Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00161)

Jerry S:

>The sexes split at the inception of duality and will
>continue so long as we live in a dualistic world.

I recall that it happened in the Third Root Race and think that
it may end in the Sixth. The separation is not so much related to
duality as it is to one form of physical reproduction.

>>The being whose existence brings about our world a being which
>>might be called "God" is sexless.

>I do not believe that such a "being" exists. Our
>world was brought about by a countless host of beings all
>acting through karmic laws of causation and just a little
>chaos to liven things up.

>From the standpoint of this greater being it is coming into birth
and all these hosts of beings are the life-atoms being drawn to form
its principles and physical body. It is not in conscious relationship
with any of these specific life-atoms.

>From the standpoint of the countless hosts of beings they create
the world and the highest of them govern over it.

We have a dual view to the creation of a world-system. There's the
point of view of the Heavenly Man and that of the countless
"creations" or creatures of the world.

First Brahman awakens within the bosom of Parabrahman. There is an
awareness of identity yet non existence. Then Brahma awakens as the
creative male God of the world to be. This is the First Being the
first to exist the great being out of which pour forth all the various
Monads into the world.

Brahma would be called male. There is no physical gender to him
but the masculine characteristics of activity potency creative
origination of things and control are all qualities that could be
given him. The use of "him" is anthropomorphic and is not intended
to somehow say that men are godlike and women are not.

All these creatures Monads that come into existence in this world
system fall into three streams of evolution. The architects lay out
the blueprints of the worlds and their functioning. The builders
follow the blueprints and construct the actual things of the worlds.
And the materials are the passive beings that take on the forms given
them and follow instictively the patterns life they were impressed
with.

>Your words suggest a very narrow
>definition of "sex." In occultism female and male mean a
>lot more than physical bodies or personalities. Female is
>soft and accepting while male is firm and directing. Male is
>the conscious I while female is its world or Not-I and so on.

I don't think we disagree on this. I'd say that the masculine
and feminine are universal qualities and appear at all levels
up to the first level of manifestation where "Father-Mother
spin a Web".

I'd not call these qualities "sex" but rather limit that term
to our temporary method of physical reproduction.

>I agree with Jung that we each have an inner
>opposite sexual identity so that every man has a feminine
>anima and every woman has a masculine animus.

I'd rather consider the psychological complex that is the mirror
opposite of our sex like the anima for a man as really part of
the shadow. It represents the unlived-out compliment of our
conscious personality. We currently have a polarization of
personalities along sexual lines because of cultural roles and
the differing responsibilities of child-bearing and child-rearing.

As the cultural roles change and in the future with different
methods of coming into birth this polarization will go away.
There still will be psychological complexes that represent
qualities that are not consciously lived out in our lives
but these complexes will be different.

>Thus I would say that we don't have to wait for countless eons
>in the future but we are in fact whole and complete
>human beings right now.

We would be whole and complete when we can stop the activity
of mind that objectivizes the world and creates the false
notion of a personal self.

>>What we will find in the future I think is that as physical
>>gender differences disappear that anyone can live out an
>>individually-appropriate mix of masculine and feminine qualities
>>without regard to the size of their nose the color of their
>>eyes nor their reproductive plumbing.

>This will not happen in any of our lifetimes and I
>rather think it a pipedream albeit a nice one. The current
>movement toward "equality" is one in which women are trying
>to be more like men.

The Jungian model would have us consider men and women as
intrinsically different with different psychological complexes
and archetypes at work in their personalities. This is true from
the level of the personality but the distinction is lost when
we function in a mode of awareness that transcends the personality.

>This has already resulted in severe
>psychological damage to many women and some men.

The personality functions in a cultural context and that
context includes the different psychological and social training
that boys and girls are brought up with. The personality should
be regarded as living thing and allowed to grow and change as
nature dictates. If we attempt radical changes there's the danger
of psychological damage. For some it's possible to have both
masculine and feminine characteristics for others it may not be.
I wouldn't make a general rule one way or the other.

>The answer is not for one sex to imitate the other but for
>the two to combine in a monadic-like unity. I do not
>believe that this will ever happen on Globe D.

It's only at the highest level that the masculine and feminine
qualities are unified where we have "Father-Mother". Below this
level in the manifest world we have various mixes of these
separate qualities. Long after the physical distinction between
the sexes has gone away we'll still I think have masculine
individuals like Aries types and feminine individuals like
Pisces types.

-- Eldon