Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00214)

In a message dated 12/14/98 3:29:10 PM, blafoun@azstarnet.com wrote:

>In what Leon has written on this subject of Yellow Hats versus Red Hats,
>I get the impression that he believes that "karmamudra" as defined
>LITERALLY and "jnanamudra" as defined by Nicholas Weeks are ONLY
>practiced in the non-Gelukpa sects of Tibetan Buddhism?  If this is a
>correct impression on my part, I ask Jerry, Nicholas and other learned
>Theosophical students, is this belief by Leon actually true.

If you read my recent post re: "Leon on Jnanamudra--and more" on Tulku, you
will understand what the literal meanings of both karmamudra and jnanamudra
are, and find out that I do not "believe" anything about them--since I know
only what my teachers have taught me that have been thoroughly considered and
tested for validity both intuitively and rationally, or that I have
experienced first hand..

Sanskrit is a very precise language, and these are generic terms made up of
compound Sanskrit words that self-describe what they mean; e.g. "mudra" or
symbolic action form, and what they do or control; e.g. "karma", or action of
cause and effect.  The general meaning, in the case of the compound word, is
any action form that refers specifically to the control of karmic effects.
The usage of karma-mudras can, therefore, be on many levels, from controlling
reincarnation in the case of Tulkus through "Sacred (sexual) Tantra" practices
on the physical-astral planes, controlling psychic phenomena or "Magic" on the
astral-Kama mental planes, to transcending karma through visualizations on the
higher mental-spiritual planes along with the taking of certain vows.  The
whole meaning is based on purpose and motive. . . Therefore, karma-mudras can
be used by any and all sects in any yoga practice.  The problem is that
Western interpreters of Tibetan teachings have used the term "karmamudra"
specifically in reference to female form or seal in sexual Tantra practice.
>From a philological standpoint, this is wrong and totally exoteric.  There are
cases when Jnana-mudras can also be considered karma-mudras.  (Jnana referring
to practice on the mental plane-- controlling thought to be specific.)
>
>My limited understanding of the subject is that "karmamudra" is
>practised literally by some Gelukpa lamas.  And it is my further
>understanding that the current Dalai Lama believes that Tsonkhapa and
>earlier Dalai Lamas taught the actual use of a female consort in certain
>Tantric sexual rituals.  I am unclear about "jnanamudra" as defined by
>Nicholas

As said, karmamudra with reference specifically to sexual Tantra is practiced
by all sects that have Tulku Lamas as their head men.  Since the Dalai Lama is
a Tulku avatar of Avalokiteshwara, Gelugpas practice it only in that Tulku
context.  But then, unlike some "red cap" sects such as Nyingmapa, the Gelugpa
"yellow cap" monks do not, as a rule, practice any magic yogas that utilize
mudras related to the lower principles of nature.  Therefore, I cannot speak
for the Tantra practices of ALL red caps, since their karmamudras may be quite
different.  Jnanamudras, on the other hand refer to control of the mind, and
therefore is a standard practice in all yogas.  It is also a theosophical
practice as well--that has no relation to Tantra yoga nor to any yoga lower
than that taught in the Voice of the Silence or by Patanjali.  Such higher
principled yogas can give one the same powers of magic as the lower one, but
their teachers urge practitioners not to use them in favor of serving humanity
with compassionate altruism, rather than "magic"--unless absolutely necessary,
and then, only with unselfishly pure (or "white") motives.
>
>If my understanding is based on correct information, then I ask Leon,
>what is truly the difference (if any) between the Gelukpas and the
>non-Gelukpa sects of Tibetan Buddhism??  The answer to this question has
>a direct bearing on much of what HPB, M and KH write on this subject.

The difference is simply between spiritual practices, mental practices,
practical practices, and psychic practices.  (Although there is much overlap)
For instance Nyingmapas could be considered the Magicians, Kargupas the
physicalists and pragmatists, Sakyapas the philosophers, and Gelugpas the
spiritualists.  (This explains why the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of
Tibet, while the Panchen-Tashi Lama carries out the practical governmental and
administrative duties.)  On the practical level, the Gelugpa Lamas are the
only ones who charge no money for spiritual and yoga teachings or
"initiations. (Similar to the independendent United Lodge of Theosophists,
whose similarly independent members study and "spread broadcast" only the
"original" teachings of HPB--an admitted Gelugpa, by the way.)

But, what has all this concern with sexual Tantra practices (decried by HPB)
got to do with theosophy--other than learning the meaning and usage of
Sanskrit words, and understanding, logically, philosophically and
scientifically, why and how karmic cycles are capable of being manipulated by
various methods--for unselfish as well as for selfish purposes?  This is
perfectly justified under the second and third Objects of the Theosophical
Movement

All this "knowledge" should do, however, is reinforce our conviction that HPB
gave us all the necessary tools, in the SD and in other of her writings, to
figure all this out for ourselves without resorting to exoteric Buddhist or
other organized religious sources that twist the truths underlying their
scriptures into priest-crafty theologies and ritual practices that serve only
their own particular purposes.  That is not to say that all such purposes are
"evil", but they cannot contradict theosophy, and therefore, as teachings for
theosophists they can have no meaning, other than being confirmatory of the
ancient Theosophical book upon which all these later, so called, "religious
scriptures" and practices are based.

That book, The Book of Dzyan, which contains all the fundamental scientific,
philosophical, and religious truths that are thoroughly explained in the the
*Secret Doctrine*, is described as follows:

Volume I. of "Isis" begins with a reference to "an old book". . . "So very old
that our modern antiquarians might ponder over its pages an indefinite time,
and still not quite agree as to the nature of the fabric upon which it is
written...." The "very old Book" is the original work from which the many
volumes of Kiu-ti were compiled.  Not only this latter and the Siphrah
Dzeniouta but even the Sepher Jezirah, the work attributed by the Hebrew
Kabalists to their Patriarch Abraham (!), the book of Shu-King, China's
primitive Bible, the sacred volumes of the Egyptian Thoth-Hermes, the Puranas
in India, and the Chaldean Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch itself, are all
derived from that one small parent valume.  Tradition says, that it was taken
down in Senzar the secret sacerdotal tongue, from the words of the Divine
Beings, who dictated it to the sons of Light, in Central Asia, at the very
beginning of the 5th (our) race; for there was a time when its language (the
Sen-zar) was known to the Initiates of every nation, when the forefathers of
the Toltec understood it as easily as the inhabitants of the lost Atlantis,
who inherited it, in their turn, from the sages of the 3rd Race, the Manushis
who learnt it direct from the Devas of the 2nd and 1st Races. -- Secret
Doctrine Vol I intro pages xlii to xliii. By Helena Blavatsky.

LHM