous, should not imply either full knowledge of someone else nor be a reason to have control over someone else. 

[Arnemetia]

You have some very good points.
I also had problems with the wording of that phrase. Bear in mind the time period when this was written also. Uncle Jerry was a man of his time, a homophobe and a dirty old man. 

[Carysta]

You have some very good points.
I also had problems with the wording of that phrase. Bear in mind the time period when this was written also. Uncle Jerry was a man of his time, a homophobe and a dirty old man. 

Hehehe I haven't read enough Gardner to have formulated an opinion about him or his works yet   I will grant you the time period was much more restrictive to begin with and would have had a heavy influence on the writings of the Laws... or so I'd assume.

[FireWillow]

If the God and Goddes are truly both sides of the same Deity why can there not be an assumption of equality between the man and woman?

There are Wiccans, myself included, that don't view Goddess and God as "both sides of the same deity."  I believe They are aspects of the Universe as my daughter is an aspect of her mother and me.

One last note on 'equality' - I think the better term that I should have used might be 'balance'.  Kind of like not being able to have right without left, day without night - there are two sides to every coin.  Except those trick coins that are heads on both sides.

Again, you are on the right road, but have picked up the "both sides of the same deity" in the tires and because of this you're losing traction.  IMO, They are not the same; They are parts of the same whole, but are opposite.  They are not equal, but They epitomize balance.

I think to gain a better grasp here, you might wish to let go of the "men and women are equal" and the "control" that you are attempting to cram into the laws dealing with mastery.  As far as womens' rights are concerned, yes, we should be equally allowed the same rights under the Constitution, but as far as being equal otherwise in the eyes of Goddess and God, you would do well to understand that men and women are not the same, nor are they 'equal.'  There are things women can do that men cannot and visa versa.  But together, they epitomize balance...when mastery is obtained.

[Carysta]

There are Wiccans, myself included, that don't view Goddess and God as "both sides of the same deity."  I believe They are aspects of the Universe as my daughter is an aspect of her mother and me.

Put this way, it makes a lot of sense.  They are parts of the whole but also their own individual thing.  They would be incomplete if one part was missing. 

Again, you are on the right road, but have picked up the "both sides of the same deity" in the tires and because of this you're losing traction.  IMO, They are not the same; They are parts of the same whole, but are opposite.  They are not equal, but They epitomize balance.

I think to gain a better grasp here, you might wish to let go of the "men and women are equal" and the "control" that you are attempting to cram into the laws dealing with mastery.  As far as womens' rights are concerned, yes, we should be equally allowed the same rights under the Constitution, but as far as being equal otherwise in the eyes of Goddess and God, you would do well to understand that men and women are not the same, nor are they 'equal.'  There are things women can do that men cannot and visa versa.  But together, they epitomize balance...when mastery is obtained.

Mastery of self and mastery of each other in this sense (in the sense of complete understanding [of self and other] not of control)?  That's the definition I'd prefer because it makes so much more sense than the other way (which IMO is not balanced if one is in 'control' of the other).  When I've used equality between men and women it's been in the political sense ie. the same rights and responsibilites as opposed to being able to do all the exact same things.  TBH I normally don't like the term 'equality' because you hear so many women use it to try and gain an advantage over men - they want equal rights but not equal responsibility.  It's a politically charged term, so from here on in I'm going to use balance as much as possible.   

Now being new to my study of Wicca and paganism I have to ask - how absolute are the Ardanes?  I realize they are the Wiccan laws as put down by Gerald Gardner.  They seem to be open to a fair bit of interpretation (from my readings I gather even some of those closest to him in his coven had issues with some of the Laws...).  While it may seem I'm trying to cram 'control' into the two lines about mastery, if you read them as written, semantically, that's the only option available based on how they are written.   Let me put it a different way to see if I can better explain why these lines are such a stumbling block. 

If I were to write:

As a man loves a woman by understanding her, so should the Wicca love the gods by being understood by them.   

But then if I were to write:

As a man loves a woman by understanding her, so should the Wicca love the gods by understanding them.

The first phrase and the second phrase do not have the same meaning.  Change it up for 'mastering' in the sense of learning/grasping/fully understanding - it works in the second one, it does not work in the first one because of the structure of the sentence.  As much as I would like to interpret the first phrase to mean the same thing as the second phrase, that would only be my interpretation of it.  So, can we disregard how it is structured in order to put the meaning in?

[C_A]

I have upper body strength that most women do not.  I have the strength to dig furrows in the Earth for seeds.  To wrestle with, and kill, my prey.  I have the ability to stoicize my emotions, and I do not have, to the same extent, the instinct to care for children.  Women have the ability to bear children.  The attrntion to detail that can plant seeds in my furrows, and make me clothes out of the skins of my prey so I don't freeze my primitive ASS off chasing MORE prey...she's thoughtful like that.  SHE will nurture and rear the young instinctively.  My wife isn't half the man I am.  Nor am I half the woman SHE is.  We're not supposed to be.  SHE is ALL WOMAN.  I am ALL MAN.  Do WE balance each other out?  YES.  In EVERY respect you can name, and some I'd prefer you didn't.

The SAME?  Equal?  Balanced?  Halves?  Thirds?  Tenthousandths?  Leaning to one side or the other?  Too heavy?  Too light?  STANDING STRAIGHT UP?

This isn't quite so abstract, nor, for that matter, logical, that it should elude ANYone for more than a post or two.  You see....it's NOT about what another person "would write" or would "have it to say", it IS what it IS.  It's not about twelve dozen definitions of "mastery", it's about one.  It's not about DIVIDING the sexes, it's about UNITING them.  In order to form a WHOLE.
Even the author over at timerift said that he believes the Ardanes to be outdated and useless.  I DISAGREE.

I an NOT known for my "political correctness".  As a matter of fact, I am THE most "politically INcorrect" person on these fora.  MEN need to stop trying to be Alan Alda and Phil Donahue and women need to stop ASKING them to be.  Nor should we necessarily be the brutish caricature of men on the sofa with the remote and a beer scratching our private parts.  Women need not be FloJo.  Or Hillary.  Or Ayn Rand.  Or for THAT matter, Donna Reed or Harriet Nelson.  (oh....google it for Pete's sake!), Women need to stop trying to make sense of men.  We ARE NOT sensible in your capacity to understand...AND VICE-VERSA!  We are DIFFERENT!  The SEVENTIES be DAMNED, we are different.

That may leave a bitter taste in some mouths.  Sorry.  Not.  Deal.  Cast aside the "media invention" of Roseanne, Raymond, the "King of Queens", Jim Belushi, and all the other "MOTHER / FATHER knows best / worst / nothing / everything" stereotypes and use YOUR brains and brawn to LIVE in this incarnation.

The point here is this:  YES, the Ardanes, as well as the Rede, the Charges, and all of the other writings Wicca has that can approach scripture, were written with ONE THING IN MIND!  BALANCE!

Male/female.  Black/white.  Positive/negative.  Good/evil.  In/out.  Stop/go.  Front/back.  LEFT and RIGHT.

If you do, and WHEN you do, Wiccan or not, you'll be MUCH better off for it.

[Carysta]

Everything else about balance aside (and I agree with your points, we ARE different and should relish our strengths and our weaknesses)... 

You see....it's NOT about what another person "would write" or would "have it to say", it IS what it IS.  It's not about twelve dozen definitions of "mastery", it's about one.

 

The point here is this:  YES, the Ardanes, as well as the Rede, the Charges, and all of the other writings Wicca has that can approach scripture, were written with ONE THING IN MIND!  BALANCE!

I'm not questioning the nature of balance, the necessity for balance, or its importance in nature and in human relations.  I realize that there must be light and shadow, up and down, ocean and land, men and women.  I'm questioning the specific wording of a specific part of the Ardanes that no matter how you spin it does not allow for 'mastery' to be 'learning/gaining complete understanding'.  As written, Rules 5 and 6 do not allow any of those synonyms to make sense.  If we must take them as written, then the sense of mastery in this context must be that of being controlled.  Semantically, it's not that difficult to understand.

Just for argument's sake (because who doesn't love a good heated discussion)...  the Old Laws are very specific with regards to secrecy and the protection of the Craft from outsiders, and even from those among the different covens.  Aren't we all technically breaking the Old Laws simply by participating in this discussion forum?

[C_A]

No.  We are not sharing oathbound or coven-related issues.

That would be a violation.

I don't see what six has to do with it, other than the fact that they used the sumptive "g-ds", not spelling out "g-ds and g-ddesses".

It's not spin.  As I said before...think "Maestro" instead of "MASTER/SLAVE", or even "understanding".

A MAESTRO is responsible for an orchestra sounding like an orchestra, not a bunch of people sawing on violins, blowing into tubas, and banging on drums.  A MAESTRO arranges, instructs, orchestrates, leads, conducts, and coordinates all of the cacophony into a more pleasant sound.  Melodies.  Harmonies.  Staccatos.  Crescendos.  Adagios.  The G-DS do this for us.  Men do this for women, and vice-versa.  In different ways, at different times, and for different reasons / causes / effects / seasons / directions, on and on, ad infinitum. 

You're dragging the word "semantics" through a forest of semantics for a reason....I do not know what that reason is.  It has NOTHING to do with "superiority" or "subservience" in that respect, though there are moments when it does.  There are, (and we start leaning HARD on number six here...), DUTIES for each in the coven and in ritual.  It all works out.  The HPs is "in charge", but she draws strength from the HP.  The HP GIVES this strength, freely, willingly.  It ALL comes out to balance.  Men teach girls.  Women teach boys.  Does that have an air of "servitude" or "MASTER" to it?  If you break your oath, the G-ddess damns you.  It didn't SAY that the G-d does as well....does that mean he doesn't?  Why?  Doesn't He care?  Is he BUSY being a slavedriver?  A pimp? An abusive husband?

If the G-ds (okay, AND G-desses...), leave you this much doubt, fine.  These Ardanes have suited me and many like me for many, many years.  We don't "preach" it.  We don't "tell" it.  We LIVE it.  As we have, and as we will.

My only hope is that the light of it turns on...for you, as well as anyone else reading this.  If it does, I am happy.  If it doesn't, well...I'm STILL happy, but a bit dismayed that this SINGLE POINT can actually be the RATIONALE for a lot of the schism in Wicca today.  A schism that causes more harm, not ONLY to Wicca itself, but to the greater neo-pagan movement at-large.  Indeed, it tears at the fabric of religious freedom....there's a reason why people take neo-pagans as a bunch of "loonies-going-through-a-phase"....it has a LOT to do with McWicca(c)...

"I don't like the phrase "mastered", so I'm going to change it to what I want, and STILL call myself Wiccan".

"I don't like the image of the Horned G-d, so I'm gonna worship a Silvery-Winged Pink Unicorn and STILL call it Wicca".

"I don't LIKE 'DARK MAGICKQE", so I'm gonna build a website with ALL kinds of RAINBOWS instead and call it REAL WICCA".

I am not accusing YOU of any of these infractions, but it helps make the point.

WICCA IS WICCA.  Anything else isn't.

Would that I could have 1% of the fluff become REAL Wiccans!  We'd be a strong, vibrant, living faith.  Too many loonies making a fashion statement have rendered us impotent....erm....and barren. 

I DO. however, applaud your tenacity.

[theosophia]

I'm questioning the specific wording of a specific part of the Ardanes that no matter how you spin it does not allow for 'mastery' to be 'learning/gaining complete understanding'.  As written, Rules 5 and 6 do not allow any of those synonyms to make sense.

You are correct.  Those synonyms do not make any sense.  They are not intended to.  You are not supposed to substitute "understanding" for "mastery."  They do not mean the same thing.  The phrase does not refer to the man "understanding" the woman.  If it did, that could just as easilly be interpreted as putting the man in a similar "lesser" position as the one that you are objecting to for the woman.  

I think that one main problem you are having is that you (along with most of the rest of the culture) see the term "master" as a word that necessarilly diminishes the importance or power of the object of the mastery and puts him/her in a somehow "lesser" position.  But it has nothing to do with "lesser" or "greater" any more than it does with merely "understanding."


Read very carefully the last two posts by the Old Crow.


I particularly like his last post.  Think for instance of a person who may be the world's greatest (perhaps female) violinist.  There is nobody on earth who can even come close to the beauty of her music as she plays.  Now, consider her playing with an orchestra.  She is the centerpiece.  In the context of the current performance, she is the whole reason for their existence.  BUT there is also no way on earth that she could do what she's doing without the Conductor -- the Concert Master -- conducting the performance.  

Is he just there to conduct the rest of the gang because they don't know what they're doing?  No.  He is the "master" of the entire performance -- both them and her.


Is it he or is it she who is "more important" or "more powerful" in the performance of the music?  The answer is: No.

[blue]

 I'm completely in agreement with C_A and the others.

 True Wicca simply is what it is. Don't try to remake it to suit the feminist ideal. I was there when the women's movement started and have been a strong supporter of the rights of women all along. None the less ... the women's movement is a failed social experiment. The generation of young women coming up these days are returning to traditional roles. The reason women's lib failed so miserably is because it blithely ignored certain key elements of female human nature.

 Carysta: It would have been better if you had discovered the truth of Wicca in a formal degree setting. It's too much to take in all at once. You can't go from a first degree to a third degree understanding in a single day. It takes years to understand and appreciate. Don't dismiss it simply because it doesn't fit with your idea of how things are supposed to be.

 Have you ever heard of Ayn Rand ? She was a highly intelligent, extremely powerful woman and respected author. In a couple of her books, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" she created male characters that in her mind were the reflections of the perfect man. It's worth checking out because if nothing else she was brutally honest. You might discover a core truth in her writings.

 Bear in mind ... when i described a worthy representative of the G-d i was describing the qualities of a real man. A master or maestro if you will. It was planting the seed of a better understanding but it wasn't supposed to fall into place for a number of years yet.