I asked if anyone knew the Quabalist definition of 'the absolute' (Parabrahman,) and Pablo said HPB might have considered it 'Ain-Soph.' I think that might not be an accurate definition. I started reading Zohar vol. 3, and its glossary says Ain, Ain-Soph, and Ain-Soph Aur are 'the 3 veils of the absolute.' It does not say what 'the absolute' is, but it might be Elohim or Shekhinah, or maybe just 'the absolute' in Hebrew. Let us discuss this and any other ideas about Deity or deities that you have. I would be interested to know if any Theosophists revere individual personal deities besides 'the absolute.' For me it is the case with at least one.

DavidC

You asked,

"...if anyone knew the Quabalist definition of 'the absolute' (Parabrahman)...."

--> HPB wrote:

“Ain Soph (Heb.). The 'Boundless' or Limitless; Deity emanating and extending....”

“Ain Soph Aur (Heb.). The Boundless Light which concentrates into the First and highest Sephira or Kether, the Crown.”

http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Aglossary.htm

“I started reading Zohar vol. 3, and its glossary says Ain, Ain-Soph, and Ain-Soph Aur are 'the 3 veils of the absolute.' ”

--> In my humble opinion, that definition does not make sense. Fortunately, HPB clears up the confusion.

“It does not say what 'the absolute' is, but it might be Elohim or Shekhinah, or maybe just 'the absolute' in Hebrew.”

--> Your quote may say the Absolute is Elohim, but HPB does not. According to HPB, Elohim are the seven gods which created humanity and the Earth. Also, the word Elohim is masculine and plural.

“The form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine....”

(www.answers.com/topic/elohim, in the Section titled, “Entymology”.)

The Absolute is neither masculine nor plural, so the word Elohim does not mean the Absolute.

Even the Bible says humanity and the Earth was created by the Elohim, a group of gods, not a single God.

“Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (underlines added.) (Genesis 1.26)

--> Here, the Bible clearly categorizes the speaker(s) as plural, which agrees with Theosophical teachings. Therefore, the sentence from Genesis should read:

“Then the gods said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (Genesis 1.26)

... which is what Theosophy teaches.

“I would be interested to know if any Theosophists revere individual personal deities besides 'the absolute.' ”

--> Theosophists do not consider the Absolute to be a Deity. The best way to think of it is, our universe is our Deity. According to Christian terminology, Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. This is a symbol which stands for the universe (The Son) emanating from Mulaprakriti (virgin matter, The Virgin). Many universes have come and gone — the Virgin has given birth to many Sons. The present Son is only one Son in a line of Sons (universes).

According to Theosophy, the Son (the universe) may be revered, but it does not make sense to revere the Absolute. Most Theosophists do not revere any Deity, nor do they see a need to.

I thought 'the absolute' might not be named, and Ain, Ain-Soph, Ain-Soph Aur could be the 3 Logoi, but the definitions do not seem similar. Though 'im' is masculine, 'Eloh' is feminine, so 'Elohim' might be neutral. The absolute is infinite, so if 'Elohim' is ever defined infinite it could be 'absolute,' and besides it being defined 7 or 10, some Gnostics may define infinite Elohim. However, usually only Ain-Soph is infinite. I do not necessarily think it is the absolute, because Quabalists seem to define it and Elohim as 2 equal forces, like yin-yang. Ain-Soph seems like the closest definition, but I will have to reread HPB and continue reading Zohar.

Parabrahman seems to be called a deity because of 'Brahman' in its name. I think it makes sense to revere something beyond personal deities & teachers, such as the the Son/universe, but maybe something causeless or at least 1st cause which do not seem to be the Son/universe. This is also important because reverence of a personal deity or teacher can become monolatrism or other dogma. Revering is not necessarily 'worshipping:' some religions call people or perhaps deities 'revered one;' I think Buddhism does. I was just wondering if anyone here, besides liking 'the great ones' and perhaps the 1st cause or yin-yang or Elohim, likes personal deities such as a specific yin-yang, Vedic deities (mixed up with 'the great ones' in Sanatana Dharma,) Greek ones associated with the phrase 'know thyself' or certain bodies of esoteric texts or such ideals (probably appropriate for Theosophists,) or ones from any culture....

David,
I am not interested so much in (a) deity, as I am in Divinity. Deity is beyond my perception/conception, whereas Divinity is all around me.
I believe that humans, perceiving divinity, personify, or anthropomorphize a Deity, from whence said Divinity must originate. We temporal creatures must search for first cause or source, because it's the way our minds work.
I am ever thankful and in awe, but the "God" I know does not require or expect my worship.

Jon

David,

You said,

"Ain-Soph seems like the closest definition, but I will have to reread HPB and continue reading Zohar."

--> It seems to me that HPB's books and the Zohar that you are reading have two different definitions of Elohim. I hope you can choose which one works better for you. I think, eventually, you will have to select one and discard the other.

"Parabrahman seems to be called a deity because of 'Brahman' in its name."

"Parabrahman" means "beyond Brahman," which can then be defined as "beyond Deity." This is the definition used in Theosophy.

"I think it makes sense to revere something beyond personal deities & teachers...."

--> I have said this before, but I think there are two kinds of people in this world, people who think like Christians and people who think like Buddhists. To me, this means that there are two kinds of people, people who need to revere or worship a deity, and people who do not. It sounds like you are the first type, and I am the second type. When I think of what Buddha accomplished, I am in awe, like Jon said. But I only think awe-type thoughts about Buddha once in a while.

"I was just wondering if anyone here ... likes personal deities...."

--> If anyone does, hopefully they will post here and let you know.

Let me quote from HPB's Theosophical Glossary, as some of these terms can be confusing..

Jon,

You have touched on a point that most beginners do not know about; the difference between Brahma and Brahmâ.

As your quote says, "...Brahma the neuter, and Brahmâ, the male creator...."

http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Aglossary.htm

Brahma is the impersonal, supreme and uncognizable Principle of the Universe. Brahmâ is the Son (the universe).

This is a big problem when reading Theosophical writings online. I have seen several examples on the Internet where the diacritical mark above the â in Brahmâ has been accidentally removed in Theosophical writings. Brahmâ is then read as Brahma, which adds error to Internet postings.

I would also like to address the issue of the difference between Brahma and Parabrahman. I have seen Theosophical quotes that seem to say that Brahma is the same as Parabrahman, and I have also seen quotes that seem to say they are different (as in your example). We must be dilligent to keep straight just "who is who."

Deity and divinity have the same definitions and may come from the same root 'deus;' the root of 'divinity' is at least a similarly-spelled synonym. 'Deity' was apparently coined by 'St.' Augustine (so now I do not prefer the term but it is what I chose to use) and used to have the same primary definition as divinity. I did not necessarily only mean 1 definition and I do not see why either would be beyond conception (or not omnipresent,) though maybe perception at least if one is very science-minded, though note 'Ye are gods.' It is ridiculous that some people think spirit originates from 1st (or other) cause because it is also a spirit type--from causeless cause. However, that does not mean some prayers cannot be as effective as meditation-contemplation, or involved in it. Some just ask for divine guidance; one could ask Buddha or Christ, but it is not far-fetched to ask [a] divinity (which on some level is the same, as I quoted.) I bet most people sometimes do informally at least--not that they must, but help is probably available. What most people do not realize is they must take effects seriously and add their own effort.

I seem to recall her saying so, although I did not state her or Zohar's definition.

I should have remembered that, but it is a difficult idea for anyone--what about the definition that Jon quoted that says it is supreme Brahma? Maybe I should read the various Indian philosophy viewpoints.

To me that makes sense with typical ideas about Christians (and many pagans/heathens) and Buddhists, but Gnostic Christians are more like many Buddhists, and some Buddhists say prayers (such as mantras and other poetry) to Buddhas, some of which (maybe Quan-[shi-]yin/Avalokiteshvara/Chenrezig and Amithaba) are considered deities. If you are in awe of Buddha, that may be reverence, but worship involves rituals such as formal prayers. I do not think divinity requires worship, though I think bhakti is good and one need not give it up when they start jnana (also I know from experience jnana can increase bhakti ;) I do formal prayers asking divinity and 'great ones' for guidance... sometimes it was a last resort when I really could have used a spiritual Master's help. Prayers just praising divinity or saying it is great make no sense to me. The only exception, somewhat (because this is also just invocation,) is 'hailing' the pagan deity I like, saying her or his traditional prayers, which I do not think she or he needs or necessarily likes, but I like. I do not think there is anything wrong with invoking, but now I notice many traditional prayers that do more than that are not as spiritual as they could be.

That is quite interesting, but I may still be confused. I thought Creator Brahma is different than impersonal Brahman, but the definitions say Brahman is Brahma. I read a story that the Trimurti (Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu) sat at a campfire and someone came along that was better than them all at something, who then disappeared. (implying Brahman?) I see that the definition for Brahma says Creator Brahma is the one with the accent mark, so I take it 'Brahma' by the other definition is Brahm[an.] I wonder what pre-Vedic idea of these words was or if there is more esoteric meaning: such a coincidental homonym is odd.

I was speaking of Divinity, not 'A divinity'. I see deity as indicating a 'thing' or perhaps a 'being', whereas Divinity indicates a 'quality' or 'attribute', only the former being equivalent to Brahman, Brahma, or Parabrahm. This was the key to my statement.

Divinity issues from the highest ineffable source (perhaps a Deity?), not from lesser deities in the hierarchy, including Elohim. They would be (as are we), in a manner of speaking, already awash in Divinity.

That is what I thought you meant, but the original definition of 'deity' was the same as 'divinity,' meaning a high form of spirit rather than a specific being (the 2nd definition of 'divinity.') I thought you said people anthropomorphize [personal] Deity and say divinity[-spirit] originates from it, but now you said perhaps it does originate from it. I do not think anthropomorphization is good, and I will not agree or disagree whether divinity originates from an individual Divinity (or 'Deity,' as you say.) Actually I tend to think so since it is simplified with the same word and individual can mean 'monadic' more than 'personal;' if it was 'personal' it might be anthropomorphized. Of course 'infinite' also applies to this individual, and the definition of Parabrahm you posted may be related (though not everyone would agree.)

The ultimate (deity, if you will) is ineffable, unknowable, indescribable, yet we describe it, name it, anthropomorphize it (Him), and so forth. I, we do not know from whence divinity comes, but, as the Sufis say, just look around you, and there it is.

Two other points I should make. Although there is a hierarchy, I don't believe there is a pinnacle, a 'top' of the hierarchy. the top of any hierarchy is merely the bottom of another one. As in the old joke about Hindu cosmology, "it's turtles all the way down".

Also, the idea that this Divinity emanates from a source separate from us indicates the glorious paradox that is Man. Man is uniquely able to look back upon himself as a thing separate from everything else, and so deceive himself that he is not God. The microcosm is the macrocosm. Atman is Brahman.

IMHO

David,

You said,

"Some [people] ask for divine guidance; one could ask Buddha or Christ...."

--> We can only wonder if appealing to the Lipika or Elohim or Mahatmas can cause them to intervene in our lives, and answer our prayers. (By the way, I believe in Guardian Angels, although I have never seen such a concept mentioned in Theosophical literature.) Theosophical literature does mention our Higher Self, and the idea that appealing directly to It may have an effect.

"what about the definition that Jon quoted that says it is supreme Brahma?"

--> We are getting this whole conversation confused by using terms like Brahma, Brahmâ, Brahman, Supreme Brahma, etc. Let's discard all of these terms for the sake of this discussion, and make it as simple as possible. According to Theosophy, there is something called the Absolute. We know next to nothing about the Absolute, and that is just the way it goes. When it is time for a new universe to appear, something called pre-cosmic pre-matter ("Matter") emantes from the Absolute. Spirit then also emanates from the Absolute. Spirit and Matter then interact to create a universe.

In another thread Nick implied the female Logos is Mulaprakriti, and mensagitat said it was vach. Vach sounds like it is Shabdhabrahman, pranava, nada. Maybe it is not the latter, but I guess all of these are the 2nd Logos.

I did not recall Theosophy defined the 1st Logos male and the 2nd female. Many creation myths mention parthenogenesis (of course from a female,) which is occasionally or always part of the biology of many species. Biology of course really studies the lowest/7th consciousness principle so applies to cosmology and its mythology. Parthenogenesis seems a more correct explanation to me than an unmanifest male Logos. Otherwise one might have to say 'the absolute' is more feminine, though it is that and masculine and neither. Maybe in that case it works, but then defining other Logoi is redundant, or at least saying they are feminine or masculine does not seem to have much point.

If the Logoi 1, 2 are Brahman and Mulaprakriti, then what is the 3rd in these terms, Ishvara? I only recall the 3 triad being named Brahma, Nara, Nari; Surya, Indra, Agni; Trimurti.

David,

You said,

"I did not recall Theosophy defined the 1st Logos male and the 2nd female."

“Darkness vanished and was no more; it disappeared in its own essence, the body of fire and water, or Father and Mother..” (Shloka i-3-6)

“Darkness alone filled the boundless all, for Father, Mother and Son were once more one, and the Son had not awakened yet for the new Wheel, and his pilgrimage thereon..” (Shloka i-1-5)

[The Father has not yet appeared as of Shloka i-2-4.] “Just as the Spirit or Father-Light is not yet ready to flash forth its great ‘I am’ [in Shloka i-2-4], so the Matrix or Root of Matter is not yet ready, not sufficiently differentiated from the ‘sleeping’ unity of the Night, to undertake its role of receptivity, of being ‘That is’.” (Man the Measure, p. 93)

“It (the Web) expands when the breath of fire (the Father) is upon it; it contracts when the breath of the Mother (the root of matter, Mulaprakriti) touches it..” (Shloka i-3-11)

“Father-Mother spin a web whose upper end is fastened to Spirit (Purusha)....” (Shloka i-3-10)

“The Ray had not yet flashed into the germ; the Matripadma (Mother Lotus) had not yet swollen..” (Shloka i-2-3)

“The first is the . . . . 'Mother' (prima MATERIA). Separating itself into its primary seven states, it proceeds down cyclically; when having consolidated itself in its LAST principle as GROSS MATTER, it revolves around itself and informs, with the seventh emanation of the last, the first and the lowest element (the Serpent biting its own tail).” (Sd vol 1 p 291)

“Light is cold flame, and flame is fire, and fire produces heat, which yields water: the water of life in the Great Mother (Chaos).” (Shloka i-3-9)

---

"Parthenogenesis seems a more correct explanation to me than an unmanifest male Logos."

par·the·no·gen·e·sis: reproduction by development of an unfertilized usually female gamete that occurs especially among lower plants and invertebrate animals

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Parthenogenesis%20

--> The First Logos has been said to appear both before and after the Second Logos, which seems to refer to your idea of a male developing from a female. Such an idea excludes the Absolute, which is neither the First nor Second Logos.

"If the Logoi 1, 2 are Brahman and Mulaprakriti, then what is the 3rd in these terms, Ishvara?"

--> Correct.

"I only recall the 3 triad being named Brahma, Nara, Nari; Surya, Indra, Agni; Trimurti."

--> You are using terms that are unfamiliar to most Theosophists.

Well, these denominations of Father, Mother, etc. are symbolic and relative, according to what you are trying to explain.
The second Logos, having for symbol a circle with a (horizontal) diameter, is shown in its feminine, passive, aspect. But from a different perspective we would say that the Second Logos is the yet undifferentiated Father-Mother, the Third (manifested) Logos being the Son (of it) and the Father (of the universe) at the same time, Vach being the Mother. From another point of view, however, we would say that Mulaprakriti is the Mother and the First Logos the Father.
You can find in HPB's description all those definitions, because what is Father from a lower plane, is the Son from a higher one, etc.
Even the concept of feminine/passive and masculine/active is not plainly consistent. I personally would not speak of any Logoi as feminine, since to my mind the very word "Logos" implies an active aspect. I would speak of the state of matter at the stage of any Logoi as the feminine aspect of it (Mulaprakriti, Swabhavat, Akasha for the First, Second and Third Logoi respectively). However, HPB speaks about Vach as the female Logos and having a very active characteristic, and the shaktis as being the feminine aspect of the masculine seven sons of Fohat.
I think all this come to the same concept: these denominations are relative, and what is high or low, light or darkness, feminine or masculine, depends on what you are relating it to.

"I only recall the 3 triad being named Brahma, Nara, Nari; Surya, Indra, Agni; Trimurti."

--> You are using terms that are unfamiliar to most Theosophists.

Actually, these are called versions of the Logoic triad in Isis Unveiled or The Secret Doctrine. The 1st 3 are pre-Vedic and the most esoteric, the 2nd 3 are actually Vedic, and the Trimurti is later but probably Vedic, and the most exoteric. HPB compares these to other lands' trinities that she discusses.

Nick, you might have been right Nara and Nari are not familiar. They are in the book, but I might have got that triad wrong.

Earlier some members discussed with me the nature of 'the absolute,' which I will call eternal-boundless-immutable (as in the SD) or just Parabrahm. In the SD, HPB also says Parabrahm is 'consciousness' and uses 'spirit' and 'intelligence' as synonyms. That is different that what others have said here. However, she also says intelligence is 'chitta.' Of course, Parabrahm is not only chitta or bodhichitta.

Also, I read in SD vol. 3 (on or after page 203) that Elohim is from a feminine root 'Eloh' and is plural. Does it say somewhere else it is masculine? Perhaps the usual definition as in Genesis, even according to Gnostics, is masculine, but I do not remember Theosophists saying so anywhere else.

David,

I do not know about Eloh, but I am quite sure Elohim is masculine. Off the top of my head, I do not remember any Theosophical quote that says Elohim is masculine. Let me dig around, and see what I can find.

I have seen this:

“The form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine....” (www.answers.com/topic/elohim, in the Section titled, “Entymology”.)

David,

I want to make the point that Theosophy teaches that some higher 'beings' or 'principles' are definitely male or female. I am well aware of, and sensitive to, the issues in women's lib, and the tendency of patriarchial religions to ... well, ... put women down. (I am particularly appalled by "God's placing a curse on all women" in Genesis.)

We need to separate out the different issues. One issue is that the group of seven Elohim who 'created' Earth and humanity have been positively identified as being male.

I could believe 'elim' instead of 'elohim' is masculine: 'el' is masculine, but apparently 'elah'/'eloh'/'eloah' (all spelled 'ALH') is feminine. Because of that it 'elohim' may be feminine; I did give a page from SD vol. 3 saying so. Not that that means all Elohim are feminine, but IIRC only 1 is specifically stated to be masculine. Do any historical virtuous mystics/esoterists really consider 'elohim' masculine? Maybe; I would like to know who.

Maybe the Gnostics did, but many considered the creator primarily masculine. It would be interesting if some Quabalists/Gnostics considered Ain-Soph & Elohim both feminine and related to the unmanifest boundless or to Aditi.

Earlier I stated I might have read HPB said 'the absolute' is gender-neutral, or both, but a bit more feminine. It would be too hard for me to find that, if it is even true. Maybe I just thought so because she calls 'the absolute' Ain-Soph, which is also feminine. A more recent chart posted (not by HPB) showed Ain as the absolute and Ain-Soph as the 1st Logos (feminine.)

David,

Here is that chart.

Tabulation of Equivalent Terms
http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/tabulation.htm

I believe the First Logos is masculine, and the Absolute is gender-neutral.

If I remember correctly, the Second Logos is called Father-Mother in its undifferentiaed state, while it is called Mother in its differentiated state. Therefore the Second Logos can be called feminine, but only in its differentiated state.

This is a strange discussion. First of all, does it matter what genders exist on higher planes? And secondly, is it really appropriate to apply physical terminology to non-physical beings? My recollection of ‘in the beginning’ is that the (masculine) ray of light penetrated the (feminine) void. But the concepts here are so far removed from our understanding of gender that we should simply take what HPB and others might have said as helpful pointers.

I have always viewed the separation of the sexes as being a minor anomaly on this plane, and the farther we advance the less important it will be. Although while we are here, it would be a shame not to explore it a little bit. ;)

...Elohim then, correspond to both classes of the mentioned in Theosophical literature; the higher spiritual intellectual, agnishvatta-pitris and the lower, barhishad-pitris.

The above is not a precise quote, the link is below: Elohim. can be either gender.

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/ea-el.htm

Harvey wrote;

Although while we are here, it would be a shame not to explore it a little bit. :o

It has been mentioned on this forum that the seperation into male/female has been described as a gift of Nature. :D

Nick. I remember earlier not agreeing with that chart in regard to, Ayin, Ain Soph, and Ain Soph Aur. In that I thought it was reversed. I see how I was wrong now.

We discussed/debated this before and IIRC you thought differently than what you just said.

SD I p72:
'[...]
* Hence all the higher gods of antiquity are all "Sons of the Mother" before they become those of the "Father." The Logoi, like Jupiter or Zeus, Son of Kronos-Saturn, "Infinite Time" (or Kala), in their origin were represented as male-female. Zeus is said to be the "beautiful Virgin," and Venus is made bearded. Apollo is originally bisexual, so is Brahma-Vach in Manu and the Puranas. Osiris is interchangeable with Isis, and Horus is of both sexes.[...]

*** The Gnostic Sophia, "Wisdom" who is "the Mother" of the Ogdoad (Aditi, in a certain sense, with her eight sons), is the Holy Ghost and the Creator of all, as in the ancient systems. The "father" is a far later invention. The earliest manifested Logos was female everywhere -- the mother of the seven planetary powers.'

According to that, Logoi are feminine and recently (or after the 1st) also considered masculine. Also, if 1st cause has no femininity, how can it create feminine Logoi? (not that I think it does; it is unnecessary after the Absolute does) Species exist that only reproduce by females. Maybe we need to look up more: the following is just my Shaktite-Amenetite-Eloahistic perspective.

IIRC someone here implied Aditi is more than Logos: that may be misinterpretation. However, AFAIK she and Vach, closer in meaning to 'Logos,' etc., are synonyms. Isis and Osiris are not impersonal Logoi, but were mentioned above, and the quote says Osiris is interchangeable with Isis, but the quote does not always mean the converse. A meaning of their myth is Osiris and his rebirth, Horus, are interchangeable. It is one of the myths about Goddess giving birth to her husband-son God. I think Joseph Campbell wrote about it, and surely HPB did, such as explained Hellenismos creation myths, ideas of 'cosmic egg,' and (as I started on last time) Quabalah genesis in which Ain-Soph, identified with Sophia (both of which are often called feminine) and Shekhinah, i.e. Shakti, causes Ain-Soph-Aur and perhaps Demiurge, either of which is Tikkun (Logos, but so is Ain-Soph) and El Shaddai, i.e. Shiva. Shiva may be 'Law' and one with Shakti, 'force' (very similar idea to Quabalah,) but Law also only describes force, and similarly, Vishnu-Krsna has a transcendental form identified with Parabrahm (maybe 'Mahavishnu;' Shaivites say 'Parashiva' or maybe 'Shakta,' a Tantra, possibly Shaktism term) but requires and is one with Devi (i.e., Shakti) Saraswati-Hare. IIRC Kundalini-Shakti includes Kundalini-Shabdhabrahman, i.e. Vach, and Kundalini-Prakriti, i.e. Mulaprakriti; they are in Parabrahm; Kundalini (and the Shakti hebdomad in her as Devi Prakriti) is in Parabrahm: which not only Brahm and Fohat are compared to, if they even should be most, except likely Fohat equally. Adi-Buddha is like Viradj, Brahm, Aum, even Parabrahm; Adi-Prajna/-Tara is at least Aum. AFAIK, Krsna and Buddha never called 1st cause masculine... Yeshua supposedly may have implied so (though neither Quabalah nor the Gospel mentioning Logos does) but was portrayed imperfect or recorded wrong--his Thea and Theos are unnamed, but maybe he would have said Amen[et] (Aum ;) Amen is a sacred NT name; YHVH may not be (note Pharaoh saying 'who?' to Moses naming god.) He did say 'the morning star,' which could be Aphrodite (Venus, identified with sea, 'mer,' who HPB identifies with Mary and another in that and other ways,) even Athena ('evening star,' same planet as 'morning star') who is like Neith, i.e. Amenet. Neith-Amen-Khons myths may be less anthropomorphic than Isis-Osiris-Horus. I have said enough about personal divinities other than Logoi... it is not good to too much, nor to say by defining a Logos or other divinity [fe]male means other than masculine/feminine (though divinities may nevertheless have some absolute polarity.)

Earlier I mentioned a National Geographic program. It theorized on Yeshua's parthenogenesis, which many Nazars disbelieve; who knows.... XXY females exist: maybe Mary was one. XXY causes usually infertile hermaphrodites of varying physiology rarely including female. Philosophical scientists think morphogenetic fields cause genes, but maybe you will think I am going from particulars to universals: I think the facts of species doing female-exclusive reproduction and XXY women exist reflect more of what 'As above, so below' could mean about Logoi. I still must research Ainsoph-Sophia-Demiurge (2 feminine,) besides Aum-Brahm-Viradj (2 masculine,) but feminine is creative--causal--only females are direct causes of others; masculine/males may cause but are not always/ever necessary. Morphogenetic-fields and genes are orderly, and manasic and pranic planes are material, I guess beings there have genes; spirits probably have morphogenetic fields, but if one thought mind+lifeforce does contrary morphogenesis, though genetics is not perfect (since usually gross-material empirical,) that would be from particulars to universals (disorderly.) For example, virtue and feminine noeta/noumena (intelligible subjects of noesis--spiritual) cause doxa/phenomena (sensable subjects--material) including virtuous tendencies (genetically) and reproduction without males; however, if masculines were direct causes of other noeta that would reflect in phenomena: if you say 1st noumena is masculine, consider other impossible morphogenesis such as vice creating virtue or other ideal forms or their ideal thoughts & phenomena or vice versa.

David,

You quoted from SD vol 1 p 72,

"The Logoi, like Jupiter or Zeus, Son of Kronos-Saturn, "Infinite Time" (or Kala), in their origin were represented as male-female."

--> It is important to note that this quote referrs to the Third Logos. One of the fascinating things about the Third Logos is that it has both a masculine and feminine aspect. For those of you who are familiar with the SD, the masculine Third Logos is called Kwan Shai Yin (Kwan Shi Yin), while the female aspect is called Kwan Yin -- the Buddhist deity that many people are already familiar with. HPB is describing the various names for the Third Logos — Zeus, Jupiter, etc. — as having both male and female attributes, because it does.

However, the Third Logos is usually referred to as being male — as Shloka i-3-7 shows, the same Shloka that your quote is referring to.

"Also, if 1st cause has no femininity, how can it create feminine Logoi? (not that I think it does; it is unnecessary after the Absolute does)."

--> I would not say the First Logos creates the Second Logos. Here is a graphic I put together some time ago.



Before differentiation begins (before a universe begins to appear), Father (The First Logos) and Mother (The Second Logos) are within the Absolute, undifferentiated from each other, in a state called Father-Mother. When a new universe begins to appear, it is said the Mother appears first, and then the Father differentiates away from the Mother, causing both Father and Mother to 'appear.' The Father then fecundates the Mother, causing the Son (our physical universe) to apppear.

"According to that, Logoi are feminine and recently (or after the 1st) also considered masculine."

--> The quote is referring to the Third Logos, which has both male and female attributes, but is usually referred to in the masculine, as the Son.

"IIRC someone here implied Aditi is more than Logos...."

--> I think that both Adi Buddha and Aditi Buddha refer to the First Logos, but I am not sure about that.

"It is one of the myths about Goddess giving birth to her husband-son God."

--> This sounds like Father emerging from Father-Mother, which is the Theosophical version of the story.