Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00365)

Feb 12 2005

 

Re: WOMEN ADEPTS

 

 

Dear Friends:

 

Recently an inquiry concerning this arose.

 

In the pages of the current issue of AQUARIAN THEOSOPHIST [March 2005]

We read:  

 

THE FUTURE OCCULTIST

 

[The Theosophist, Vol. V. No. 11 (59), August, 1884, pp. 263-264]

A correspondent of the Indian Mirror,[1] an influential daily paper at Calcutta, writing under the heading of “Proper Education for our Ladies,” says:—

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Your editorial on the above subject in your issue of the 22nd instant, raises one of the most important questions:—”What constitutes real education?” The true aim of education, philosophically considered, should be the enlightenment of the mind. It should expand the mind, the breadth of vision and perception, and not limit it to a narrow circle.  

 

On the ordinary physical plane, reading and writing are no doubt, a great help for education, for they place before one various ideas to be taken cognisance of. At the same time, however, it must not be forgotten that they are but means to the end. One should, moreover, remember that there are other necessary means to the same end. One of these, and the most important, is the continued attention to the phenomenal side of nature in such a manner as to enable one to arrive at its noumenal side, by viewing it in all itsaspects.  

 

Our ancient Rishis have placed within our reach, if we would but have them,the means whereby we can study the relation of the manifested to the unmanifested, and trace the effect to its primal cause. It is such a broad and comprehensive education that we want, and not the present mockery of the same.  

 

If, in ancient days, the Aryans learnt at the feet of their mothers, and iftheir character and destiny “were formed even in gestation and with the sucking of the mother’s milk”—it must have been due to the fact that the education of those days was of a cosmopolitan nature. We have undoubtedly to elevate the woman, but we have to elevate ourselves too.  

 

We have to endeavour to hasten the approach of the day when the scientific aspect of the “immaculate conception” will be realised. Itwould not be unprofitable here to quote the sentiments of an Eminent Occultist, published in the Paradoxes of the Highest Science[2]: — 

 

 

==========================================

 

[HPB’s added comment]

 

 

The above letter raises certain important questions. Some enquire how the world is to go on if all were to become occultists, one of the vital conditions of that order being celibacy. Others say that the ancient Rishis married, quoting some of the names mentioned in the Hindu religious books; and argue therefrom that celibacy is not an essential condition for progress inpractical occultism.  

 

Generally, they put a literal interpretation upon what is beautifully conveyed by means of an allegory and insist upon the dead-letter sense being correct, whenever such a course is profitable in their narrow interests. Theyfind it difficult to control the lower animal desires; and, in order to justify their conduct of persistence in hankering after sensual pleasures, they resort to these books as their authority, interpreting them in a manner most convenient to themselves.  

 

Of course, when any passages, even in their exoteric sense, conflict with the dictates of their “lower self,” then others are quoted, which esoterically convey the same sense, although exoterically supporting their peculiar views. The question of the marriage of the Rishis is one ofsuch disputed points. The readers of The Theosophist may recall here, with advantage, a passage occurring in the article under the heading of “Magicon,” where one of the occultists is said to have rejected the hand of a beautiful young lady, on the ground of his having taken the vow of celibacy, although he himself confesses further on to be courting a virgin whose name was “Sophia.”

 

Now, it is explained there that “Sophia” is wisdom or theBuddhi—the spiritual soul (our sixth principle). This principle is everywhere represented as a “female,” because it is passive inasmuch as it is merely the vehicle of the seventh principle. This latter — which is called Atma when spoken of in connection with an individual and Purush when applied in its relation to the Universe—is the active male, for it is the CENTRE OF ENERGY acting through and upon itsfemale vehicle, the sixth principle. 

 

The occultist, when he has identified himself thoroughly with his Atma, acts upon the Buddhi, for, according to the laws of Cosmic Evolution, the Purusha — the universal seventh principle — is perpetually acting upon and manifesting itself through Prakriti — the universal sixth principle.  

 

Thus the Mahatma, who has become one with his seventh principle — which is identical with Purusha, since there is no isolation in the spiritual monad is practically a creator, for he has identified himself with the evoluting and the manifesting energy of nature.  

 

It was in this sense that the Rishis are said to have married. And the union of ®iva and Śakti represents the same allegory. ®iva is the Logos, the Vach, manifested through the ®akti; and the union of the two produces the phenomenal creation, for until the Son is born, the Father and the Mother are non-existent.  

 

Now ®akti being a female principle, it is fully manifested through a woman, although, properly speaking, the inner man is neither male, nor female. It is only the preponderance of either of the two principles (positive and negative) which determines the sex. Now, this preponderance is determined by the Law of Affinity; and hence in a woman is manifested abnormally the occult power represented by ®akti. She is moreover gifted with a wonderfully vivid imagination — stronger than man’s.  

 

And as the phenomenal is the realization or rather the manifestation of theIDEAL, which can be properly and strongly conceived only by a powerful IMAGINATION — a WOMAN-ADEPT can produce high occultists — a race of “Buddhas and Christs,” born “without sin.” The more and the sooner the animal sexual affinities are given up, the stronger and the sooner will be the manifestation of the higher occult powers which alone can produce the “immaculate conception.”  

 

And this art is practically taught to the occultists at a very high stage of initiation. The “Adept,” whether the Sthula Sarira be male or female, is then able to bring a new being into existence by the manipulation of cosmic forces. Anasûyâ, a female adept of the ancienttimes, is thus said to have conceived immaculately Durvasas, Dattatreya and Chandra — the three distinct types of Adeptship. Thus it will beseen that the marriage of the occultist (who is, as already explained, neither male nor female) is a “holy union,” devoid of sin, in the same manner as Krishna’s union with thousands of Gopîs.  

 

Sensual-minded men have taken this fact up too literally; and, out of a wrong interpretation of the text, has arisen a sect which indulges in the mostdegrading practices. But, in fact, Krishna represents the seventh principle, while the Gopîs indicate the innumerable powers of that principle manifested through its “vehicle.” Its union “without sin,” or rather the action or manifestation of each of these powers through the “female principle” gives rise to the phenomenal appearances.  

 

In such a union the occultist is happy and “without sin” for the “conception” of his other-half — the female principle — is “immaculate.” The very fact, that this stage pertains to one of the very highest initiations, shows that the time — when ordinary humanity, during the course of cosmic evolution,will, in this manner, be able to produce a race of “Buddhas,” etc., born “without sin” — is yet very, very far off — perhaps attainable in the sixth or the seventh “round.” But when once this possibility and the actuality of this fact is recognized, the course of living and education may be so moulded as to hasten the approach of that eventful day when on this earth will descend “the Kingdom of Heaven.”

 

H P B 

Theosophist, Vol. V. No. 11 (59), August, 1884, pp. 263-264

 

===============================================


_____  

[1] [The proprietor and editor of this daily paper was Norendro Nath Sen, afamous Indian patriot and reformer. Under his editorship, the Indian Mirror became the leading paper in India voicing the opinions of Indians on political matters. He joined The Theosophical Society soon after it began itswork in India. He received several letters from Master K. H. …Thehigh regard in which he was held by Mahatma K.H. is illustrated by this: Sometimes late at night, when correcting proofs, Norendro Nath Sen, after ahard day’s work, would fall asleep over his proofs. More than once, when he woke up, he found the proofs corrected in blue pencil.]

[2] [Under this title, Allan O. Hume published in 1883 certain heretofore unpublished manuscripts of the late Éliphas Lévi (pseud. of the Abbé Alphonse Louis Constant) which had been sent to him by Master K. H.(See Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, p. 134). As stated by the Master himself, he appended his own comments to various portions of the manuscript. While at first it was to be sent to A. P. Sinnett, it was actually sent to Hume (Ibid., p. 144, where “our ‘Jacko’ friend” stands for A. O. Hume). Hume translated the original French manuscript into English, wrote a Preface to it and added some notes of his own, signed “Translator.” The Master’s comments are signed “E. O.,” which stands for “Eminent Occultist,” according to Hume’s statement in the Preface.

There exists in the Archives of The Theosophical Society at Adyar a worn out copy of the Paradoxes of the Highest Science, published as the second of a planned series of Theosophical Miscellanies (Calcutta: Calcutta Central Press Co., Ltd., 5 Council House St., 1883). It contains some marginal notesof H. P. B.’s, although probably in Miss Francesca Arundale’s handwriting, presumably copied by her from H. P. B.’s own notes in some other copy of the same booklet.

For a better understanding of H. P. B.’s notations, it might be pointed out that A. O. Hume had acquired a notorious reputation in the early days of the Movement, because of his skepticism regarding the Masters, H. P.B., and the Society in general. Apparently he could never resist a side-thrust in their direction when he took pen in hand. Neither could H. P. B. inher manuscript notes resist the opportunity to thrust back at him in two places.

The following are H. P. B.’s notations in the above-mentioned booklet.

Page 1(v). Immediately after the words “(By the Translator),” H. P. B. wrote: A. O. Hume.

Page 2(vii). To the right of the letters “E. O.,” she placed the mark #, and at the bottom of the page wrote: # K. H.

Page 21(31). To the Translator’s note—in which he objects to the fact that Master K. H. condemns suicide as well as homicide unconditionally, even in self-defence, and says,” . . . to allow a man to kill you, when you can prevent this by killing him, is, it seems to me, suicide to all intents and purposes”—H. P. B. remarks:

 

A far subtler sophistry—this. H. P. B.

 

Page 22(32). In E. O.’s note she crossed out the word “inconnues,” in his French expression: “Pas de demi-inconnues,” and wrote on the margin: mesures.

 

Page 32(46). To the Translator’s note—in which he again questions the Master’s better judgment, when the latter considers the Western or Christian conception of God as “a ridiculous supernumerary”—H. P. B. added the remarks:

Hit number 2 and the translator giving himself out as an Adwaitee too. H. P. B.

What H. P. B. means by Hume giving himself out for an Adwaitî will become clearer by consulting The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett, p. 33, and the Mahatma Letters, pp. 288, 291 which read like this:

{HPB to Sinnette} No; they {the Masters} are no gentlemen but they are adepts. I do not now wonder that he (Hume) would never know a Christian, since if Jesus ever lived there’s 99 to 100 to bet that he was an unwashed Jew and no “gengleman” in his manners. Nevertheless heis a God for 300 millions among whom there are intellects as good as Hume’s.

I knew he was too haughty to bear with our Brothers. He offering himself as a chela and you innocently believing in his conversion! Fiddlesticks. AJupiter offering himself as a goat-herd to the God Hermes, to teach the latter manners! … If K.H. said that the T.S. was the hope of mankind, and then that but two Brothers cared for it, I know what he meant. The T.S. is not going to die with us, and we all of us are but the differs of its foundation. Where’s the contradiction? … He is a Pecksnitt your Hume and now, behold! He has become an Adwaitee; a believer in no God. He was an Adwaitee for the last twenty years and what becomes of Mrs.Gordon’s, Mrs. Sinnett’s, your’s, mine, Davison and his wife and daughter’s statements to the effect that hundreds of times he maintained last year his P.G. {Personal God}. [p.33]

{and on page 288 of Mahatma Letters we find}: There is nothing “below the surface,” my faithful friend {Sinnett} — absolutelynothing. … he impresses himself with the illusion that he is “far more of an Adwaitee” than either M. or myself ever were (an easy thing to prove since we never were Adwaitees).

{And on page 291}: I must draw your attention to the fact, that nine timesout of ten, when he accuses me of having entirely misconceived his meaning— he says, what anyone has a right to regard as a deliberate falsehood. The instance of E. Levi’s “I am that I am” is a good instance. In order to prove me at fault, he had to become an Adwaitee and deny his “moral Governor and Ruler of the Universe,” by throwing him overboard “for the last 20 years.” This is not honest, my friend, and I do not see any help for it. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]