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