Quest Magazine

Printed in the  Fall 2018  issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation:  Gross, Rita M., "A Stranger No More: A Journey through Mormonism" Quest 106:4, pg 29-34

Can Buddhist practice go beyond male and female identities? A feminist and dharma teacher reflects on gender-based thinking as an obstacle to enlightenment.

By Rita M. Gross

What does freedom from the prison of gender roles look like? Some deny that such roles are a prison, arguing that they are simply accurate descriptions of men and women, or try to construct a better, fairer set of gender roles, or try to elevate “femininity” into parity with “masculinity.” But these alternatives will still be prisons for some. It is not possible to free people from the prison of gender roles by proposing a different grand plan that should work for everyone, which has been the solution most often proposed to date. That simply will not work. As with issues of religious diversity, people are simply too distinctive for one system to be universally appropriate or applicable.

We could, then, simply admit there is no one grand solution. In a society free of the prison of gender roles, there will not be much uniformity about what people do with their sexed bodies. All the relevant ethical options for utilizing the “precious human birth” that Buddhists love to talk about will be available to all, whatever their sexed bodies may look like, whether or not those bodies were born with their current sexual equipment. What else could it possibly mean to talk about enlightened mind beyond gender, neither male nor female? If every sexed body is forced into the gender role deemed appropriate for it, how could anyone ever break free to a state of mind that is no longer obsessed with gender roles and no longer clings to them, either to their own perceived roles or those of others?

It’s quite simple. If the problem is clinging to the conventional given set of gender roles, the solution cannot be imposing a different, “new and improved” set of roles. That would simply be clinging to a different set of conventions. But if we give up clinging to gender identity, there is no longer anything inside or outside of oneself that compels someone to be or feel a certain way because of the shape of one’s body.

For Buddhists, clinging is always what causes suffering. Thus, while different visionaries may have different worthy ideas about better ways to organize society and male-female relationships, we all need to remember not to absolutize our relative solutions and suggestions. Feminists are just as guilty of forgetting this requirement as anyone else. Clinging to a feminist set of ideas about gender subverts enlightenment just as much as clinging to any other set of gender roles would be.

It’s not the content of these roles that is all that bad. Neither “men’s work” nor “women’s work” is inherently dehumanizing or to be avoided. The dehumanizing happens when the specific task is linked with either men or women. Cooking can be skilled and interesting work, and it has to be done. I enjoy it sometimes. But I would resent being required to do it three times a day every day of the year for the men and children I’m supposed to take care of just because I have a female body. Nor would I want to be forced to enter military service if I had a male body, or to be prohibited from it because I am a woman. As an adult, I willingly dust my many beautiful antique lamps, even though I dreaded being condemned to a life of dusting lamps when I was a girl. To cite another example, I now type quite well, but when I was a young woman I made sure that I didn’t type too well; otherwise I would have been forced into a secretarial role. But now that computers are so omnipresent, men have to be able to type as well.

I’ve spent my entire life in a “male” field, a field so “male” that when I entered it, more women had Ph.D.s in physics than in religious studies. (Physics was then labeled a “male” field.) When I entered the Divinity School at the University of Chicago, twelve of the four hundred students were women, and the professors were horrified. “What are we going to do with all those women who now want to study religion?” they asked. Some of them changed the content of their lectures because of the presence of women in the classroom.

Nevertheless, this “male” field suits me perfectly. It and my female body get along quite well. The “male” role of dharma teaching suits me even better. Am I more male or female? Who knows? Who cares? I’ve often been told I’m too masculine for a woman, which usually means I’m too confident, competent, and successful. Or I’m told that I have a male mind and a female body! That comment strikes me as quite ridiculous. My vagina marks my body as female, but how can a mind be either male or female? It seems increasingly ridiculous to label anything except penises or vaginas male or female, or to assume anything about what goes with either of them.

All these examples demonstrate the difference between being gendered—being male or female—and the prison of gender roles. Being gendered does not subvert enlightenment, but clinging to gender identity does. Such a conclusion should not surprise anyone even with modest Buddhist knowledge. The second of the Noble Truths tells us that clinging is the cause of our suffering. How could it be different when we are fixated on what the shape of our bodies must mean or how it must limit us, or when we cling to gender identity so strongly that we are willing to limit what others with differently shaped bodies can do in the name of dharma? Our clinging to our notions of gender can cause us suffering, but it can also cause others to suffer—something that should bother any Buddhist committed to Buddhist ethics.

Whenever I have proposed such freedom from the prison of gender roles and someone argues in response, “But men and women are different! That has to mean something! There have to be limits!” usually that argument is coming from a man trying to preserve some arena of male privilege. Men and women are different! What does that mean? Women and women, men and men, are also different! All women are not the same as all other women, and all men are not the same as all other men—a fact that is never taken into account by those arguing on behalf of definite gender roles. For myself, I accept that biologically I am a woman, a fact that is readily obvious to others. But as I’ve already said, that doesn’t give you much reliable information about me. So stop projecting your version of the gender role onto me. Recognize, as the Buddha taught, that such thoughts are not really “you” or “yours,” so stop identifying with them. Abandoning them would be for the “welfare and happiness” of both self and other.

Some will ask, “But isn’t there something we can prescribe, some rules we can insist upon?” I would answer that question in the affirmative. The relevant question to ask of any option or set of practices is whether or not it promotes everyone’s ability to recognize that natural state of mind that is beyond gender, that is not bound by relative references. Practices, whether social or individual, that do not should be abandoned. There may be some guidelines about that, but they do not involve gender roles specific to biological males and females. Discipline and deep contemplation will be necessary. Renunciation of many things valued in the conventional world of “ordinary worldlings” will be necessary. But dividing people into groups based on biological sex has never proved to promote discipline, contemplation, or renunciation for biological women or men. Nor does dividing people into groups, some of which are defined as servants of other groups, whose only role is to take care of them, promote recognition of the natural, enlightened state of mind beyond gender. If Buddhists want to be serious about the purported enlightened state of mind, beyond gender, neither male nor female, then I suggest we have to stop advocating any version of the prison of gender roles.

Some may still be uncomfortable and may want more precise, detailed rules governing gender-specific behavior and interactions between women and men. How will people know how to behave if they don’t have clear rules? Won’t we have too much disorder if we don’t have precise, specific rules? But how to prevent a set of rules specific for each sex and their interactions from degenerating into a prison? It seems to me that would be a difficult, if not impossible, task. Additionally, I would suggest that we Buddhists already have all the guidelines we need in the form of the Eightfold Path and the basic precepts. The guidelines are exactly the same for each gender. Don’t harm. Don’t misuse sexuality, using it in ways that harm self or other. What more do we need?

Predictably, whenever someone suggests that it would be good dharma practice to stop promoting any version of the prison of gender roles, someone will complain that such a proposal “genderizes the dharma” and makes a big deal out of gender. It leaves me shaking my head in incredulity. How can making gender less determinative in Buddhist life and institutions be genderizing the dharma? I would have thought that relying on gender to determine, for example, which people, women or men, can become monastics would be genderizing the dharma. Or I would have thought that practices such as giving even the most junior monk precedence over the most senior nun is genderizing the dharma. Such practices make an irrelevant factor—one’s sex—the criterion for taking on roles and practices that are valued in Buddhism, while at the same time ignoring much more relevant factors, such as seniority or fitness for the monastic lifestyle. Isn’t that making a big deal out of gender?

I have often been accused of genderizing the dharma for doing nothing more than pointing out how genderized the dharma already is. One can only reply that dharma became genderized when one’s sex became a determining factor in what one could or couldn’t do in terms of dharma practice. Those of us who point out such things had nothing to do with genderizing the dharma! In fact, if the suggestions we put forward were taken seriously, dharma would be far less gendered. The way to stop genderizing the dharma is to stop treating men and women so differently! That so many prominent, well-known teachers with a great deal of authority have such difficulty grasping this simple point demonstrates how unreflective and conventional they have become. In studying the self and accomplishing the way of enlightenment, it is crucial to remember that the samsaric ego binds us by convincing us that what we do habitually is truly “ours” and can be trusted.

Many commentators worry that women who point out how genderized dharma already is and would like dharma to be less genderized have an “ego problem” and that therefore our dharmic well-being is in serious jeopardy. Their solution is that we should not object to the prison of gender roles that is already in place; we should just pay more attention to our dharma practice. After all, we are reminded again, enlightened mind is beyond gender, neither male nor female. But since when is it more dharmic, more demonstrative of some realization, to acquiesce mindlessly to an inappropriate status quo than it is to use the prajna, the finely honed, detached intellect that practice brings, to improve the dharmic situation for everyone, male as well as female? Perhaps the clarity with which we see that the prison of gender roles is dharmically inappropriate is evidence that we have some acquaintance with that nongendered, awakened state of mind! Because we have taken bodhisattva vows and wish to help others, we wish to dismantle practices that obviously are of no help to anyone, female or male, who wishes to study the self and attain the way of enlightenment. It would be impossible to demonstrate that gender hierarchies help male practitioners study the self and attain the way of enlightenment, but it is quite easy to demonstrate that they hinder women greatly.

I find it amusing that the same commentators who worry about women damaging their dharma practice by not acquiescing to the status quo have no similar worries about men who argue vociferously for retaining their gender privilege. If women who don’t accept a status quo have an ego problem, why don’t men who defend that same status quo also have an ego problem? Insofar as the status quo gives them advantages, one would think that men would be in greater danger of lapsing into egoistic self-grasping.

I once heard a story about a female student who asked a female teacher if it was true that a senior nun had to bow down even to a baby monk. The teacher replied that if a woman experienced difficulty bowing to a male baby, she definitely had an ego problem. No problems so far, and this student may have needed a bit of a dharmic slap from a teacher. But problems remain. Why aren’t men expected to bow to girls under similar circumstances? Are there even any such circumstances? The double standard is the problem, not asking women to bow to men when appropriate. Any woman who couldn’t is definitely out of line.

Buddhists defending the status quo often cite karma as the reason why no one should object to current conditions or try to improve that situation in the future. Teachings on karma are at the heart of the Buddhist understanding of the world and are considered to be nonnegotiable by all teachers. One cannot deny that there is karma and still be Buddhist. Karma, dependent arising, is a difficult topic, often seriously misunderstood and misused. The most prevalent misunderstanding is that karma involves unalterable fate to which one is subject and about which nothing can be done. Teachings on karma are sometimes said to be about cause and effect, but when I teach about dependent arising, I often suggest that it is much more appropriate to think of karma as being about “effect and cause.” This difference is subtle but important. Any present situation is as it is; it is an effect and obviously cannot be altered. But what one does with this present situation is not predetermined. What one does with the present is the cause that helps determine future outcomes. The key point in Buddhist discipline is to work wisely and proactively with present circumstances so as to alleviate difficulties in the future. Because we Buddhists have inherited a situation of male-dominated institutions does not mean that is the way things should be, or that things should stay that way.

While individuals can take personal comfort in teachings about karma when confronting difficult circumstances, and they can take responsibility for their part in bringing about the present situation, such teachings are easily misused, especially when directed at others to justify their present suffering—as in saying, “It’s your karma to be poor, to be abused, to be subjected to male dominance, so just submit to it.” It is common to misuse teachings about karma to discourage people who live in difficult circumstances from trying to change their situations, claiming instead that they should just accept these situations because they are appropriate and are something they “created” themselves. Certainly teachings on karma have been used in this way to reconcile women to male dominance by claiming that to be born female in a male-dominated system is the result of “karma.” So rather than trying to change the system, one should submit to it, hoping to be reborn as a male in a future life.

Thus privilege is claimed to be the result of karma and, as such, appropriate, even justified. But privilege involves a hierarchy in which others are less well off in some way. Some are “up,” while others are “down.” Often the “up” status of some is directly dependent on the “down” status of others. Traditional Buddhist thought usually finds that situation unproblematic. So, in fact, does much non-Buddhist thought. In many situations of interdependent hierarchies, for some to have privilege, others must be underprivileged. But those who are on top feel strongly that they have “earned” their privileged status and “deserve” it. Such claims are especially strong regarding hierarchies of wealth and privilege. Even more problematically, people who inherit advantageous circumstances sometimes fail to recognize that they are privileged. But one could also think quite differently about this dynamic. If one uses one’s privileged status to oppress others, would that not create negative karma for oneself, using traditional ways of talking about and understanding karma? So if one is on the “up” side of a hierarchy, what does that mean about how one should behave?

Among some social critics, including many feminists, hierarchy is regarded negatively. However, some hierarchy is required in Buddhism. Liberating Buddhist teachings are subtle and cannot be subjected to acceptance by popular acclaim. The historical Buddha hesitated to teach what he had understood during his enlightenment because it is not what most people want to hear. Therefore teachers cannot be elected, and there must be a hierarchy between those who understand the teachings more well and less well. That kind of hierarchy is not a problem. The problem is arbitrary hierarchies, those based on criteria irrelevant to the task at hand. Obviously men have no real advantage over women when it comes to being able to understand the dharma and teach it well. Nonetheless, throughout Buddhist history, men have monopolized roles of dharma teaching. Recognition as a teacher is not necessarily the same thing as deep realization of the awakened state of mind. Probably there have been many unrecognized, unacknowledged teachers throughout Buddhist history. But that situation is to no one’s benefit. Thus, from my earliest days as a dharma student, I have insisted that the acid test of whether Buddhism has transcended its historical male dominance for something more appropriate is whether or not approximately half the dharma teachers are women.

Some Buddhist circles discourage any critical inquiry into current events. Students are made to feel guilty about their interest in things such as engaged Buddhist movements. It is claimed that such concerns cannot help anyway but instead compromise one’s meditation practice. One of the arguments is that because social problems are intractable, they cannot be solved, leading to frustration, depression, and anger, all attitudes at odds with the enlightened mind. Alternatively, it is argued, one cannot avoid developing attachment if one tries to promote social reform or any kind of social betterment. And attachment, also known as clinging, is even more problematic than anger or depression for one seeking the way of enlightenment. So better just to focus on one’s own practice.

These warnings have genuine validity. Students still in training who also become involved in one cause or another often do develop all the tendencies listed above. They easily fall prey to emotionalism. In the West, language of justice and rights, terms not easily found in more traditional Buddhism, is common and has often been influential in the earlier formation of those newer to Buddhist practice. Such students often develop strong ideologies about their causes and become quite opinionated.

For a dharma teacher, such students can be challenging to work with. Opinionatedness and ideology are discouraged in meditation students for the practical reason that they solve nothing and only make the situation worse for both the student herself and those about whom she is concerned. It is difficult to watch someone be in as much pain as the newer student who is still entangled in overly emotional concern with some cause. Yet there is also a lot of good heart and some wisdom in the student’s passionate involvement. What will the outcome be? Some teachers recommend, even insist, that the student renounce her concern for anything other than dharma and, perhaps, her own everyday life. Great skill on the teacher’s part is required at this point. In trying to tame the student’s ideology, one does not want to veer into promoting apathy, which is also not appropriate dharmic advice.

Given Buddhism’s emphasis on the problems with attachment and the virtues of detachment, outsiders often think that Buddhism must promote apathy. But apathy easily falls into the category of one of the “poisons of emptiness,” mistakes often made by students who have some insight into emptiness. This mistake often takes the form of saying something like “Because everything is empty, nothing matters, so I can do whatever I want or not take responsible action.” One must be careful not to promote the incorrect assumption that the only alternatives are either ideological, angry entanglement in a cause or withdrawal from involvement into apathy or indifference.

Practice, however, provides a middle path between angry ideology and apathetic withdrawal. This is one of the most useful contributions Buddhist disciplines can make to contemporary discussions. The language of “self-righteous anger” is deeply entrenched in Western discourse on social issues, and many otherwise competent and wise thinkers remain plagued by it for many years, in some cases even after they have acquaintance with Buddhist thought and practice. Often they still fear that the only alternative is apathy. They still fear dualism—if I’m not this, I’ll be that. Unless I’m angry, I won’t care at all.

From the other side, some Buddhists find it difficult, especially when they disagree with someone about a controversial issue, to recognize that it is possible to hold a viewpoint and yet not be angry or ideological, that a viewpoint can be held with equanimity. Penetrating insight undoes both apathy and attachment with one blow of Manjushri’s sword. This should not be surprising. Enlightened mind beyond gender is not a blank state of mind. It is intelligent but without ideology. Because it recognizes that its verbalizations of insight can never be fully adequate, it holds them lightly. Therefore it is completely flexible. The verbalization of insight will change without struggle when further information and better reasoning make such change appropriate. But insight is also fearless and fully able to respond to attack and confrontation with equanimity, and to stand its own ground without resort to aggression.

I have discovered this dynamic many times in my presentations of Buddhist feminism. Sometimes others insist that my only motivation for not supporting male dominance must be that I am angry. But those days are long over. What I have often found is that those who dislike my feminism think I should automatically defer to them, I suppose because they are so used to having women defer to them. When I don’t, they become extremely angry.

In one notable encounter, a man demanded in an aggressive and authoritative manner that I give in to his position, which was that generic masculine language in Buddhist liturgies was not a problem. He was not at all willing to rationally discuss the issues I was bringing up. Instead, he did his best to egg me into an angry response to him. Then he would be justified in simply rejecting me and my position: “See! I told you she’s just an angry feminist bitch!” But I didn’t take the bait, demonstrating both steadfastness and equanimity. Eventually he caved in and said that he wanted to discuss the points I was making. After several hours of discussion he conceded, “You’re right!” The next day he announced to those assembled for a large dharma program that if they preferred to change the language of an important text from generic masculine to gender-inclusive and neutral language, that was acceptable.

Would it not have been much simpler to discuss the issues from the beginning instead of asserting male privilege and dominance? It takes a good bit of training neither to become angry (thus losing the discussion by default) nor to simply give in because that’s what women are trained to do when men assert male dominance.

Need I report that this confrontation involved a male Buddhist teacher whose position in the teaching hierarchy was higher than mine? I tell this story to demonstrate that insight paired with equanimity can be far more effective than anger when faced with aggression. I also tell this story to illustrate that giving up on anger as the fuel that maintains one’s sense of urgency about something that needs to be changed does not mean that one becomes apathetic and just gives in to convention and the status quo.

So, in the final analysis, what does freedom from the prison of gender roles look like? It has nothing to do with whether one is a man or a woman, or even whether one lives a more traditional or a more radical lifestyle. It has everything to do with one’s state of mind. Is it starting to approach that enlightened state of mind, which is beyond gender? If so, it will not be characterized by anger and will not strongly hold any ideology. One’s mind will be utterly flexible and will dwell easily in equanimity, but it will not confuse equanimity with apathy. The mind state of someone who insists that male dominance and the prison of gender roles in any of its forms are unproblematic doesn’t qualify. She or he still holds an ideology. Nor would holding a “feminist” position necessarily mean that one is approaching that freer state of mind. It depends on the flexibility and ease of his or her state of mind. Whatever one comes up with, one holds that position and that identity lightly. Its relative character is clearly recognized. It is not made into an ultimate. If one has truly studied the self, then one can forget it, and relax.

Rita M. Gross (1943̶ 2015) was professor emerita of comparative studies in religion at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. She was also a Vajrayana Buddhist practitioner and teacher. She was the author of eleven books, including Buddhism beyond Patriarchy.

This article has been adapted from Buddhism beyond Gender by Rita M. Gross; © 2018 by the Estate of Rita M. Gross. Reprinted in arrangement with Shambhala Publications, Inc. Boulder, Colorado. www.shambhala.com.

Printed in the  Fall 2018  issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation: Goldsberry, Clare, "A Stranger No More: A Journey through Mormonism" Quest 106:4, pg 14-17 

By Clare Goldsberry

When I announced to the pastor of my Disciples of Christ (Christian) Church that I was marrying a Mormon man, he looked only mildly surprised. “Well, I guess you’ll be joining the Mormon Church.”

 “Oh, no,” I protested. “I’m happy in the Disciples Church.”

 “You have too many questions,” he said,“and the Mormons have all the answers.”

What my pastor meant was that Mormons have truth claims that answer all the big questions of life: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? They claim to have the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and of the restoration of the True Church established by Jesus, an idea that was popular during the Second Great Awakening (ca. 1796̶-835), when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the Mormon church—was established.

At age twenty-one, I was at a point in my life when the words truth and true church sounded appealing. After all, aren’t we all searching for the truth? Marrying a Mormon seemed to be a door to that path. I did join the Mormon church, as my pastor had predicted, and embraced its doctrines and dogmas for almost ten years, even though many seemed strange to someone who’d been reared as a mainstream Christian. But it was made easier by moving to a small town north of Salt Lake City, Utah, where my then-husband had been reared.

This was the beginning of a spiritual path that would lead me to a greater understanding of religion as doctrines, dogmas, and organizations. My membership in the Mormon church would teach me the difference between legalism and love and would give me a better theology education than I could have ever gained in divinity school (my aspiration prior to marrying).

I tried being a good Mormon, and for a few years I succeeded. I soon realized my goal of being “sealed for time and all eternity” to my husband and our children in one of the church’s magnificent temples. But to obtain the all-important “Temple Recommend” required obeying the Word of Wisdom given by Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith: being a good Mormon generally and participating in the life of the church; abstaining from tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol; and paying a “full” tithing—10 percent of one’s gross income.This was tracked each year during “Tithing Settlement”: each December you met with the bishop and wereasked to declare that you had paid a full tithing. You were given the opportunity to write a check at that time if you had not.

I took part in the temple ceremony in a large, elaborately decorated room filled with a hundred others. Some were there to receive their own “endowments” (as these initiations are called), while others received endowments in proxy for people who had died and whose relatives had submitted their names for this purpose. The women, dressed in long white dresses, sat on one side, and the men, dressed in white suits, sat on the other.

The movie shown to us (it used to be a play performed by live actors) contained the story of the formation of the True Church of Jesus Christ. It portrayed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as well as their expulsion. I found some parts of the movie offensive, such as the portrayal of the disciples of Jesus and modern-day pastors as agents of Satan. (I’ve since heard that some of portions of the movie have been removed; probably I was not the only one who was offended.) At various stages, the movie was stopped, and we all took three sacred vows, each one having a horrible, bloody consequence if we were to ever violate it or reveal what we were learning in the temple. (I’ve heard that these have been changed as well, but I cannot confirm that.)

Being a good Mormon was easy, because the rules of life were laid out for me. All I had to do was follow them—unquestioningly. Many people like rules and the certainty that comes with rigid, legalistic religions, and for several years I enjoyed the box that kept me safe from the uncertainties of life. Most of my friends were comfortable with the legalistic doctrines of Mormonism, but then most had been born into the church. As a convert I was considered special—perhaps because my acceptance of their religion validated their own beliefs that theirs was the true church. But soon I began to chafe at the confinement, not because I needed more freedom to do as I pleased, but because I began to see the harm that a legalistic religion could do.

While the rules are designed to help ensure that individuals adhere to Mormon doctrines, I soon discovered that they also were used as a yardstick by which to measure the compliance of their neighbors and judge their actions. An elderly neighbor of mine who drank a cup of coffee every morning lived in fear that she would be found out by the bishopric of the ward. (A ward is the Mormon name for an individual congregation.) Each morning, no matter what the temperature, she would make her cup of coffee, then open all the windows to air out her house so that no one could smell the coffee, especially the bishop if he happened to drop by. In Mormonism, waking up and smelling the coffee is not something you want to do!

Members who were not following the strict rules of the church often found themselves on the outside. If not fully excommunicated, they were disfellowshipped, or placed on the outside, until they could once again follow all of the church’s rules. I happened to run into a member of my ward  in the grocery store one day. She noticed that I had seen the six-pack of beer in her cart, and quickly apologized to me for the fact that her husband—a church member—did not keep the Word of Wisdom.

“He’s really trying to get back into the church,” she assured me, as if I was the one that was judging her husband. I had no interest in judging anyone and was often reminded of the New Testament scripture “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Yet in a community in which around 95 percent of the people were Mormons, it was difficult to avoid being judged by someone. It was like living in a glass house, and there were plenty of people to throw stones.

Those who were not perfect “saints” in the Mormon tradition were not treated very well, which caused me to review my Christian upbringing. Mormons do not refer to themselves as Christians (something I was taught very early in my church membership), nor did many of those in the community know their Bible very well. Most of the emphasis was placed on the Book of Mormon. Odd, given that they call themselves “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Being under the microscope of the ward bishopric meant that members were accountable to the bishop or one of his two counselors for everything. One was expected to consult with the bishop in matters that in secular life would be considered private and personal choices, such as how many children to have. We women of childbearing age were expected to have children. It was a duty to bring spirits from heaven to obtain bodies, and it was taken very seriously. At one point, after my husband and I decided not to have any more children (I had four), I was called into the bishop’s office to explain why, since it had been several years since my youngest child was born. He certainly didn’t like the answer I gave him and warned me of my obligation to bring spirit children from heaven as “Heavenly Father” had taught us to do.

Much of this belief originates in the well-known statement made by Lorenzo Snow, the fifth president of the Mormon Church: “As man is now, God once was; as God is now, man may be.” Mormons believe that human males may become gods and rule over their own worlds, having numerous wives with whom to have “spirit” children to populate these other worlds with human beings. Whether or not Snow’s statement is church doctrine has long been disputed, but it is taught often enough.

After about eight years, I began stepping back from the church. I am a strong-willed person with my own mind-set, and my husband didn’t object, even though the bishop told him that he needed to rein me in. After all, in Mormon doctrine “husbands are the saviors of their wives.” I knew the consequences for us as a family of trying to remove myself from Mormonism. My children would be ostracized (and they were), and my friends in the ward would be told not to associate with me, as I was a danger to their faith.

The final straw was when the bishop called me in for another face-to-face meeting and asked me when I was going to quit my job and be a good mother. He also asked me when was I was going to quit writing articles for The Salt Lake Tribune about women’s issues. I was finished.

My husband got a job in Phoenix, Arizona, and we moved out of the fishbowl. It was there that I met my Waterloo with the church. I’d learned of a young woman with several children whose husband had divorced her, leaving her in a bad way financially. She’d met a wonderful man—not a Mormon—who’d begun providing for her and her children, and she’d been sleeping with him.

The bishop and his counselors had found out about this, because the young woman had been feeling guilty about the liaison and confessed this to her “home teachers”—men of goodstanding in the church who are given several families to call on each month to ensure that things are well. They informed the bishop, and she had been called to attend a council to disfellowship her. I went to visit her to comfort her, and I told her that God loved her no matter what. “The church might throw you out, but with God, you’re never out,” I said.

That too, got back to the bishop, because again she felt guilty about my visit with her. A few days later he knocked at my door and served me with papers to excommunicate me for “preaching false doctrine.” It was an official citation that called me to a hearing with seven members of the bishop’s council. I accepted the papers, telling him that as long as the citation meant no points off my driver’s license, I was OK with it. I laughed, thinking it was rather funny, but the bishop didn’t see the humor in it.

A few weeks later, I was brought up before these seven men in a church court, and my fate within Mormonism was to be decided. It was obvious what that fate was, but I was beyond caring. I challenged them with my “Sixteen Theses,” outlining why I felt that Mormonism was not a Christian religion. It was based on my many years of study and knowledge of the Scriptures. I wasn’t going to let these men have the last word where my spirituality was concerned. First, I said, it is the purpose of religion to serve the people, and to provide a vehicle by which people serve their God. When people begin serving the religion for the sake of the “church,” then Christianity has been lost. Also, when religion becomes a whip to be used to ensure obedience to the law, it is useless. Christ came to fulfill the law of the Old Testament, and usher in the new law—that of love. When rules are more important than love, Christianity has been lost.

I think some of them found it all rather amusing—as did I. My excommunication taught me that there are some dangers in being a spiritual seeker—including the belief that those in authority somehow have a truth to which I don’t have access. That isn’t the case. All the truth resides within our own hearts and souls, waiting to be discovered, waiting for the veil to be lifted from our eyes and the illusions revealed.

Even so, there is something reassuring in being dedicated to a strict dogma or to absolute doctrine. I’ve often thought that people like the Mormons, who believe without doubt that theirs is the only true church, may be more content with their absolutes that we who are spiritual seekers. But there is a big price to pay for that comfort, and that price is giving up one’s free will, relinquishing the freedom to seek, knock, and find one’s personal truth behind the door of one’s own heart.

In a speech given in the 1980s, Spencer W. Kimball, the Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1973 to 1985,stated something that should strikefear into the heart of every spiritual seeker: “When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.”

All my life I’d done nothing but ask questions—of my Sunday-school teachers, preachers, and anyone who would sit and discuss theology with me. Questions were my life’s sustenance, and I knew that the questions were always more important than the answers. I learned that once one had the answers the path ended, most of the time prematurely. There is always more, because the truth is never found in just one place outside of oneself. There are always more teachers to hear, more books to read, and more questions to ask, and that’s not a bad thing. But ultimately the truth can only be found within.

In his book AWestern Approach to Zen,Christmas Humphreys says that the meditator (and here I’d like to substitute the words spiritual seeker) “must find his own way, and as soon as possible realize that the only true teacher is within.”

As I wrote for Quest in June 2005,

To accept the exclusive truth of a particular religious organization as the ultimate truth is to cut ourselves off from seeking our personal truth; it is blind faith—faith that refuses to look beyond the boundaries set up by the religious organization; faith that rejects personal inquiry and follows blindly dictated truth, which isn’t truth after all. . . Seeking personal truth often involves learning to question all we have been told, and not being afraid of the answers we might find.

Finding one’s personal truth always has to do with a calling that is uniquely our own that comes from the inside out, not from a bishop, a rabbi, a guru, or any other person. It comes from within ourselves when we are called to travel a path in which we can best learn who we are and the purpose of our lives on this earth.

The motto of the Theosophical Society, “There is no religion higher than truth,” gave me the strength to continue my personal quest as a spiritual seeker and never to be content with anything less than the truth from the Source within. Supported by J. Krishnamurti’s statement “Truth is a pathless land,” I can gladly walk on, quoting a bumper sticker I once saw: “Just because I wander doesn’t mean I’m lost.” I’ve truly become a stranger no more.

Clare Goldsberry is a professional freelance writer and volunteer with RISE, a continuing education program for older adults on Eastern philosophies, the Ageless Wisdom, Gnosticism, and the Kabbalah. This article is adapted from A Stranger in Zion, her memoir of her years as a Mormon housewife. She is a member of the TS’s Phoenix Study Group.

Printed in the  Fall 2018  issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation: Boyd, Tim, "Implementing the Ageless Wisdom" Quest 106:4, pg 14-17 

By Tim Boyd
International President

The following is a summary of the planning meeting of the international Theosophical Society held in Naarden, the Netherlands, in July 2018.

Mission Statement

To serve humanity by cultivating an ever-deepening understanding and realization of the Ageless Wisdom, spiritual Self-transformation, and the Unity of all Life.

Since its founding in 1875 the Theosophical Society (TS) has grown into an organization with membership, branches, and sections in more than seventy countries worldwide. The scope of TS activities has similarly grown and changed over the years, with publishing, education, programs, lectures, TS centers, communication, and meetings assuming new forms to suit ever-changing times. One of the recognized features of our time is the rapid nature of change. Unlike the recent past, no nation, culture, or geographical location is unaffected by the currents of change sweeping the planet. This condition places strong demands on all of us. More is required of us than mere repetition of past formulas or insistence upon “staying the course” in maintaining the forms of previous activities. With all of its uncertainty, this is a powerful moment in which we are living. It is a time that cries out for the depth of understanding and potential for harmonious living that the Ageless Wisdom can provide. The question for the TS now, as in the past, is “How can we communicate this wisdom to the world in a usable way?”

	Leaders of international TS Sections at the Naarden conference. International president Tim Boyd is in the front row, center.

Historically, the General Council (GC) of the TS has met for a few hours once each year on the day before the opening of the annual International Convention at Adyar. This approach has placed severe limitations on the ability for heads of national Sections to share necessary information, and allowed little or no time for meaningful dialogue on long-range plans for the international organization. In an effort to provide an opportunity for more extended planning, in 2015 a second meeting specifically devoted to strategic planning was added immediately following the close of convention. At the GC meeting in December 2016 it was determined that a five-day planning meeting would be held in March 2017 at the International Theosophical Centre in Naarden, the Netherlands. That meeting was primarily focused on brainstorming—allowing the space for all manner of ideas to come to light and be considered. Mere ideas were not enough, and each of the more than forty projects proposed at that meeting had people assigned to make them real.

During the course of the year the progress and difficulties of the various projects were monitored by a small coordinating team, charged with both reporting and helping to keep the work on track. Special attention was given to eleven priority projects. In the beginning of July this year we met again at the ITC in Naarden, this time as an official GC meeting. In all, thirty members (twenty GC members and ten invited participants) attended from a variety of countries: the Netherlands, England, Belgium, India, the U.S.A, Kenya, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, the Philippines, Spain, Germany, Italy, Brazil, and Argentina. It is the intention to formalize this extended meeting as an additional annual meeting of the GC. The report which follows is a summary of this year’s gathering.

1. The policy paper includes the mission statement of the TS.

The policy paper discusses the direction of the work of the TS, and will frequently be updated. All policies are, of course, subject to approval of the GC. A major feature is the mission statement included above, which emphasizes the TS role in and for the world, the reason why it exists. It is extremely important, as it clarifies the task or role of the TS in the world, not only for TS members, but also for people at large. It also refers to the Three Objects of the TS. For internal use it may have a strong impact, with a greater focus on our work, on what members and people can/should expect, such as our Lodge work. It clarifies that we are not to please the spiritual ambitions of our members, nor a New Age style of organization. As a statement, it can be considered “the other side of the coin” of our Freedom of Thought statement, being the practical implication of our Three Objects. Sections are requested to include the mission statement in all TS publications, while TS writers are encouraged to write articles, giving their view on the statement. 

2. Introductory books lowering threshold for people at large.

Many of the introductory books we continue to reprint are over 100 years old. While pearls of wisdom in these books are timeless, communication has changed considerably since, as has our approach to theosophy. Many recently published books are for “seasoned” TS members, whereas some of the introductory books deal more with the interest of the writer, rather than the reader. The public at large spends little time reading complex books to meet with initial interest. The plan is to publish a range of contemporary low-cost introductory publications (books, brochures, and other communication channels) with special emphasis on the spiritual life of the beginning reader, where possible making links with practical daily life. Thus theosophical concepts become recognizable for the reader in a modern, undogmatic way, thus raising interest, triggering further contacts, and deeper study. The publications, if possible translated in all major languages, can also be used for introductory courses in theosophical lodges.

3. Make TS Publishing Houses future-proof.

The publishing world has been undergoing very rapid ranges due to the popularization of ebooks and the rising cost of printing and distribution. The different theosophical publishing houses are also undergoing difficulties in sustaining their operations. It has been deemed desirable that publishers explore areas where they can cooperate with each other, adapt to new approaches in publishing and distribution, and seek ways to increase the reach of theosophical literature in the world. The team on this project has proposed that there be one global e-bookstore for all theosophical books, taking advantage of the present capability of Quest Books U.S.A. to sell ebooks on their site. This is now being explored.

4. Meditation course for a broader public.

One of the services that the TS can offer is a meditation course for the general public—those seeking inner peace or equanimity. The team is now gathering time-tested practices that have been used within and outside the TS, and a few options will be recommended to the different Sections.

5. Establishing theosophical schools.

A major project that had been agreed upon is establishing theosophical schools in various parts of the world. As a specific initiative, the General Council has approved founding a theosophical school in Adyar up to high school level to start mid-2019. In addition, new initiatives are now going on for new schools in the Philippines, Argentina, and Brazil.

6. Theosophy World: An online theosophical resource center.

Theosophy.world is an interesting website to explore all important theosophical resources, an exciting development in the promulgation of theosophy and spreading the message of the ancient wisdom teachings. There is a large diversity of material ranging from articles to videos, ebooks to photo galleries, early publications, quotes, poems, audio archives and much more. It also links to other useful like-minded websites, resource libraries and theosophical centres, becoming a truly central place to start searching from. New content is being added almost daily so students are advised checking it out by entering <theosophy.world> into the web browser. It is freely available to the general public and TS members alike. We hope the site continues to be a growing shared resource, valued by all theosophists and other truth seekers. It is currently in English but plans are afoot to make content available in other languages soon. Key questions are: how to enrich the current site, what are reliable sources, how to take the current site forward, and get more support from Sections and members. If you have any content you would like to share or would like to improve, please email content@theosophy.world.

7. Internal site sharing best practices within the TS.

Around the world many Sections have already developed many practices that have proven successful and effective in many aspects of theosophical work, such as membership record and lodge management, establishment of retreat centers or communities, dissemination methods, online courses, seminars, nurturing new members, and so on. Sections which have difficulties in these areas can learn from their experiences, difficulties, and successes. They do not have to start from scratch. A team is now compiling best practices on theosophical work from Sections around the world and this will be uploaded in a theosophical resource site. This will have restricted access and will be limited to certain officers of the TS.

8. TS Centers.

The Theosophical Centers that have been established around the world are some of the unique gems of the TS. While every center is unique in its own right and often autonomous in its governance structure, they also have much in common. Several have been in operation for generations and have rich histories. The centers can be regarded as theosophical laboratories, where activities and programs are intended to make manifest the mission and objects of the TS. The intention of this project is to implement strategies that will enhance the strength and vitality of these valuable resources in the twenty-first century. The emphasis of the project is on volunteering, programming, information sharing, and collaboration. Minor Lile has been appointed as TS Centers Coordinator to facilitate this project. Minor and his wife, Leonie Van Gelder, were managers and residents at Indralaya, a theosophical center in the U.S., for nearly twenty years. He can be contacted by email at mlile@theosophical.org.

 9. Harmonizing core teachings.

For the past one hundred years, certain basic theosophical teachings that have been popularized in the TS have internal contradictions or have terms or nomenclatures that have different meanings and have caused confusion among new students of theosophy. Examples of these are the use of the words Monad, astral body, Logos and the different versions of the principles of the human being, life after death, etc. While it is not the intention to make final definitions, which would contradict the freedom of thought declaration, recommendations for initial use for new students can be useful. A team has been tasked to solicit the opinions of writers, leaders, and scholars to hopefully come up with proposed harmonization of basic teachings for introductory theosophical literature. Whatever recommendation the team proposes will not be taken as an official position of the TS.

10. International speakers list.

The list of international speakers is aimed to create an authorized list of international speakers, who are competent and available to be invited to give lectures or seminars, or conduct schools or workshops. The list would be updated yearly by a team at Adyar, and introduced at the December Council meeting. Recommended criteria for an international speaker has been created. These criteria are very important, as each speaker acts as a representative of the international TS. The aim is also to create a policy for funding the travels. Travels should generally be covered by the inviting Section, possibly supported by the regional Federation. Overseas travels may be considered to be funded. Aim is also to support Section or Federation for weaker areas to encourage theosophical study. 

11. Self-Transformation Seminars.

The Self-Transformation Seminars have been conducted in about twenty countries and facilitators have been trained in ten countries. It has been found to be useful and effective as a seminar offered by the TS, both for members and the general public, for personal development and spiritual growth. The plan is to encourage more Sections to conduct this seminar and to train more facilitators who can transmit this to the public.

12. Animal rights and welfare.

Nowadays many animals are being bred solely for production, therefore society accepts factory farming as a means for producing meat. Humankind should know by now that animals do have emotions, can feel pain, and that some animals even have a level of self-awareness and a remarkable sense of justice. Knowing this, the TS should not remain silent about the indescribable suffering that is inflicted on our younger brothers and sisters. Although the TS as an organization cannot align itself with any movement, it is imperative that we help cultivate an informed awareness of this issue. A working group created a concept manifesto dealing with this theme: “A society without any animal products would be ideal.” Primarily because of the appalling suffering caused to animals, a vegan diet is what we strongly propagate, with its obvious environmental considerations and benefits.

Future Outlook

The Theosophical Society is part of a movement that is planetary in scope. As we learn to move toward a collaborative approach in our work, our effectiveness and relevance will grow. Now, as in the past, our greatest resource is our committed members. We look forward to an exciting development within the TS, where teams all over the world are working together across a range of projects to fulfill the Theosophical Society’s mission of serving humanity. New projects will be added in due time. This most important process will be coordinated, followed, and approved by the General Council.

Printed in the  Fall 2018  issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation: LeFevour, James, "Devata, Devi, and Logos" Quest 106:4, pg 26-28

By James LeFevour

In Hinduism, there are many pairs of male and female gods, devatas and devis, which express unique attributes or energies that interplay throughout the universe. The best-known are those of the Trimurti, the holy trinity of Hinduism: Brahma and his consort Saraswati, Vishnu and Lakshmi, and Shiva and Parvati. These pairs of devatas and devis represent a dual energy, called purusha and prakriti.

The Sankhya (or Samkhya) school of Hindu philosophy considers this duality to be the source of all creation. Purusha is translated as consciousness or spirit, while prakriti is the manifested universe or matter, which is constantly receiving and filled with consciousness. Together they are constantly giving awareness and form to our experienced reality. H.P. Blavatsky writes in The Secret Doctrine:

In the Sankhya philosophy, Purusha (spirit) is spoken of as something impotent unless he mounts on the shoulders of Prakriti (matter), which, left alone, is—senseless. But in the secret philosophy they are viewed as graduated. Though one and the same thing in their origin, Spirit and Matter, when once they are on the plane of differentiation, begin each of them their evolutionary progress in contrary directions—Spirit falling gradually into matter, and the latter ascending to its original condition, that of a pure spiritual substance. Both are inseparable, yet ever separated. In polarity, on the physical plane, two like poles will always repel each other, while the negative and the positive are mutually attracted, so do Spirit and Matter stand to each other—the two poles of the same homogeneous substance, the root-principle of the universe. (Secret Doctrine, 1:247)

Purusha and prakriti thus are the unified duality. It is best exemplified in the Ardhanarishvara, or the image of Shiva and Parvati as two in one. Many Hindu works of art represent this in paintings and sculpture to symbolize the unity of male and female, or consciousness and matter.

One story tells of an ancient sage named Bhringi, a devotee of Shiva. All of the sages would go to Mount Kailash to worship both Shiva and Parvati, but Bhringi would not worship the feminine aspect, worshipping only Shiva himself.

One day Bhringi wished to circumambulate Shiva as usual, but as he began, Parvati said, “You cannot just go around him. You have to go around me too. We are two halves of the same truth.” Bhringi, ignoring this, continued to go around Shiva alone. In response, Parvati sat on Shiva’s lap. Ever determined, Bhringi took the form of a small black bee and tried to slip between the two gods.

Shiva was not disturbed but amused. He took the form of the Ardhanarishvara, revealing him and his female half, fused together, as one and the same. Literally the name means the god who is one-half goddess.

Bhringi, still adamant, turned himself into a rat and tried to chew the two apart. This annoyed Parvati so much that she said, “May Bhringi lose all parts of the body that come from the mother.” In Hinduism it is believed that all the tough parts of the body, such as nerves and bone, come from the father, and soft, fluid parts, such as blood and flesh, come from the mother. Instantly Bhringi lost all his blood and flesh and became a dried heap of bones.

Bhringi repented. He learned his lesson: the male and the female are one. One does not exist without the other, and they are two halves of a whole.

From this story we can learn a few things about purusha and prakriti. Many might assume that prakriti, being the female counterpart to consciousness, is the opposite of consciousness. But actually prakriti is the holder and receiver of consciousness. All things are a combination of the two, but it is from prakriti that all known qualities come.

Another aspect of this story, which appears in many other stories about devatas and devis, is the male god’s devotion to the female. Shiva was very patient, but he did not allow the mother aspect to be disregarded. It was he who chose to turn into the Ardhanarishvara. This is to show that the creation of the universe at its essence is an expression of love. Whether that love is anthropomorphized, as it is in bhakti yoga, or it is Theosophically interpreted as energy, love is the primal cause of everything.

For those who wonder whether it is matter or consciousness that is the basis of the universe, the answer can be found in this story, although the Sankhya interpretation differs slightly from the Theosophical one. In the Sankhya, although both purusha and prakriti make up our universe, at their foundation they are eternally separate principles. Theosophy says that the two originate from the same source and that there are steps even before the differentiation of purusha and prakriti. Indeed this differentiation between matter and consciousness forms only part of the process that creates the universe.

Durga, the Divine Feminine Warrior

Another story, which represents the all-encompassing power of the devi, has to do with Durga. The Markandeya Purana tells of an asura, or demon, named Mahishasura, who was made nearly unkillable. Mahishasura attacked the dwelling place of the gods, conquered their army, and set to rule in their stead. The gods took refuge under Lord Brahma, who took them to Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu to ask for help. When Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva heard of the misdeeds of Mahishasura, pure energy blazed forth from them. The other gods witnessed a fiery crest blazing forth in all directions like a mountain peak aflame with the sun. The light illuminated the three worlds and concentrated into the form of the devi called Durga, which means “the invincible.”

Durga’s face was the light of Shiva, her ten arms were from Vishnu, and her feet were from Brahma. The Trimurti, along with the other gods, then gave her weapons and divine objects to help with her coming battle. The beautiful Durga, covered in jewels and golden armor and equipped with many divine weapons, set out against Mahishasura. She produced a tremendous sound, which filled all space. Oceans boiled and mountain chains rose, while older ranges crumbled in landslides.

Mahishasura’s armies, awestruck, were effortlessly reduced. Mahishasura took the form of a lion, but Durga beheaded it. Then Mahishasura was killed as a man and as an elephant. Finally he took the form of a wild buffalo. Durga pushed Mahishasura to the ground with her left leg and pierced him with Shiva’s trident. Then, with another of her ten hands, she wielded her bright sword and beheaded him, so at last he fell dead. The devatas and devis all bowed to Durga and sang her praises. Then she disappeared, promising to come again when needed or when they prayed to her.

In his Introduction to Hindu Symbolism, I.K. Taimni explains that this final stage, where the devas now have the ability to call on Durga, is especially significant. He compares this story to the individual conquering the lower self. The ability to gain guidance from one’s higher self marks a definite stage in spiritual development, which he says is indispensable for treading the path. Though we are consciousness in matter, with all the qualities that arise in such a condition, the goal is to purify ourselves and realize our true identity.

In this purana, the writer, the sage Medha, reminds us that the feminine contains within her all the powers of the masculine. Durga is literally made of all the qualities of the devatas. As Taimni explains:

The Devatas and Devis are shown in male and female forms because the function and the corresponding power which enables that function to be exercised are related to each other as two poles, or positive and negative principles. In fact, the existence of the manifested Universe depends upon the primary differentiation of the one Reality into two polar aspects, one positive the other negative, the positive aspect being the source of all functions and the negative aspect the source of all powers.

In the case of Durga, she is the female power or counterpart of all the Devatas, so she does not just represent the nature of one function but rather the entire nature of Prakriti. One might say she holds within her the power of Saraswati, Lakshmi, and Parvati, and many other devis in this sense.

Taimni says that the male is positive and the female is negative. Another way of looking at this is to say from the male, or from purusha, comes all action. The female, being the receptive foundation, is the basis of all manifestation. This is why Durga is shown as so much more powerful than the male devatas. The male is the energy of consciousness, and she is the experience of all those qualities.

The Bhagavad Gita and the Logos

In Notes on the Bhagavad Gita, the nineteenth-century Theosophist T. Subba Row discusses the true nature of Krishna. His presentation helps us to comprehend not only the devata, represented in this case by Krishna, the avatar of Vishnu, but the source of the universe and our relation to it as human beings.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna says to Krishna: “Prakriti and Purusha, also the Field (kshetram or matter) and the Knower of the Field, and so also knowledge and what is to be known, these I wish to know, O Kesava.”

Krishna replies, “This body, O son of Kunti, is called ‘the field.’ He who knows it thus, the wise call him ‘the knower of the field.’ And know Me, O descendant of Bharata, as the Knower of the Field in all the fields. In my opinion, that is knowledge, which is the knowledge of the field and of the knower of the field” (Bhagavad Gita 13:1̶̶3).

The Bhagavad Gita sometimes refers to prakriti as “the field” or “the body,” which is an approximate translation of kshetram. From this we learn that purusha and prakriti are so interwoven in our physical reality that they can be described as the knower and the body. Everything, even the phenomena of our conscious being, is an experience of the varying degrees of purusha and prakriti.

Subba Row explains that even though purusha and prakriti make up the manifested universe, there is difficulty in saying that those two are the root of everything. Parabrahman is the absolute reality, and Parabrahman has no consciousness and no matter to it in the earliest stage of creation. These things manifest in the Logos and are perceived from the Logos. So it can be more accurately stated that consciousness and matter, purusha and prakriti, begin at the second stage of the outpouring of the Logos. Their intermingling can be understood as the building of our manifested universe.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna addresses Krishna: “You are the supreme Brahman, supreme Goal, the most sacred Being (Purusha), who is Eternal, Divine, the Primeval God, Unborn (and) the Mightiest” (Bhagavad Gita 10:12).

These titles can lead to confusion in the reader. How can Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita be Supreme Brahman, the absolute reality itself, as well as purusha, the half of a whole at the same time? Subba Row’s interpretation enables us to see the Bhagavad Gita from a new perspective. Instead of looking at purusha and prakriti as the building blocks of our experienced reality, let us see them as part of a bigger process, as one stage of the Logos.

Before the Logos began there was Parabrahman. Then with Force came the First Logos, which is the unconscious Universal Mind. The Second Logos was life in the form of duality—spirit and matter, purusha and prakriti, male and female. The Third Logos utilizes the previous stage to manifest the universe.

Subba Row explains this by relating it to a human being. The light from the Logos shines upon humankind, and goes from subtle body to subtle body as though it were reflected from mirror to mirror in the same way that light shines from the sun. First it falls upon the karana sharira, or causal body, and from there it goes to the sukshma sarira, or astral body, and finally upon the sthula sharira, or physical body. If the light from each higher body were not reflected, the lower body would wither and die. According to Subba Row, the Sankhya recognizes only these three bodies in the individual, and does not account for the light of the Logos itself, which Theosophists know as the atma or Self.

This same process can be understood to apply to the planes, which the Logos is actively creating. Beneath the light of the Logos comes the devachanic plane, then the astral plane, and then the physical plane. Each plane is vivified by the plane above it, and all goes back to the light proceeding from the Logos. As a note to Theosophists, these divisions could be made into seven planes, but Subba Row chooses to relate them only to the three bodies of Hinduism.

In short, the Sankhya teaches that all the manifested universe comes from the intermingling of male and female energy, as represented by the devata and the devi. Purusha is the male of pure consciousness, which combines with the female of prakriti, or matter, to create all known qualities of the universe and all sentient beings. Theosophists know that duality as a part of the process that is the Logos.

Subba Row encourages Theosophists to go beyond the Sankhya and to recognize their own atma, which is the synthesis of both polarities. Mankind’s atma is the manifesting light of the Logos, and those who choose to follow it back to its source will know the Logos as their true identity.

Sources

Blavatsky, H.P. The Secret Doctrine. Two volumes. Wheaton: Quest Books, 1993.
Gopal, Madan. India through the Ages. New Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1990.
Smoley, Richard. The Dice Game of Shiva: How Consciousness Creates the Universe. Novato, Calif.: New World Library, 2009.
Subba Row, T. Notes on the Bhagavad Gita. Pasadena, Calif.: Theosophical University Press, 1978.
Taimni, I.K. An Introduction to Hindu Symbolism. Adyar, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1980.
V, Jayaram. The Bhagavadgita: Complete Translation. New Albany, Ohio: Pure Life Vision, 2011.

James LeFevour, M.S., is a former employee at the TS’s Olcott national headquarters . His lectures through the Theosophical Society can be found online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acjs23-d5f4 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfxHkGQ0A9Q