Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00024)

>But I am somewhat surprised that both Jerry and Nicholas seem to be
>saying or at least implying (maybe I am reading too much into their
>words) that the word "karmamudra" should be interpreted in a literal,
>physical fashion.
>

The karmamudra implies a physical consort just like the
Jnanamudra implies a psychological consort. Of possible
interest to you here is the Kagyupa School (Saraha, Nagarjuna,
Tilopa, Naropa, Marpa, Milerepa, Gampopa, etc). This
is the school that teaches Mahamudra, and considers it
to be superior to either karmamudra or jnanamudra.
See MAHAMUDRA: THE QUINTESSENCE OF MIND
AND MEDITATION by Takpo Tashi Namgyal, trans by
Lobsang P. Lhalungpa (Shambala, 1986) pp 96 to101:

This book quotes Padmavajra in the Guhyasiddhi (p 99):

The female consort of transformation is tumultous and devious.
So is the inner consort of manifest awareness.
Abandon these, which are replete with discrimination
And meditate on mahamudra.

So not all schools adhere to the physical or mental consort.


>Jerry asks the question:  "Why do you suppose that so many Tibetan
>deities and Knowledge Holders are shown in sexual union with a female
>consort?"
>
>Well, are we suppose to take all of this as literal?

No. It is taken as both literal and symbolical by most
schools, and I am sure that many take it only in a
symbolical sense.

>And what is the origin (going back through the centuries) of this idea
>that "to attain buddhahood in one lifetime it is necessary to use an
>'action seal' (an actual consort)"?  Why would it be really necessary?


Good question. I personally do not think it necessary.

Jerry S.