LIST OF ARTICLES

WHAT DETERMINES THE SEX IN THE REINCARNATION? (William Judge answer)




When William Judge was asked:

The Ego passes through a series of incarnations, in some of which it may inform the body of a man, in others of a woman. Is sex of the vehicle chosen consciously by the spiritual Ego to perfect knowledge, or does it depend upon the Karma engendered in a preceding life? Can any principle be said to preponderate in one sex more than in another?


William Judge replied:


« If masculine quality is the predominate characteristic, the Ego probably will be next in a male body; if not, the other sex. But the whole question is answered by that doctrine of Visishṭadvaitism which says that “Good Karma is that which is pleasing to Isvara (the Ego) and bad Karma that which is displeasing to it.” »
(Echoes of the Orient II, p.249)




And later when people asked him:

Is there any statement in the writings of Madame Blavatsky or of any one else who might be supposed to know, to the effect that the Ego incarnates alternately in the different sexes, or at all in the opposite sex?


William Judge replied:


« I do not remember reading anywhere in the writings of H.P. Blavatsky. a statement to the effect referred to, nor in the written remarks on various subjects by the Adepts who sent her into the world can there be found, as far as my recollection goes, a declaration to the effect that the Ego incarnates alternately in male and female bodies.

There may be found the doctrine that by this time in our evolution the egos now in human bodies have been through every sort of experience and both sexes, but that does not support the inference that such incarnation as to sex is alternated regularly — nor does it refute. It simply has nothing exactly to do with the question.

The question, it seems, is interesting to many, but I must confess an entire lack of interest in it. If my next birth shall be in the body-female, it is a matter of indifference. It is of record that an Ego did very well in the body called Helena P. Blavatsky; and contrariwise, another did well in the body-male called Sankaracharya. It is said that one Maji — a woman — in India is a great Yogi also. So, as I am perfectly indifferent, my remarks may be concluded to be uncolored by the partisanship of sex, so clear to some and so often productive of clouds over vision.

Well, then, I do not adhere to the alternating theory. It is too cut-and-dried at the very first impression. Further it appears to violate, with the appearance of a personal director behind it, the natural conclusions to be drawn from human life and character — our only guide in such matters.

If we assume an anthropomorphic God, who made it a law that every ego should now have male and next female form for living in, no matter how the laws of tendency of attraction and repulsion work in other directions, there might be some probability of sustaining the position that regular alternation of sex is the rule. But the universe is governed by law, not by caprice. Let us, then, look a moment at one or two points.

Karma — from other lives — determines where, how, and when we shall be born. But in the matter under debate, one of the ramifications of the law of Karma which must have most to do with this is tendency. In other words, the tendency set up in a prior life will determine the tendency toward a particular family next birth.

And we must look also at the question of male and female character essentially, and not as a mere question of appearance or function. If we discover what is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the female character as opposed for comparison to the male, then we can perhaps arrive at a probable conclusion — though, as I above remarked, a very uninteresting and useless one in any event.

Now to my limited vision the female character is per se concrete; that is, its tendency in thought, speech, and act is toward the concrete; while the male character seems to me to be per se the opposite.

The Kabbalists and the ancients of all lands may not stand as authority for my readers, but they support this view. And the existence of exceptions in both sexes does not contradict the opinion, but rather goes to sustain it, forasmuch as we so easily recognize a woman who has a man’s character or a man who has a woman’s.

The difference was not invented by tyrannical men, but seems actually to exist in the race. For no matter where you go, or how civilized or barbarous, modern or ancient, your examples are, they ever show the same differences and characteristics.

And whether you admit or deny the particular description by concreteness and abstractness, it still remains true that the essential female character — whatever be the distinguishing mark — is totally different from the essentially male one.

Now, then, if Ego (A) has evolved with infinite pain and many lives the female character, is it likely that that tendency will exhaust itself at once? Or if it has been set up by one life, is it likely to exhaust at death so as to permit the next incarnation to be in the opposite sex?

I think not. It might be that the Ego could, as man in prior life, incarnate next as woman, but that would mean that he had set up a tendency to whatever is the essential character of the female — in my opinion, concreteness of thought in the depths of his nature — or for other of many reasons. It is not wise to set down such fixed and iron rules. Nature does not thus work.

She is always about to break some rule we have foolishly thought to be of eternal duration. So I conclude on this that the Ego will go on as woman or man just so long as its deeper nature is of the same cut, fashion, and tendency as the particular sex in general in which it incarnates.

For my poor judgment, the regular alternation theory is wholly without foundation. But, after all, it is a question none of us can decide. The Christian Apostles decided female incarnation to be lower in scale than male when they said women are saved only by marriage, but even some Christian Theosophists may reject the Apostles on this. »
(Echoes of the Orient I, p.298-299)







OBSERVATION

It is interesting to note that although William Judge did not know the answer, his reflection is in accordance with the answer that Master Kuthumi later gave, since when Mr. Sinnett asked him the same question, Kuthumi answered him.

« Generally a chance work, yet guided by individual Karma, — moral aptitudes, characteristics and deeds of the previous birth. »
(ML 17, p.117)










No comments:

Post a Comment