Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00033)

In Reference to Ap and Rasa:

Per Rich Taylor

> Unfortunately, Yungkans' source, Mahalanopis (?), seems not much
> better acquainted with the Sanskrit system he purports to teach,
> since under the heading "Ap" he translates "Rasa" as "affinity,"
> which it certainly is not.  Rather "rasa" is "sap, juice, flavor,
> water, fluid, liquor, essence, semen, poison, a symbol for number
> 6, the tongue, taste, myrrh, gold," and any number of other
> things.  But it has nothing to do with a cosmic law of affinity.

I'll provide additional material.  To quote another portion of
the treatise: "What is Ap? It is a more involved form of energy
than Tejas, which is now stepped-up in complexity by the
integration of Rasa.  Rasa 'literally' means sap or essence
'which affects our desires and fears, cravings and
shrinkings'(ref:Sri Aurobindo), that is attraction and repulsion.
In nature, it decides fusion and fission, attractions and
repulsions, likes and dislikes, variations and invariance.  They
are the two terms of a binomial, so to say, the two aspects of
'affinity'.  The oposite sets are not negations of each other.
They are processes in differentiation toward multiplicity and
diversity.  Ap represents, in transformations, composition and
decomposition.  either chemical or physical, even biological, if
we may presume it by inference..."

In ref to the definition provided by Rich,

    Taste = Desire.

Gold is a differentiation, in that "the first , in every zone,
was Moon colored; the second yellow like Gold" {Secret
Doctorine).  Semen is a differentiation, in that men have semen
and women have Ova.  Semen (and Ova) only have half the
chromosomes of a true cell, and doesn't semen have an affinity
for Ova?

In light if the above, it appears that the author DOES understand
the Sanskrit system quite well.  May this serve as an example of
why we must go beyond the "Literal" translation of a word to
understand a concept.  Quick judgements often produce problemsome
solutions.

While not intending to start a problem discussion here, I feel I
must refer again to Rich's comments:

> Yungkans mentions Alice Bailey as a possible source for
> comparison (her law of affinity/repulsion) but unfortunately what
> she knows she learned from Annie Besant, Leadbeater and Blavatsky
> combined, and so is not a very helpful source for esotericism.
> HPB works better unmitigated.

The court is still out here.  I do firmly believe that the TS
teachings highly influenced this author, however she did
introduce new material as well as present existing material
differntly.  I wouldn't condemm Baily for presenting this
material any more than I would any other T.S.  author (sans HPB).
Besides, this material can hardly be said to be exclusivly
Theosophy ala H.P.Blavatsky.

In answer to the question,

> Does Yungkans have access to Vedantin models of cosmology?

yes, in as much as has been presented by theosophical authors.
If you have another non-T.S.  source, I'd love to see you present
it.  I do also have the "Jain" model, which was proportedly
alledged by the Jains (according to HPB) to have been the
foundation of Gautama's teachings.

Lets take this further in the presentation of material and
concepts, but avoiding the condemnation of others.  It serves no
purpose except to create an atmosphere of hostility.  I look
forward to more discussion on this topic, especially from Mr.
Taylor.