"Sri Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi, after talking about God warning adam and eve not to put their concentration on touch sensations, said
“God created the human species by materializing the bodies of man and woman through the force of His will; He endowed the new species with the power to create children in a similar ‘immaculate’ or divine manner.”
excerpt from lesson T7:
"She is the temptress of the physical seed, and the temptress of
the spiritual seed. If the physical seed does not come, the spiritual
seed will. Her lovely divine bliss and waves of beauty will bring the
seed out. If the man is able to hold the physical seed back, then the
spiritual seed rises in both the man and the woman, and this is the
internal joining of masculine and feminine energies in both tantric
partners. "
Has anyone considered or known of this producing a child, hopefully a little more recent than 2000 years ago?
Yogani doesn’t specifically say a physical child, but Yukteswar does.
Supposedly the physical method is somehow inferior. I don’t know if this is supposed to affect the quality of the child, but I think it may have been the beginning of the taboo on sex in general, and I’m sure it had someting to do with Jesus either being conceived immaculately, or the myth that he was.
Is it possible for a woman to conceive a child without
the physical semen ? For me this is hard to believe.
It is however my belief that the spiritual evolution
of the parents effects the child.
I also believe that a lot of things are not known
concerning Jesus’ birth (and Mary’s conception).
The myth is there, but that shouldn’t stop us to question.
I believe that the divine karma was working and preparing
a long time for Jesus’s birth to happen.
As for Jesus himself being masculine, there remains the
question: where is the feminine aspect ?
As for Yukteswar claiming that an ‘immaculate’ child has
been born: I would be very doubting.
L&L
Wolfgang
Yukteswar didn’t claim there had been one; he claimed we are endowed with the ability.
Scientists have proven that it is possible for woman to physically conceive without man, but the baby would be a clone of the mom.
I’m not sure that Jesus was something special that God did differently than anyone else. If you read this;
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_jesus/
you see there is quite a possibility that he was just an extraordinary man, teaching things way ahead of his time, and very close to God, with all the myth being added later to coerce people to bow down to the church. This was directly opposed to Jesus’ teachings that No Intercessor is required to reach God. i’ve even heard modern day christians misquote Jesus, saying “The only way to be saved is through Jesus, for all people everywhere, for all time.” Of course their intentions are good, and I would never try to stop anyone with good intentions.
But remember that Jesus said we are all capable of everything he did and more. I think it is quite possible that Jesus started in exactly the same place as you or me, only with raging bhakti that wouldn’t quit, and of course being in the graduate school of karma.
Namaste to All!
I don’t want to sidetrack too far here, but I do wish to address the commonly held misconception of the above quote. 
The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is an Official Article of Faith ONLY in the Roman Catholic Church. This doctrine was instituted as a required religious belief or dogma for all Roman Catholics on December 8, 1854 by the late Pope Pius IX in his Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffabilis Deus’. December 8 remains the official ‘Feast of the Immaculate Conception’ in Roman Catholicism today.
Even many Roman Catholic Faithful misunderstand this dogma. It doesn’t relate to the Lord Jesus’s conception at all, but rather refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s conception, and is often confused with the Virgin Birth of Christ.
Simply stated, this doctrine professes that the Theotokos, Mary the mother of Jesus, was conceived by her mother without the presence or ‘stain’ of ‘Original Sin’. This idea is totally absent from Eastern Christianity. It’s historical development is solely within the Roman Catholic Church, officially beginning when Pope Sixtus IV established the original Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 1483. Until 1854, however, belief in this doctrine was optional for Roman Catholics. 
Among Eastern Christians…i.e. Greek Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox…it is considered an unnecessary Article of Faith which is completely unsupported by direct Scriptural references throughout the New Testament Gospels, Epistles, and Letters. 
And also unnecessary because…ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE FOR GOD! As such, God doesn’t need to establish any preliminary justifications in order to Will and Manifest the Miraculous Virgin Birth of Jesus. No preparatory purification of the Blessed Virgin’s bloodline is necessary. No special preservation from ‘Original Sin’ based on Mary’s special favor with God is necessary. No unique dispensation for Mary based on the merits of the Lord Jesus is necessary. God’s Will and His Omnipotent Power to manifest it are sufficient alone. 
As a result, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Western Protestant Christians have never embraced the idea of the Immaculate Conception as a necessary Christian Doctrine or Dogmatic Belief. 
Hari OM!
Doc
Hi Doc, yip, maybe 98% of people misunderstand the term ‘immaculate conception’. 
Etherfish said: "Sri Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi, after talking about God warning adam and eve not to put their concentration on touch sensations, said
“God created the human species by materializing the bodies of man and woman through the force of His will; He endowed the new species with the power to create children in a similar ‘immaculate’ or divine manner.”
I don’t read Sri Yukteswar as if he were writing scripture. If Sri Yukteswar were logged in I’d be asking him where he got that information from. One thing I’d be probing for is the possibility that sexual neuroticisism on his part is what leads him to say this. Paramhansa Yogananda at one point stated that Satan created sex. (It’s there in black and white, I think in ‘Man’s eternal quest’. ) Another suggestion, in my mind, of sexuality not healthily integrated, leading to questionable teachings.
Thanks Doc. That was indeed enlightening 
Studied in a Roman Catholic school and College… had many many Roman Catholic friends… so I guess my information was a bit stained…
Sounds like immaculate conception and virgin birth are two different things.
so let me re-phrase it:
according to
lesson t7;
"If the man is able to hold the physical seed back, then the
spiritual seed rises in both the man and the woman, and this is the
internal joining of masculine and feminine energies in both tantric
partners. "
Has anyone heard or known of this producing a child, or does this have nothing to do with producing children?
I tend to believe that this is primarily a divine joining of man and woman
and has nothing to do with producing children, unless the man and woman
have the intent of producing a child. However, if they have the intent
to produce a child, I still believe that physical semen is needed.
my 1.5 cents
that’s good idea to clarify the doubts.
i wonder why no one is asking questions to God yeah? coz he is not logged in? maybe he don’t have a kampudor?
anyway i will leave the question here, he will read it when he logs in here.
Q: why misinterpretations, and lots of imperfections exists in yo creation. i doubt on yo design hehe.
hey wait… i got a message from God, he is sayin, i have better computer than yors, and am online forever. you better join me in my chat room. you will find answer for all yo questions.
“CHAT ROOM GOD”
me: tryin to login chatroom…
establishing connection…
DING
~ error in connecshun “invalid objects body, mind, breath are not allowed. Pls try again”
me asking: hey God, i tried, but i can’t enter the chat room, its seems difficult.
God’s saying: oh may be something wrong in my design as you said. better fixit yourself and come back later.
The Designer is in you
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, very good!!! 
That was funny Kumar…
A long time ago I read something by Rudolp Steiner in which he presented a fairly interesting personal vision of “the fall.” He believed in a cyclic evolutionary pattern, like the yugas, or the western descending ages, gold -> iron.
He talked about Atlantis as a civilization where the population was halfway between the material and astral worlds. Physical reality, he claimed, was not particularily distinct to them, so for instance, their physical vision was kind of like ours in a heavy fog. On the other hand, in his myth, these “people,” could visit the land of the gods in dream and vision and it was as distinct as physical reality to us. Their function was to act sort of like shepherds to the evolution of plants and animals. He also believed that procreation was non-physical initially, and for him “the fall” also resulted from reproducing physically. I don’t recall him being especially moralistic about it, but simply pointing out that phyical birth inevitably ends in physical death, and forgetfulness of the subtle realms.
As an animal lover I was also interested in his belief that it’s when an animal begins to develop a distinct personality, that moves it beyond the herd or pack mentality, that it’s prepared for the “jump” into human incarnation, so actually, the many people who treat their animals as members of their families are doing them a spiritual service.
Satan did create sex. Everything of this world that you can see, hear, smell, taste and feel is a creation of Satan. When you fall away into infinite stillness, that’s God. Everything else is Satan, aka Illusion.
Satan did create sex. Everything of this world that you can see, hear, smell, taste and feel is a creation of Satan. When you fall away into infinite stillness, that’s God. Everything else is Satan, aka Illusion.
What is your understanding of Satan ? Do you mean "Illusion created sex" or do you mean "Satan created sex" ? And why do you make a difference ? Is it just playing with words or what is it ?
Satan did create sex. Everything of this world that you can see, hear, smell, taste and feel is a creation of Satan. When you fall away into infinite stillness, that’s God. Everything else is Satan, aka Illusion.
Wait ..... wait ..... WAIT. HOLD ON ........ Say WHAT?! I thought he lovingly made quality toys in his workshop at the North Pole, with the help of his elves, and delivered them on Christmas Eve, to .... Huh? Oh. Never mind. Carry on, then. Cheers & Namaste, Kirtanman This Post Cheerfully Brought to you by the HO HO HO Department of Kirtanman's Mind. :clown_face: :clown_face: :clown_face:
You are funny Kirtanman … Thanks for the laughs…
Etherfish:
As I understand it, you are asking whether it is possible to produce a “child” throught the ecstatic exchange of non-ejaculatory, meaning specifically, non sperm producing sex.
I’d like to share my opinion.
It depends what you mean by “child.” If you mean a biological child, let’s face facts: to have a biological child, it is necessary to have union of sperm and egg. Cloning is a modern thing, done by scientific methods, and it is irrelevant to the question of interpreting texts written before there was cloning. No, it is not possible to produce a biological child through non-sperm producing sex.
But what if “child” means a spiritual offspring, a spiritual generativity? Jesus said you must become like a child to enter the Kingdom of God. Baptism and Shaktipat are ways that saints and gurus initiate their spiritual children.
In that light, I think it is quite possible to see non-orgasmic sexual union, and the ecstatic exchange it cultivates, as transformative for the participants: making them like children, reborn spiritually.
Something like that is hinted in the Gospel of Philip: “If the marriage of impurity (!) is hidden, how much more is the Immaculate Marriage a true sacrament.” (saying #131) See the whole text here:
http://www.metalog.org/files/philip2.html
For an extended discussion of non-orgasmic sex as a gnostic sacrament see this, imho, rather persuasive article:
http://www.reuniting.info/wisdom/jesus_nag_hammadi_male_female_union
B.
Wolfgang said:
Do you mean “Illusion created sex” or do you mean “Satan created sex”? And why do you make a difference ?
I don’t tbelieve Paramhansa Yogananda was ignorant of the meaning of ‘Satan’. Satan is the personification of evil, and ‘The fallen state’. He didn’t say that Illusion created sex. Which, BTW, even itself would be questionable: Illusion is not a creative force. He said that Satan created sex, for whatever his reasons were, and I don’t think they were good ones, though I am sure he meant well.
This is one interpretation of the fallen state of Adam and Eve [in which there are many] from Paramhansa Yogananda, Autobiography of a Yogi. This is the first time I’ve read his wonderful Writings:
This relates to the microcosm/macrocosm of creation. “… every created being cries out the name I AM
as it emerges from Kether,
before plunging into the Cosmic Sea below.”:
http://www.zeropoint.ca/SPMH-KabUniverse.html
VIL
Hi Etherfish,
This is a great question. I am also not sure that Yogani, in lesson T7 was talking about producing a physical child. I think he was talking about the joining of masculine and feminine energies during tantric lovemaking. This obviously does happen when we produce (new physical) children, but that could just be a coincidence. I think your quotation from Sri Yukteshwar is very interesting though. I mean, where does he get this stuff from?
And where did Rudolph Steiner get this stuff from? Maybe he made it up, and Sri Yukteswar also made up the stuff about humans originally being endowed with the ability to manifest children non-physically. So it could just be coincidence. Or, it is also possible that these men were able to access information about our past that most people have not yet been able to access. Even from our own myths about the fall, it is clear that humans were once, (according to the myths) in a considerably higher spiritual state than they are now. You don’t have to go far back up the realms of consciousness (through which we apparently “fell” in our decent towards the physical), before we reach realms that have causal aspects, or which (going higher) are purely causal in their manifestation. As I understand it, this means that in these realms of consciousness, there is little, or no separation between thought and the manifestation of that thought, unlike in the physical realm, where there can be a considerable time delay, and a lot of hard work, between thought and the manifestation of that thought. So presumably, before the “fall”, we could not only manifest children non-physically, but we could manifest pretty much anything we wanted, non-physically too.
As for the physical world appearing as if through a fog, this is how the physical world appears to the human consciousness when we are in the etheric realm. Etheric entities appear clearly with the physical realm appearing as a dim, semi-transparent background. I assume this is where Steiner got this statement about pre-fall human cognition from, as he was a psychic.
The etheric realm (like the astral above it) is not a causal realm. So presumably we were producing children non-physically before we descended to the etheric levels. Unless of course, we were able to dip-and-dive a bit through levels of consciousness (quite likely, as we can still do that now).
I have visited the land of the gods in both dream and vision, and I can say that it is much more distinct than physical reality is to us. By comparison, it makes our physical reality look like some kind or weird dream state where we are not really sure if we are awake or asleep. A somnambulist whirl.
I am interested in this stuff, not just out of some kind of weird fascination with ancient history. But rather because this stuff is creeping up on me. You see, I also heard that before the fall, humans didn’t eat physical food. Instead, they absorbed prana through the breath, and through a hole in the top of their heads. “Well”, I thought, “pull the other one!”, then about two years ago, a hole opened up on top of my head and prana has been pouring in through it almost continuously ever since. I also heard that before the fall, humans descended from the skies onto earth, and had the power of flight. Again, I thought, “really?”. Then about a year ago, whilst meditating, a pair of (rather surprisingly large) golden wings appeared on my back (etheric and luckily, invisible to anyone without the sight). Since then, I have been taking this stuff a little more seriously, although being a sceptic and a rationalist, I am very reluctant to believe anything unless I think it might be in my best interest to do so. 
L&L
Christi