Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tl00011)

nJan 2nd 1999

Dear friends:

I find it amazing and distressing to note how much attention is
being given to the exoteric speculations about the union of the
male and the female in the last moth or so of exchanges.

Why not let us all consult the S D and look up what HPB has to
say about the primordial separation of the "sexes" their
subsequent "unions," the result of which is our Kosmos - and
then, see if this, as a process, is repeated for our little
Cosmos:  the Solar system, and finally for our "Earth" and all
the beings that evolve on it.  Every time we wake up, I think we
can trace how we repeat the whole process in miniature, if we
look for our memory of how we arouse ourselves to waking
consciousness daily.

Theosophy teaches that the spiritual soul in man and woman
(ATMA-BUDDHI) has no "sex."  It uses at each incarnation that
kind of body where its Karma allows the best resolution of causes
set up earlier in previous lives.  So it is, after all, not very
important whether we use male or female bodies, so long as we
learn from the experience.  The primary idea is, I think, that we
are, each of us, immortals, and we are trying to assure ourselves
of this fact, and then decide how to make use of it.

In my opinion:  This obsession with "sex" is a degradation of the
great idea of unity that allows for, first duality, and then, the
"multiplicity" that is needed for the "creation" of a fresh form
for a returning immortal Ego to enter and use.  All the "lower
kingdoms" of nature participate in this process, and they do so
under "natural impulse, unconsciously.  WE are responsible in
general for their training, and we ought to treat them as our
"children," if we assume that responsibility.  Our
responsibilities as parents are important.   Are these not to be
considered ?  How is it that we have become so interested in
adventure and pleasure that we cease asking these vital questions
?  What are we doing to each-other, to the rest of nature around
us, and to our very real physical children when we generate them
?

Why should we limit our inquiries to the ideas and illustrations
of Tantrik texts that degrade and physicalize (and psychically
debase) the grand idea of the family and connubial life?  It is
unfortunate that we seem, as a race, at this bend of the cycle,
to be obsessed with the psychic enjoyment of "sex."  Should this
not be considered from its deeper aspects ?  Who among us cares
for the karmic results of promiscuity ?  What kind of a future
are we projecting for ourselves when we have finished with our
short-lived physical "enjoyments?"  Do we really think that
Theosophy and Nature condones our ignorance and our very selfish
obsessions ?  What are the responsibilities that are incumbent on
married life and the raising of children?  But the consideration
of this would require a long article, and this is long enough.

Theosophy speaks of the TWO ONES:  the transcendent and the
immanent (SD I 130 top).  The first, the ABSOLUTE can never be
described by the personal lower mind of incarnated man, but it
may be considered as a logical necessity - and THAT which is the
Pervasive yet never to be limited LIVING BACKGROUND of all being
[ the Ain-Soph of the Kabalist, the Parabrahmam of the Hindu,
etc...].

Then when the never-dormant Karmic cycles demand that the
Universe rise out of its Pralayic sleep (LONG AS THEY ARE, THEY
ARE SUCCESSIVE) we are given an idea of the Creative ONE, on the
most tenuous planes of the spiritual.  Its ex-istence demands at
that remotest point a refined SUBSTANCE - the first vestige of
MATTER  [Mulaprakriti -- Maha-Buddhi - Akasa and other names ]
If that (central yet universal) Creative Point (in the Circle of
limitations), is called the Logos, the Creator, the Prime Number,
etc..., and given as designation the active "male" potency;  then
the MATTER which is associated with it [ Suddha-Sattwa
 Theosophical Glossary, p. 311) - primordial CONSCIOUSNESS or
MAHAT ] is treated as the opposite "pole,"  and said to be the
"female" potency (Vach-Speech, Isis, Lakshmi, etc....)

Acting together as "husband and wife," these produce the Active
Creator which becomes active on the next plane down of
materiality - that of the Mind-Manas in its universal aspect
named MAHAT.  This Active Creator (the Second, or Creative Logos)
working with its "mother" interacts with her to produce the 7
Sons - or "Creators," Rishis, Yogis, Manus, Sephiroth,
Prajapatis, etc...)  Thus we have the "Three in One."  It is
represented by described triangle embracing 3 planes in the SD I
200 diagram.  Below it are the 7 that are in evolution.  Ours in
particular is "Globe D" the 4th or the "balance," the mediator
between beginning and ending.  Here is where we are and evolution
is actively proceeding as we rise into the planes of the mind.
Thus the "husband" (male potency) produces the wife (female
potency), interacts with her and produces a son, and in turn at
the lower level this 'son" interacts with its 'mother" to produce
the 7 basic "creators of Kosmos."  And this progression is
repeated for every smaller Cosmos in the Universal manifestation,
right down to the physical molecule and the "life-atoms"
(Monads, skandhas, etc.)

Thus if we look closely at the diagram of manifestation in SD I
200 we see the Spiritual Three, based on the transcended first
Three.  The next 4 planes provide the area where the 7 lower
"creators," "races of mankind" "principles," etc... work and
interact as each "life-atom (Monad) individualizes and becomes
more and more a Mind-being.  This is where we are.

However, in my opinion, if we do not study this pattern and do
not familiarize ourselves with the implications in our daily
lives of the 7 principles of nature and of man, of Karma, and of
the ultimate Goal or perfectibility or WISDOM and COMPLETE
KNOWLEDGE of our Universe, we delay our own progress and
understanding of this great program.  And what is more, we delay
that of others.  We can become very learned about the ephemera of
scholasticism and yet remain ignorant of the general purpose of
our lives and of the rest of the Universe, and its progress.  A
sense of the importance of Brotherhood can cure this.

I hope that these ideas may be of help in resolving this morass
of opinions.  Let's get a basis from which we can proceed and
cease hurling quotations from various sources, Tibetan,
Buddhistic, Chinese, Indian, etc... which make no sense unless
the underlying patterns are known and employed.

There is no way that metaphysics can be studied solely with the
aid of materialistic interpretations that are not correlated with
the metaphysical source from which they are derived.  The
esoteric keys that Theosophy offers, can do this, and these
superficial and rather useless positions based on modern
interpretations of ancient texts can be resolved if we make use
of the information that Theosophy offers.  That is basic to all
(see SD I 272-3 Item "1") which is in all our hands, but which
many of us seem to avoid getting familiar with so as to make
actual applications of that information.

The main problem (as I see it) is that we are selective in our
considerations and we tend to reject or avoid such propositions
as do not reflect our immediate interests, whether they be true
or not.  So we remain ignorant of the "other side" of the
situation.

I would recommend using the INDEX to the SD and review what is
said in the SD on "creation," "sex," "male and female," etc...

Best wishes,

Dallas

-----Original Message-----
> From:	owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com
> [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of
> Caldwell/Graye
> Sent:	Saturday, January 02, 1999 8:29 AM
> To:	theos-talk@theosophy.com; blafoun@azstarnet.com
> Subject:	Theos-World Re:  A Blavatsky Student Gives View on "Karmamudra"----More on "karmamudra":  

READER BEWARE---THIS IS
SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL AND POSSIBILY EVEN "X-RATED" TO SOME

SUBJECT:  Re:  A Blavatsky Student Gives View on "Karmamudra"

More on "karmamudra":

READER BEWARE!!!

THIS IS SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL AND POSSIBLY EVEN "X-RATED" TO SOME
READERS.  PLEASE DO NOT READ IF EASILY OFFENDED.

This is my reply to my correspondent who wrote the posting titled
"A
Blavatsky Student Gives View on 'Karmamudra'."

Daniel

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++

------------,

This is in answer to your email.

You ask about David Reigle's view on karmamudra.  From numerous
talks on
the
telephone, it is my understanding that he believes that there is
a
symbolic
dimension to, for example, Tsong Kha Pa's writings on karmamudra.
In
other
words, he doesn't take it literally.  Part of his view is based,
I
believe, on
much of what Madame Blavatsky writes throughout her writings on
symbolism,
etc.  I sent David Reigle a gift copy of TSONGKHAPA'S SIX YOGAS
OF
NAROPA
translated by Glenn Mullin.  After reading this translation,
especially
on
karmamudra (pp. 164-165), where Tongkhapa writes about "sexual
play",
and also
writes:  ". . . those wishing to engage physically in the sexual
yoga
should be
qualified" and even writes about entering "into sexual union with
this
visualized consort [a mandala dakini]" and arousing "the four
blisses",
---I
take it that David considers this all as somehow symbolic.  Also
I
believe he
said that the original Tibetan does not use the word "sexual".
This is
an
addition by Mullin probably based on what he has learned from his
Gelugpa
teachers.  This seems to be David's "view" on the material.  I'm
hoping
David
will write something in his own words on this topic.  Also
related to
this was
David's comments that the term "wine" is used in the Kalachakra
texts,
but
should we take this literally or should it be taken more
symbolically as
the
term wine is used, for example, in the Sufi tradition?  He also
pointed
out
that human "reincarnation" into the animal kingdom is accepted
literally
by the
Gelugpas, but would or should Theosophists or Blavatsky students
ALSO
accept
this as literal truth?

 I have found in Blavatsky's writings a number of passages which
I think
are
relevant (to some degree) to the literal or symbolic nature of
"karmamudra".
Here are two passages in THE COLLECTED WRITINGS:

(1)  Volume X, pp. 155-156 on Gichtel.  I quote but one excerpt
from two
pages
of HPB's text which should be read in its complete form:

"From Marcus, the Gnostic, down to the last mystic student of the
Kabala
and
Occultism, that which they called their 'Bride' was 'Occult
Truth,'
personified
as a NAKED MAIDEN, otherwise called Sophia or Wisdom."  Caps
added.

What is the term in the Buddhist Tantras for "Wisdom"?

(2)  Volume XII, pp. 558-559 from HPB's E.S. Instruction No. II.

"Those who know the history of Simon have the two versions before
them,
that of
White and of Black Magic, at their option, in the much talked of
union
of Simon
with Helena, whom he called his Epinoia (Thought)."

Was Helena "a beautiful and ACTUAL woman"?  Caps added.

Did Simon engage in "sexual union" with Helena?

HPB answers these questions as follows:

"Indeed, the chief rites of this kind of magic are based on such
digusting
LITERAL interpretation of noble myths. . . . Those who understood
it
CORRECTLY
knew what was meant by 'Helena'.  It was the marriage of Nous
(Atma-Buddhi)
with Manas. . . .Helena was the Sakti of the inner man, the
female
potency."
Caps added.

And HPB also writes in the SD (I, 381):

"Such is the cosmic and ideal significance of this great symbol
[the
lotus] with the Eastern peoples. But, applied to practical and
exoteric
worship -- which had also its esoteric symbology -- the lotus
became in
time the carrier and container of a more terrestrial idea. No
dogmatic
religion has ever escaped the sexual element in it; and to this
day it
soils the moral beauty of the root idea. . . . It is the profane
of the
past ages who have degraded the pure ideal of cosmic creation
into an
emblem of mere human reproduction and sexual functions: it is the
esoteric teachings, and the initiates of the Future, whose
mission it
is, and will be, to redeem and ennoble once more the primitive
conception so sadly profaned by its crude and gross application
to
exoteric dogmas and personations by theological and
ecclesiastical
religionists. The silent worship of abstract or noumenal Nature,
the
only divine manifestation, is the one ennobling religion of
Humanity."

Keeping in mind what HPB writes above about the "lotus", compare
that
with what
Agehananda Bharati, an authority on Tantra, writes in the context
of
"Buddhist tantric practice":

"In Vajrayana practice today the preliminary exercises take up a
much
larger
portion than sexual congress; in fact, the latter element is now
often
eliminated. . . . Where there is actual copulation, retention of
semen
is
axiomatic:  'having brought down the *vajra* into the lotus, let
him not
eject
the knowledge mind.'  Such use of code or 'intentional language'
is a
feature
shared by Hindu and Buddhist tantrism.  It serves a key
terminology for
the
initiates and as a means to screen the teachings from outsiders.
'Knowledge-mind' (bodhicitta), for example, is a code term for
semen."

So "lotus" and "vajra" are code terms for what??

And compare the above with what Daniel Cozort in HIGHEST YOGA
TANTRA
(based on
Gelugpa tradition) writes:

"This sexual union, real or imagined, causes the substance drop
to
appear at
the tip of the sexual organ, but the drop is not emitted, being
willfully held
in place."

So drop ("bindu" or "thig le") is a code term for ------?

Having read and reread Cozort's book, I am amazed at its
resemblance to
various
Hindu Hatha Yogic texts.

Also compare the material in Cozort's book with what
HPB writes in her three Esoteric Section Instructions. It seems
to me
that
there is a world of difference in the two views.

I'm certainly open to new data and facts and so will keep an open
mind,
but for
the most part I prefer the symbolic approach.  This seems to me
much
more in
keeping with Blavatsky's and the Mahatmas' views.  Also more in
keeping
with my
understanding of mysticism and from my own mystical experiences.

Sorry the above was written in haste and may be somewhat
disjointed.
Will be
glad to fill in any blanks.  Also would appreciate more input
from you
so as to
CONTRAST your view with David Reigle's "take".

Daniel

blafoun@azstarnet.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --
theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting
of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.