Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00090)

Nicholas,

Thank you for your replies appended at the end of this email.

In one of those replies, you write:

> 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.

Well, Nicholas, this is your view.  But if we applied the gist of these
reasons to most of the discussions here on Theos-talk, all of us would
probably be writing nothing.  There would be silence and Eldon could
close down this Internet theosophical forum.

I agree with you that the topic is unappealing and confusing but is that
a good reason not to try to elucidate the subject?  In the last year or
two on Theos-talk, Jerry S. has referred to his disagreement with HPB's
and the Masters' attitude toward "sex".  No doubt, a number of other
Theos-Talk subscribers (as well as other Theosophical students in the
real world) have similar views.  Therefore, here is an area that needs
further exploration, investigation, discusssion, etc.  Many of these
individuals suggest that the HPB/Mahatmic view on "sex" is out-of-date,
prudish, downright wrong, etc.  Is this correct?  What is this based
on?  etc etc.

As regards the "unappealing" subject of karmamudra, is it not
appropriate to want to have a better understanding (if only
intellectual) of the subject especially in light of what HPB/the Masters
write about sex, celibacy, tantra, Tsong Khapa, the Buddha and other
relevant topics.

For example, KH speaks of the Buddha as "our great Buddha---the patron
of all the adepts, the reformer and the codifier of the occult system."
Yet when Daniel Cozort and John Powers assert that the Buddha had an
Action Seal, is it not reasonable for at least a Blavatsky student to
ask how these two statements (if both true) can be reconciled?

And KH also says the following about Tsong Khapa:

". . . that is the highest form of adeptship man can hope for on our
planet.  But it is as rare as the Buddhas themselves, the last Khobilgan
who reached it being Tsong-ka-pa. . . the reformer of esoteric as well
as of vulgar Lamaism. . . ."  Many other statements could be cited from
Blavatsky's writings concerning Tong-kha-pa.

Yet for certain writers (and I guess we can now include you and Jerry S)
to maintain that Tsong-kha-pa writes about an actual physical consort
and apparently acknowledges if not advocates that some *qualified*
"lamas" or "adepts" can gain true enlightenment using such a
consort---such statements should raise concerns if not questions among
many Theosophical and Blavatsky students. Did KH and M know that
Tsong-kha-pa actually advocated this?  Etc. Etc.

Nicholas, you may find all of this too intellectual, irrelevant, or
unappealing but I would suggest that I am not the only Theosophical
student who believes this whole area needs a great deal of
clarification.  This is why I suggested that if Tsong-Kha-pa uses the
term "karmamudra", does he mean it literally or could there be a more
metaphysical or symbolical meaning to the term?  Especially in light of
what HPB says about symbols, etc. throughout her writings.

So the implications (and the rippling effects of those implications)
touch not just on "karmamudra" but on a variety of topics which are
discussed by HPB:   sex, the place of sex in one' life, the role of sex
in chelaship, the various paths (legitimate or not) to "enlightenment",
the validity of what Blavatsky, KH and M teach on many subjects related
to all of this, the relationship between the Masters' School and the
Gelukpas, etc. etc. etc.

I never *expected* you to answer my questions.  I posed them not only
for your possible consideration but for the community of readers here on
Theos-Talk.  If only one or two persons find the questions worth
pursuing then I'm glad I've posted all that I have on this "unappealing"
topic.

And there is much on this topic which is totally unappealing.  I am told
(and I don't know if it is true, hopefully none of it is true) that
there are (a few?) Gelukpa lamas who have advocated karmamudra to
Westerners.  And that even it has been said by such lamas that it is
best to have a karmamudra that is a virgin 16 year old or even better a
12 year old consort!!  I hope these are totally unsupported rumors that
have no factual foundation.  I further hope that if true, these are
"renegade" lamas and do not reflect upon the Gelukpa hierarchy as a
whole.  But because of the importation of Tantra to the West, I would
think Theosophists and especially Blavatsky students would want a better
knowledge of this whole subject with all of its implications (however
distasteful and unappealing) and would want to understand relevant
material as found in Blavatsky's writings and the Mahatma Letters.
Responsible Theosophists should be informed and knowledgeable on these
subjects in the event that inquirers and seekers ask questions
pertaining to these subjects.

You seem to say don't waste time on "conundrums" but maybe conundrums
can be the starting point for a better understanding and greater insight
into the issues involved whatever they may be.

This public Theosophical forum is an ideal place for an intelligent and
respectful discussion and dialogue on such controversial issues related
to Theosophy.  Also how often do most of us have the opportunity to
discuss with other Theosophists around the world various teachings,
issues, etc. related to Theosophy?  I value the input and feedback from
all posters on this forum.  I may not always agree with what is posted
or may find some topics disagreeable, etc., but I have found the
discussions and even the "fights" thought provoking and part of a
valuable learning experience.

Daniel


Nicholas Weeks wrote:
>
> >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.