(6) These four things, they say, are male, and these female: the sky, metal, wind, and fire are male, and are never otherwise; the water, earth, plants, and fish are female, and are never otherwise; the remaining creation consists of male and female.

(14) Had the World-Soul remained Neuter, there would have been no Universal Manifestation or Creation. It was necessary that the Principle of Sex should appear, in order that Creation should begin. It is only by the constant and continuous action and reaction of the Two Sex Principles in Nature that Creation, Process, Becoming, and Change is possible—and as all Things are but the products of Change, Process, Becoming, and Creation, it follows that without Sex there would have been to Things in the Universe—and in that even the World Soul would have abided apart, alone, and single until the end of its days. With the introduction of Sex came the beginning of Generation and Creation, under which the One became the Many and Sameness became Variety and Diversity. The ancient teachings furnish the only logical explanation of Creation. The One becomes the Two, and from the Two proceed the Many.

(6) The above statement of the Universality of Sex may seem somewhat surprising to the person who has not acquainted himself, or herself, with the Ancient Wisdom of the Esoteric Schools; or who is not familiar with the daring conceptions of advanced modern science. But to that one who has mastered the ancient wisdom-teachings, and who has likewise become acquainted with the best of modern advanced scientific thought, there will seem nothing strange about these statements. The ancient teachings taught positively that there was present and active Sex in all Manifested Creation; and Modern Science is beginning to teach that the evidence of the presence of Sex in every Thing is conclusive.

(13) In short, on each and every plane of Life, physical, mental, or spiritual there is found present and active the Universal Principle of Sex, in some of its phases and forms. Sex cannot be escaped in Nature—the Universe is Bi-Sexual, and all Creation, on every plane, is caused by Sex and Sex only. A full understanding of this important fact would revolutionize the conceptions of modern science, and render practicable many important ideas which now exist merely as dreams in the minds of the advanced scientists. To those who cannot see this plainly, we would say: It is admitted that all physical and mental phenomena depend for activity upon the Law of Attraction. When it is discovered that the law of Attraction proceeds along the lines of Sex, and Sex alone, then it is seen that all activity is Sex-Activity.

(50) In a preceding chapter of this book we have called your attention to the fact that the activities of the electrons, the atoms, and the corpuscles of which matter is composed, are purely sexual activities—that all attraction is sex-attraction, and that as all Cosmic activity results from Attraction, therefore Sex is the Motive Power behind the activities of the Cosmos. A careful examination of the discoveries of modern science which are being announced from year to year will convince the student that all are explainable under the Rosicrucian theory of the Principle of Sex, and are explainable under no other hypothesis.

(36) "The pseudo-Clement of Rome, writes: 'God made man male and female. The male is Christ: the female, the Church.' The Qabbalists called the Holy Spirit, the mother, and the Church of Israel, the Daughter. Solomon engraved on the walls of his Temple, likenesses of the male and female principles, to adumbrate this mystery; such, it is said, were the figures of the cherubim. This was, however, not in obedience to the words of the Thorah. They were symbolical of the Upper, the spiritual, the former or maker, positive or male, and the Lower, the passive, the negative or female, formed or made by the first."

(3) He, then, alone, yet all-complete in the fertility of either sex, ever with child of His own Will, doth ever bring to birth whatever He hath willed to procreate. His Will is the All-goodness, which also is the Goodness of all things, born from the nature of His own Divinity,—in order that all things may be, just as they all have been, and that henceforth the nature of being born from their own selves may be sufficient to all things that will be born. Let this, then, be the reason given thee, Asclepius, wherefore and how all things are made of either sex. XXI

(5) For the hardness of your heart he wrote you his precept. But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.

(50) The goddess said: “Sariputra, if you can change your female body, all women should also be able to turn into men. Like Sariputra who is not a woman but appears in female bodily form, all women are the same and though they appear in female form, they are fundamentally not women. Hence the Buddha said: ‘All things are neither male nor female’.”

(35) According to the other school, the so-called division of the sexes resulted from suppression of one pole of the androgynous being in order that the vital energies manifesting through it might be diverted to development of the rational faculties. From this point of view man is still actually androgynous and spiritually complete, but in the material world the feminine part of man's nature and the masculine part of woman's nature are quiescent. Through spiritual unfoldment and knowledge imparted by the Mysteries, however, the latent element in each nature is gradually brought into activity and ultimately the human being thus regains sexual equilibrium. By this theory woman is elevated from the position of being man's errant part to one of complete equality. From this point of view, marriage is regarded as a companionship in which two complete individualities manifesting opposite polarities are brought into association that each may thereby awaken the qualities latent in the other and thus assist in the attainment of individual completeness. The first theory may be said to regard marriage as an end; the second as a means to an end. The deeper schools of philosophy have leaned toward the latter as more adequately acknowledging the infinite potentialities of divine completeness in both aspects of creation.

(7) The ancient teachings, which were later embodied in the early Rosicrucian teachings, held that in order that there might be Becoming, Change, or Creation, there must be Re-action following Action—the play of one force on another. And the best teachings of the ancients were that these two opposing forces in Nature were Masculine, and Feminine, respectively—dual aspects of the Universal Being. And Modern Science is fast coming to recognize and teach the same great truth.

(6) Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? So then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

(43) Now God said, Let all Manner of Beasts come forth, every one after its Kind; and so there came forth out of the Essence of every one's kind, a Male and Female. And thus the Spirit of the Stars, or the Spirit of the Form of Fire, had now by its Longing copulated with the watery [Spirit,] and two Sexes sprung out of one Essence; the one according to the Limbus in the Form of Fire, and the other according to. the Aquaster [or Spirit of the Water] in the watery Form; yet so [blended or] mixed, that they were alike as to the Body. And so the Male was qualified according to the Limbus, or Form of Fire, and the Female according to the Aquaster in the watery Form.

(54) And all the waters shall be joined with the waters: that which is above the heavens is the masculine, and the water which is beneath the earth is the feminine.

(3) For if thou should’st regard that supreme [point] of time when . . . the one nature doth pour forth the young into the other one, and when the other greedily absorbs [it] from the first, and hides it [ever] deeper [in itself]; then, at that time, out of their common congress, females attain the nature of the males, males weary grow with female listlessness. And so the consummation of this mystery, so sweet and requisite, is wrought in secret; lest, owing to the vulgar jests of ignorance, the deity of either sex should be compelled to blush at natural congress,—and much more still, if it should be subjected to the sight of impious folk. XXII

(2) But individuals are brought into being by the union of the Reason-Principles of the parents, male and female: this seems to do away with a definite Reason-Principle for each of the offspring: one of the parents- the male let us say- is the source; and the offspring is determined not by Reason-Principles differing from child to child but by one only, the father's or that of the father's father.

No: a distinct Reason-Principle may be the determinant for the child since the parent contains all: they would become effective at different times.

And so of the differences among children of the same parents: it is a matter of varying dominance: either the offspring- whether it so appears or not- has been mainly determined by, now, the male, now, the female or, while each principle has given itself entire and lies there within, yet it effectively moulds one portion of the bodily substance rather than another.

And how are the differences caused by place to be explained?

Is the differentiating element to be found in the varying resistance of the material of the body?

No: if this were so, all men with the exception of one only would be untrue to nature.

Difference everywhere is a good, and so there must be differing archetypes, though only to evil could be attribute any power in Matter to thwart nature by overmastering the perfect Reason-Principles, hidden but given, all.

Still, admitting the diversity of the Reason-principles, why need there by as many as there are men born in each Period, once it is granted that different beings may take external manifestation under the presence of the same principles?

Under the presence of all; agreed: but with the dominance of the very same? That is still open to question.

May we not take it that there may be identical reproduction from one Period to another but not in the same Period?

(2) In this Third Aphorism of Creation the Rosicrucian is directed to apply his attention to the conception of the World Soul—the First Manifestation of the Eternal Parent—as a Bi-sexual Universal Being. This Bi-Sexual. Universal Being, combining within itself the elements and principles of both Masculinity and Femininity, is known in the Rosicrucian Teachings as "The Universal Hermaphrodite," and "The Universal Androgyne." The term "Hermaphrodite" is defined as: "An individual which has the attributes of both Male and Female." The term is derived by joining together the two names, viz., Hermes and Aphrodite. The term came into ancient use through the legend of Hermaphroditus, son of Hermes and Aphrodite, who, while bathing, became joined in one body with the nymph Salmacis. The term "Androgyne" is defined as: "An individual possessing the attributes of both Male and Female; a Hermaphrodite." The term is derived from the combination of two Greek words, viz., "Andros," meaning "a man," and "Gyne," meaning "a woman." The conception of the Bi-Sexuality in the Universal Manifestation, or Universal Being, is one met with on all sides in the ancient esoteric and occult philosophies in all lands. In ancient Greece, in Ancient India, and in Ancient Atlantis, Persia, and Chaldea the doctrine formed an important part of the Inner Teachings. In its highest forms, this teaching lay at the very heart of the Ancient Mysteries, and resulted in the very highest and noblest conception of the dignity and worthiness of Sex. But prostituted by the vulgar popular mind, encouraged by a debased priesthood, the same teachings were inverted and made to serve as the basis of the various degenerate phase of Phallic Worship, the traces of which are found on every page of ancient philosophical or religious history. The Rosicrucians have never countenanced even the slight descent into Phallicism, but, on the contrary have kept alive the Flame of the True Teaching, and have used its particular symbol as the distinctive symbolic name and emblem of the Order.

(33) himself. This shadow he then ensouled and it became a living creature. These shadows, however, remain only as long as the original figure of which they are the reflections endures, for with the removal of the original the host of likenesses vanish with it. Herein is the key to the allegorical creation of Eve out of the side of Adam; for Adam, representative of the idea or pattern, is reflected into the material universe as a multitude of ensouled images which collectively are designated Eve. According to another theory, the division of the sexes took place in the archetypal sphere; hence the shadows in the lower world were divided into two classes consistent with the orders established in the Archetype. In the apparently incomprehensible attraction of one sex for the other Plato recognized a cosmic urge toward reunion of the severed halves of this archetypal Being.

(32) As above said, the visions of males and females in union will appear. If, at that time, one entereth into the womb through the feelings of attachment and repulsion, one may be born either as a horse, a fowl, a dog, or a human being.

(1) [Asclepius] Thou speak’st of God, then, O Thrice-greatest one?

[Trismegistus] Not only God, Asclepius, but all things living and inanimate. For ’tis impossible that any of the things that are should be unfruitful. For if fecundity should be removed from all the things that are, it could not be that they should be for ever what they are. I mean that Nature, Sense, and Cosmos, have in themselves the power of being born, and of preserving all things that are born. For either sex is full of procreation; and of each one there is a union, or,—what’s more true,—a unity incomprehensible; which you may rightly call Erōs or Aphroditē, or both [names].