Before reading the compilation which follows, it is necessary to clearly understand what these Theosophical teachers and writers mean when referring in this context to positivity and negativity, or activity and passivity.

It is not referring to whether one has a positive or negative mental attitude and outlook on life, nor to whether someone keeps physically or even mentally “active” in the ordinary sense of the term.

Instead, what is being referred to are the two fundamental polarities of manifested existence, i.e. the two poles of life.

The physical body and its sexual physiology is a Karmic effect. The Karmic cause behind that effect seems to primarily (though not solely) be the affinity one had most developed within oneself with one or another of those polarities in the previous incarnation in this world. Most people, in terms of their character and their way of thinking and feeling lean towards either an inner masculinity or an inner femininity, regardless of what sex their body may be and irrelevant of what their sexual orientation might be.

Thus, positivity and negativity, or activity and passivity, are meant here in a psychic, emotional, and to some extent intellectual sense.

The faculty of mediumship is by definition a very psychically passive one. Not all women are mediums but most mediums, as also most people with active psychic faculties, are indeed women. On the other hand, if one takes a look at old Theosophical forum websites, on which there was much debating, arguing, critical analysis, intellectualising, and discussion of metaphysical complexities, 99% of those posting and participating were men. It is not the case that 99% of Theosophists are men (we would roughly estimate that it is probably more like a 60-40 male/female divide) but the type of approach and activity engaged in in such forums, like theos-talk, was an overwhelmingly mentally active one; “active” in the sense of combative, fighting, challenging, confrontational, almost entirely intellectual, etc.

This is just a brief and incomplete explanation but hopefully it will help to make things clearer. The ideal is a balance of these two polarities within oneself, the attaining of the inner hermaphrodite state or condition, Hermaphroditus being in Greek mythology the child of Hermes (god of masculinity) and Aphrodite (goddess of femininity).

In the meantime, a significant predominance of one or the other results in what people readily recognise as either a thoroughly male or thoroughly female character. It cannot be said that there is anything “bad” or “wrong” about this; however, it is only a passing phase in human evolution.

“The Secret Doctrine” discloses that in very early, very ancient Root Races on this Earth, before the Earth was even fully materially solidified, the human body was sexless, and very gradually, over vast periods of time, transformed to double-sexed, i.e. androgynous or hermaphrodite, and later in the Lemurian epoch became single-sexed, as it is today. This was all on the arc of involution. We are now on the arc of evolution and will gradually regain that more ethereal state we once had, but on a much higher and more useful level.

Theosophical literature often refers to the two fundamental polarities of manifested existence by the Hindu terms Purusha and Prakriti. These are typically translated as “spirit” and “matter” respectively. Purusha is the masculine polarity, Prakriti is the feminine. The Universe and all of life – which is pervaded by duality, even though there is no ultimate duality – only comes about through the unified activity of both of them. At first glance, it may perhaps sound offensive and misogynistic to say that woman corresponds to matter, while man corresponds to spirit. But it is not meant to imply that women are devoid of spirit or that men are transcendent of everything material . . . not at all! It just refers to the cosmic nature or origins of the two polarities which result in a thoroughly feminine or thoroughly masculine character. These are famously illustrated in Taoism as the forces of Yin and Yang.

At the very lowest and most material level, even the male and female sex hormones – i.e. testosterone and estrogen – must be the bodily correspondences and differentiated products of Purusha and Prakriti, the universal divine masculine Energy and the universal divine feminine Energy. Remember: As above, so below. On Earth as it is in Heaven.

Although none of the following quotes mention it, the Buddhi principle is also repeatedly spoken of as feminine in the original Theosophical teachings. And Buddhi is one of the least material of all the principles or components of the human constitution, as it is the direct radiation of Atman and is also that glorious golden radiance of Spiritual Wisdom which Manas (a masculine principle) seeks to totally merge and unify itself with. (For more on these points, see The Buddhi Principle and Understanding Our Seven Principles.) All around the world and throughout history, spiritual wisdom has always been seen as a feminine principle, from the language of the Jewish and Christian Bible to the graphic symbolism of Tibetan Buddhist Tantra.

It should also be remembered that these polarities we are speaking about can fluctuate significantly over the course of one life and that they exist on a vast spectrum. It is not the immortal spiritual Being within which belongs to one or another polarity, masculine or feminine. The latter apply only to the body and the personality, both of which are mortal and transient.

So there is no denigration of woman or of the feminine in Theosophy. One can see the compilation The Elevation of Woman for proof of this, which includes the words of the Master K.H. or Koot Hoomi: “On the elevation of woman the world’s redemption and salvation hinge. And not till woman bursts the bonds of her sexual slavery, to which she has ever been subjected, will the world obtain an inkling of what she really is and of her proper place in the economy of nature.” But Theosophy does not exalt either woman or man, feminine or masculine, as superior or supreme over the other.

A person who in this life is physically female may have developed the “active,” “positive” polarity so strongly over the course of this present lifetime – due to any of a wide array of possible reasons and circumstantial factors – that it seems almost guaranteed that that soul will be in a male body next time around. Likewise, someone who is now in a male body may have developed the “passive,” “negative” polarity so strongly over the course of this lifetime that they will almost certainly be reborn as female. But when a woman continues throughout one life to have the defining inner “feminine qualities” or polarity predominant, the subsequent reincarnation will almost certainly be another female one. The converse is true with men. When these polarities truly exist in a strong degree of harmony and equilibrium, only an Adept would be able to perceive what type of form the next life may take.

The phenomenon of transgender people may at first seem to contradict such ideas. This is especially so with regard to what has been called “the classic transsexual”: an individual whose character, behaviour, and mannerisms are unavoidably so much like that of their opposite sex that it is immediately and unquestionably apparent to everyone who meets them that they are “a woman in a man’s body” or “a man in a woman’s body,” whatever such a notion might actually mean to them. Occasionally, the natural appearance and build of the physical body may also be far more like that of the opposite sex than their own.

But if the predominance of one polarity makes it very likely one will be born as the corresponding sex, why do transgender women (for example) feel themselves to be inwardly female, yet have been born as males? We would guess that there must have been something particularly “masculine” in their character and inner quality in the preceding life, in order to have produced a male body this time around. But at the same time, that soul or Ego or spiritual individuality may perhaps have had several or even many consecutive lives as a woman, which cannot help but result in very feminised skandhas, and vice versa for transgender men. But please note that this is only a theory, arrived at through trying to apply the timeless Theosophical teachings to contemporary world situations; it should not be taken as esoterically authoritative. But it should hopefully help people to realise that the transgender phenomenon is a Karmic phenomenon and that what is needed is compassion, kindness, and respect, not condemnation, judgementalism, and criticism. That should be the natural attitude of Theosophists anyway but sadly there are a very few – an extreme minority of scattered individuals – who are openly and hatefully transphobic. These tend to be isolated students of Theosophy who are not involved with any “real world” group but use Facebook to vent their ideas. Nonetheless, as much as one may disagree with such attitudes, there has to be freedom of thought and freedom of belief. That cannot exist solely in regard to one’s own preferred views and ideas!

~ * ~

“Is there any essential spiritual difference between a man and a woman, or is sex a mere accident of each birth — the ultimate future of the individual furnishing the same opportunities?”

“A mere accident — as you say. Generally a chance work, yet guided by individual Karma, — moral aptitudes, characteristics and deeds of the previous birth.” (The Master K.H., answering a question of A. P. Sinnett, “The Mahatma Letters” p. 117)

“If masculine quality is the predominant characteristic, the Ego probably will be next in a male body; if not, the other sex.” (William Q. Judge, “The Enquirer,” “William Q. Judge Theosophical Articles” Vol. 2, p. 486)

“Theosophy does not concern sex distinctions, and talks more of souls, which are sexless, than it does of the bodies they inhabit.” (WQJ, “Cautions in Paragraphs”)

“It is as hard for man as for woman to enter the mysteries. Man works through the intellect, woman through the emotions or heart. Both are equally useless after a time, and of the two the heart is the better tool. But woman becomes engrossed or overwhelmed by her emotions, and passes no farther. The greatest Teachers have been those who have had most of the womanly in their natures. It is more difficult to master the body as a woman than as a man. This can be answered only partially in print.” (WQJ, “Answers to Questioners,” “William Q. Judge Theosophical Articles” Vol. 2, p. 464)

“Furthermore I know from her own lips that she [i.e. H. P. Blavatsky] cared not whether she was in male or female body, but took that body (regardless of sex) which would enable her to do the most work; and also she said that, given the power to control a female incarnation and all that that implies, more could now be done in such than in the male form, but such control and ability were impossible for the general run of people, and solely for the latter reason would she — if unable to control — prefer a male incarnation. I know also that she often smiled at the petty personality and feeble notions that lead us weak mortals to desire either male or female bodies for our next rebirth.” (WQJ, “Forum Answers” p. 66)

“If my next birth shall be in the body-female, it is a matter of indifference.” (WQJ, “Forum Answers” p. 43)

“Karma — from other lives — determines where, how, and when we shall be born. But in the matter under debate, one of the ramifications of the law of Karma which must have most to do with this is tendency. . . . If we discover what is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the female character as opposed for comparison to the male, then we can perhaps arrive at a probable conclusion — though, as I above remarked, a very uninteresting and useless one in any event.

“. . . it still remains true that the essential female character — whatever be the distinguishing mark — is totally different from the essentially male one.

“Now, then, if Ego (A) has evolved with infinite pain and many lives the female character, is it likely that that tendency will exhaust itself at once? Or if it has been set up by one life, is it likely to exhaust at death so as to permit the next incarnation to be in the opposite sex? I think not. It might be that the Ego could, as man in prior life, incarnate next as woman, but that would mean that he had set up a tendency to whatever is the essential character of the female . . . or for other of many reasons. It is not wise to set down such fixed and iron rules. Nature does not thus work. She is always about to break some rule we have foolishly thought to be of eternal duration. So I conclude on this that the Ego will go on as woman or man just so long as its deeper nature is of the same cut, fashion, and tendency as the particular sex in general in which it incarnates. For my poor judgment, the regular alternation theory [i.e. the idea that one life as male is automatically followed by female, then male, etc., rigidly alternating] is wholly without foundation [Note: It is also demonstrated false by contemporary reincarnation research and verification of past life memories].” (WQJ, “Forum Answers” p. 44-45)

“In respect to the question of sex. It is, as you know, given much prominence by both women and men to the detriment of the one sex or the other, or of any supposed sex. There are those who say that the female sex is not to be thought of in the spirit; that all is male. Others say the same for the female. Now both are wrong. In the True there is no sex, and when I said “There all men are women and all women are men,” I was only using rhetoric to accentuate the idea that neither one nor the other was predominant, but that the two were coalesced, so to say, into one. In the same way you might say, “men are animals there and vice versa.” Mind, this is in regard to Spirit, and not in regard to the psychical states. For in the psychical states there are still distinctions, as the psychical, though higher than the material, is not as high as Spirit, for it still partakes of matter. In the Spirit or Atma all experiences of all forms of life and death are found at once, and he who is one with the Atma knows the whole manifested Universe at once. I have spoken of this condition before as the Turya or fourth state. . . .

“Now as to telling which element predominates in any single person, it is hard to give a general test rule. But perhaps it might be found in whether a person is given to abstract or concrete thought, and similarly whether given to mere superficial things or to deep fundamental matters. But you must work that out, I think, for yourself.” (WQJ, “Letters That Have Helped Me” p. 58-59)

“The woman’s body by reason of its peculiarities makes progress in higher occultism difficult. But it does not make it impossible, for there are women-adepts. Again, in strict accordance with nature, the natural character of woman is such that in the final analysis she has a greater affinity for matter and concrete things than the male. This is a natural difference. . . . The fact is that women are as a rule more intuitional than men but that is not spirit. . . .

“But as we are in fact neither man nor woman in occultism and as bodies are only illusory the same heights can be gained by woman as by man but with greater struggle. . . . 

“Yet also, at the same time, there are many beings in Male bodies who are far behind women and who will not progress; and also there are many in female bodies who are in them merely working through certain experiences which will enable them to progress rapidly in this or the next life on earth whether in male or female form it matters not.

“Personally I am not a disbeliever in woman, for the greatest living occultist I know is a woman — H. P. Blavatsky.

“The sexes are natural divisions that cannot be evaded nor argued away and I cannot agree with you that “woman is spiritually positive.” I think the reverse. Nor can I agree with you when you say “while on this earth she is negative to the immense procreative force,” for you imply thus that she, woman, is always woman, whereas the fact is that the bodies of men and women alike are only instruments through which the real person, which is neither “she” nor “he,” works out its ends in obedience to laws. Hence if the Ego escapes it escapes not as man or woman but as soul. It is the soul, the real, that is in the toils — either in male or female form — and not woman as such nor man as such.

“The constant considering these bodies as anything but illusion is error and leads us to make arbitrary distinctions that are misleading and that bind us to earth lives.

“There will always be forms of male and female sort to be inhabited by beings so long as the age lasts. In far distant ages, millions of years to come, other conditions will prevail perhaps, but it will make no difference to us because we being spirits always, will have to go through the natural material conditions, whatever they are, that prevail in any age.” (WQJ, Letter of 15th May 1888, “Practical Occultism” p. 83-85)

“About men and women “as such,” and the ideas which prevail with each in regard to the other: these must change, being based on physical differentiations and on accentuation of separateness mentally and physically. We have to look at souls and minds, regardless of the kind of body which envelops them, and get away from the hard and fast conclusions so common in the world. These differentiations are not at once to be gotten rid of, but a better recognition must have its beginning, and who should have this, most clearly, but those who see the Triad [i.e. Atma-Buddhi-Manas, the immortal spiritual nature] in every human being? The present movement of women is such an assertion; it is neither a fad nor a fancy, but an urge of the rising cycle. . . .

“Most men are burdened with positivity, right or wrong; most women with negativity, right or wrong; both men and women having these qualities in balance, or approaching it, are nearer to the “double spinal cord,” which must come about in the race as a whole [i.e. a reference to a profound astral-physiological change spoken of by H. P. Blavatsky, which will come about in a future Root Race in consequence of humanity’s return to an inner “hermaphroditism”]. . . . women . . . can and do express a quality of devotion which mighty few men possess.” (Robert Crosbie, “The Friendly Philosopher” p. 155-156)

“Q. The chapter speaks of the “personality”; will we have the same personality again?

“A. The word “Personality” comes from the Latin word “Persona” — a mask, by means of which we conceal or express our inward feelings. It is the inner ideas, and feelings, the general character — that is meant by the word “personality”: the latter is in a constant state of change, whether that be great or small. The “way we used to think and feel” is not “as we feel now or think.” The personality in the next life will be made up of tendencies engendered in past lives with the addition of those of the present one, subject to the conditions into which those tendencies have brought us; those conditions may include change in sex, condition and environment. The feeling of “identity” that all have is not due to the body or its environment, but to the Egoic nature of each.” (Robert Crosbie, “Answers to Questions on The Ocean of Theosophy” p. 105-106)

“There will be a change in the character of sex, even in the present Root-Race, and eventually the contraries will be synthesized once more. The change must, as in the previous differentiation, proceed from within-without. The differences between male and female are not merely a matter of physical appearance and function, but depend on character and psychic tendencies, and these must change first. . . .

“The soul inhabiting the body of one sex may have its psychic and mental make-up predominantly of the opposite element. Such are the exceptional pioneers among women, for the great mass are content to wait on the endeavours of their men-folk and to follow them. And on the other hand it is said that the greatest Teachers have had most of the womanly in their natures. But, from the point of view of the evolving soul, greatness can be achieved whether in a male or female body, and it is vain and futile to concern ourselves with arguments to prove that one sex is superior to the other. In the Spirit, which is the root and centre of everyone’s true existence, all differentiations are merged; and in the course of its active evolution the soul must test both poles of experience, the male and the female.” (“The Problem of Sex,” “The Theosophical Movement” magazine, March 1952; this article was attributed to B. P. Wadia by Raghavan and Nandini Iyer)

“According to Occult Teachings, sex difference is due to the predominant mental habits of the incoming Ego; it becomes further crystallized as soon as the astral germ develops, and the physical body is only the outer casing.” (B. P. Wadia, “Little Things and Little Lives,” “The Building of The Home” p. 31)

“The term “male spirit” is incorrect. Spirit (Atma) is neither male nor female. The so-called astral body has not sex in our usual sense of the term. It is a center of force; the predominance of negative magnetism as life force would make it “female,” so to say; the predominance of positive force would make it “male.” As regards the inner man, who is without the specialized physical organs of the gross body, these terms “male” and “female” can only refer to the nature of the force manifesting through him, and it would seem to follow that he might be at one time “male,” so to say, at another “female,” and always hermaphrodite in view of the double emanation or radiation of such a body.” (Julia Keightley, “Tea Table Talk,” “The Path” magazine, June 1889, recently republished in “Theosophical Writings of Julia Keightley”)

“The far-off regeneration of the race will lie (amongst other things) in the reversion to the bisexual type of our prehistoric spiritual ancestors, — in other words, in the absolute quenching of the principle of lust, the double-faced goddess to-day worshiped, though in varying degrees, by all Humanity — by the votaries alike of marriage and of free-love.  . . . the truth being that both man and woman have within each one the potency of both sexes, and in this consists their true equality, — in other words, that the Soul is bisexual [i.e. hermaphrodite, androgyne; the word “bisexual” was originally a synonym for these terms and has only more recently come to refer to a sexual orientation/attraction], and is therefore capable of assuming and wearing either the male or the female form, and that its true apotheosis consists in its assertion of and its reversion to its real nature and Divine source.” (Julia Keightley, “Meditation and Action,” “The Path” magazine, February 1889, recently republished in “Theosophical Writings of Julia Keightley”)

~ * ~

This article may have raised more questions about various things. Please make use of the site search function (the magnifying glass symbol at the top of the page) and visit the Articles page to see the complete list of over 400 articles covering all aspects of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. You may find the articles linked to in this present article of particular usefulness, as also those listed on the Articles page under the headings “THE LAW OF KARMA” and “DEATH, THE AFTERLIFE, & REINCARNATION.”

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~

“Only by following the absolute sexless unity can the white path be trodden.”
(William Q. Judge, “Letters That Have Helped Me” p. 161)