Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00074)

>Daniel wrote:
>
>> >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.
>
>Nicholas replied:
>
>> No, you are not.  A physical woman, with certain qualities, is the
>> karmamudra.

No, you are not "reading too much into their words".

>In your above statement, you write:  "A physical woman, with certain
>qualities, is the karmamudra."  By this brief "answer" I assume you are
>saying that the word "karmamudra" can only be understood in a literal
>fashion or that the word could not possibly have some other
>meaning---metaphysically or symbolically.  In other words when even
>Tsong Khapa uses the term "karmamudra" there is no doubt at least in
>your mind that he is referring to a physical, actual female consort. Is
>this what you are attempting to communicate?

Yes. My first posting said this discussion could cause confusion; but
obtuseness is surprising.  Study the books on the subject, talk to a
Tibetan tantric -- I know nothing.

>Will these titles answer the question of whether the word "karmamudra"
>should be understood/viewed metaphysically, symbolically or literally?

You know your self better than I; read them and see.

>Daniel wrote:
>
>> >Take for comparison the word "pranayama".  Many schools of yoga take
>> >this as part of the means or road to enlightenment, but look at what
>> >Blavatsky and her Masters say in their writings about pranayama.  And
>> >see the interpretation that HPB gives to this word "pranayama" in her
>> >E.S. Instructions.
>
>Nicholas replied:
>
>> The ES teachings were (as was the TS) mainly aimed at the West -- and the
>> West is not ready for real pranayama, which Patanjali made an intergral
>> part of yoga.
>>
>> The human ego (Western or Eastern) is such that a spiritual teaching or
>> practice must be called "supreme" or "esoteric" before most people will
>> pay attention to it.  When we are told the plainest of truths, that our
>> qualifications fit us only for the kindergarten variety of spirituality,
>> most of us chafe and huff about it.
>
>Daniel comments:
>
>But again, Nicholas, you do not deal with the issue under discussion but
>go off in another direction.  Bringing the discussion back to
>"pranayama", I ask:  What do you mean by "real pranayama"?  And for
>contrast what is "non-real" pranayama?  And does Patanjali teach and
>advocate "real pranayama"?  Does Patanjali advocate such a practice
>while HPB, M and KH warn against its use?  In Fragment I of the VOICE OF
>THE SILENCE, a number of "stages" of development are given, but there is
>no mention of pranayama.  (original edition, pp. 18-20).  Compare to
>Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.

If you cannot abide others going in "another direction" I suggest you try
the monologue format. There you will find less diversion.

Real pranayama has to do with visualization on the chakras, mantras,
certain mental states, moving the pranic currents and breathing.

The ordinary notion focusses on only the latter.  Patanjali's sutras
mention an "internal" and a "fourth kind" of pranayama.  A guru is needed
to fill in the blanks; but only for a qualified disciple.

>Nicholas wrote:
>
>>It is many of the techniques that focus on the body, (astral, pranic or physical), that befoul us.
>
>Daniel replies:
>
>And from reading several graphic descriptions of "karmamudra", it
>appears to me (a poor Westerner) that this "karmamudra" may ALSO be a
>technique that focuses "on the body, (astral, pranic or physical)".
>Could karmamudra be another "befouling" technique to add to your list?

It was already on my list, being a "technique that focusses on the
body".

I am ignoring many of your queries for the following reasons, which are
sufficient unto myself.  They may not be adequate to your mind.

1) I do not speak for Je Rinpoche, the Geluk order or tantric buddhism.
2) I know nothing from personal experience.
3) The topic is unappealing, confusing & not necessary for living the life.
4) You can supply the answers yourself.

--
<> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles
  The effects of karma may be counteracted or mitigated by the thoughts
  and acts of oneself or of another.  "Aphorisms on Karma"