Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00016)

SUBJECT:  Re:  A Blavatsky Student Gives View on "Karmamudra"

More on "karmamudra":

READER BEWARE!!!

THIS IS SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL AND POSSIBLY EVEN "X-RATED" TO SOME
READERS.  PLEASE DO NOT READ IF EASILY OFFENDED.

This is my reply to my correspondent who wrote the posting titled "A
Blavatsky Student Gives View on 'Karmamudra'."

Daniel

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


------------,

This is in answer to your email.

You ask about David Reigle's view on karmamudra.  From numerous talks on
the
telephone, it is my understanding that he believes that there is a
symbolic
dimension to, for example, Tsong Kha Pa's writings on karmamudra.  In
other
words, he doesn't take it literally.  Part of his view is based, I
believe, on
much of what Madame Blavatsky writes throughout her writings on
symbolism,
etc.  I sent David Reigle a gift copy of TSONGKHAPA'S SIX YOGAS OF
NAROPA
translated by Glenn Mullin.  After reading this translation, especially
on
karmamudra (pp. 164-165), where Tongkhapa writes about "sexual play",
and also
writes:  ". . . those wishing to engage physically in the sexual yoga
should be
qualified" and even writes about entering "into sexual union with this
visualized consort [a mandala dakini]" and arousing "the four blisses",
---I
take it that David considers this all as somehow symbolic.  Also I
believe he
said that the original Tibetan does not use the word "sexual".  This is
an
addition by Mullin probably based on what he has learned from his
Gelugpa
teachers.  This seems to be David's "view" on the material.  I'm hoping
David
will write something in his own words on this topic.  Also related to
this was
David's comments that the term "wine" is used in the Kalachakra texts,
but
should we take this literally or should it be taken more symbolically as
the
term wine is used, for example, in the Sufi tradition?  He also pointed
out
that human "reincarnation" into the animal kingdom is accepted literally
by the
Gelugpas, but would or should Theosophists or Blavatsky students ALSO
accept
this as literal truth?

 I have found in Blavatsky's writings a number of passages which I think
are
relevant (to some degree) to the literal or symbolic nature of
"karmamudra".
Here are two passages in THE COLLECTED WRITINGS:

(1)  Volume X, pp. 155-156 on Gichtel.  I quote but one excerpt from two
pages
of HPB's text which should be read in its complete form:

"From Marcus, the Gnostic, down to the last mystic student of the Kabala
and
Occultism, that which they called their 'Bride' was 'Occult Truth,'
personified
as a NAKED MAIDEN, otherwise called Sophia or Wisdom."  Caps added.

What is the term in the Buddhist Tantras for "Wisdom"?

(2)  Volume XII, pp. 558-559 from HPB's E.S. Instruction No. II.

"Those who know the history of Simon have the two versions before them,
that of
White and of Black Magic, at their option, in the much talked of union
of Simon
with Helena, whom he called his Epinoia (Thought)."

Was Helena "a beautiful and ACTUAL woman"?  Caps added.

Did Simon engage in "sexual union" with Helena?

HPB answers these questions as follows:

"Indeed, the chief rites of this kind of magic are based on such
digusting
LITERAL interpretation of noble myths. . . . Those who understood it
CORRECTLY
knew what was meant by 'Helena'.  It was the marriage of Nous
(Atma-Buddhi)
with Manas. . . .Helena was the Sakti of the inner man, the female
potency."
Caps added.

And HPB also writes in the SD (I, 381):

"Such is the cosmic and ideal significance of this great symbol [the
lotus] with the Eastern peoples. But, applied to practical and exoteric
worship -- which had also its esoteric symbology -- the lotus became in
time the carrier and container of a more terrestrial idea. No dogmatic
religion has ever escaped the sexual element in it; and to this day it
soils the moral beauty of the root idea. . . . It is the profane of the
past ages who have degraded the pure ideal of cosmic creation into an
emblem of mere human reproduction and sexual functions: it is the
esoteric teachings, and the initiates of the Future, whose mission it
is, and will be, to redeem and ennoble once more the primitive
conception so sadly profaned by its crude and gross application to
exoteric dogmas and personations by theological and ecclesiastical
religionists. The silent worship of abstract or noumenal Nature, the
only divine manifestation, is the one ennobling religion of Humanity."

Keeping in mind what HPB writes above about the "lotus", compare that
with what
Agehananda Bharati, an authority on Tantra, writes in the context of
"Buddhist tantric practice":

"In Vajrayana practice today the preliminary exercises take up a much
larger
portion than sexual congress; in fact, the latter element is now often
eliminated. . . . Where there is actual copulation, retention of semen
is
axiomatic:  'having brought down the *vajra* into the lotus, let him not
eject
the knowledge mind.'  Such use of code or 'intentional language' is a
feature
shared by Hindu and Buddhist tantrism.  It serves a key terminology for
the
initiates and as a means to screen the teachings from outsiders.
'Knowledge-mind' (bodhicitta), for example, is a code term for semen."

So "lotus" and "vajra" are code terms for what??

And compare the above with what Daniel Cozort in HIGHEST YOGA TANTRA
(based on
Gelugpa tradition) writes:

"This sexual union, real or imagined, causes the substance drop to
appear at
the tip of the sexual organ, but the drop is not emitted, being
willfully held
in place."

So drop ("bindu" or "thig le") is a code term for ------?

Having read and reread Cozort's book, I am amazed at its resemblance to
various
Hindu Hatha Yogic texts.

Also compare the material in Cozort's book with what
HPB writes in her three Esoteric Section Instructions. It seems to me
that
there is a world of difference in the two views.

I'm certainly open to new data and facts and so will keep an open mind,
but for
the most part I prefer the symbolic approach.  This seems to me much
more in
keeping with Blavatsky's and the Mahatmas' views.  Also more in keeping
with my
understanding of mysticism and from my own mystical experiences.

Sorry the above was written in haste and may be somewhat disjointed.
Will be
glad to fill in any blanks.  Also would appreciate more input from you
so as to
CONTRAST your view with David Reigle's "take".

Daniel