Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00199)

August 14th 1998

Dallas offers:

On the subject of sex.  What is the main REASON for intercourse ?

Is it to have children and take on the responsibilities of family life and
raising decent children or is it not ?

If it is pursued purely because of some pleasure -- then does that justify
promiscuity?  And from that prostitution ?

What is our attitude towards motherhood, sisterhood, one's wife or daughter
(or reversibly, one's father, brother, son, other men ?).

Apparently some degradation of the kamic principle has cast the protective
instinct into the discard and glorified sexual appetites -- which
historically and traditionally have been always regarded as very sacred
matters, not to be placed on display and thus made a plaything of.

Only the most vile of humans who have descended to the level of the
sub-bestial, have ever made of sex a matter of usage and display -- and yet,
here we now live in an age of permissiveness, and one's "rights" are thrown
against the old customs and views of the past ?  Are we any the better or
safer or happier for this condition ?

One of the signs of the sad condition of our times is the fact that
so-called psychologists have made it their work to find excuses and
persuasive reasons why sex-life (and its many kinds of perversions) ought to
be advertised.  If the continuing individuality and karma are not to be
considered, are we to do worse than the animals do, who have their natural
seasons for conception and exercise usually the greatest protective care
over their little ones ?

Why do honorable and responsible people feel a disgust for such a condition
?  Is it not the violation of one of the fundamental objects of the
Theosophical Movement -- the  T S  and of all Nature ?  I man of
BROTHERHOOD, and of that universal compassion and protection that the strong
are expected to extend to the weak ?  Where is true chivalry, one might ask.
Does it no longer well up spontaneously from deep within?  Why is there in
the world today such a concentrated effort to make our children in their
inexperience aware of sexuality without the responsibilities that are a
concomitant of exercising it ?

I would say that it is very fortunate to be brought up in an environment
where historically and customarily respect for privacy, for women-folk is
still exercised.  But, of course if this is exaggerated and carried to an
extreme there is also in those customs and their imposition an infringement
on free will and the right of self-education and self-decision.  All these
things need consideration and adjustment on the basis of that which is
reasonable.  The Soul is neither male nor female.  Only the body of the
present incarnation is provided under karma in one sex or the other for the
purpose of meeting and adjusting our past karma -- says Theosophy.

As students of Theosophy have we considered Karmatically what promiscuity
implies -- in terms of liaisons that may last for many lives -- in terms of
children who are not PROTECTED by their fathers or mothers and are the real
orphans, the changelings, of the world ?  This may appear a strange
question.  But Theosophy presents us with a view of karmic operations not
provided in or by any other source.  It is one of real importance for us at
this stage of our joint evolution.

If it is said that occultism prohibits connubial life, one should ask why.
What is the pursuit of occultism as a motive ?

Can one devote the same amount of importance to occult development (whatever
that may mean) if one is married, or not ?

Is it possibly a case of divided loyalties, in the sense that the very
careful work of developing one's occult nature (again, I say what is that ?)
and of executing all the responsibilities of family life demand too much
time in and of themselves ?

Now comes a clincher for me:  Would it me possible for one to be both an
occultist and a family person simultaneously ?

Ancient Indian history records the case of King Janaka who did this.
Krishna in the GITA uses him as an example.  King Vikramaditya was another.
Krishna himself as myths surrounding him show had this capability.

If interiorly, in the recesses of our own True Nature we are
ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS or the imperishable IMMORTAL True Man/Woman -- then is not
the practice of occultism and of family life simultaneous ?

Apart from the quotations from the SECRET DOCTRINE offered, there are also
those which re given  on pages:  SD I 223-229 to be considered.

Best wishes to all,

Dallas

> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 5:24 PM
> From: "Murray Stentiford" <mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz>
> Subject: Celibacy is just the beginning

>Responding to Paul (Bazzer)
>
>>Celibacy is an absolute RULE as regards *practical* Occultism.
>>
>>See, for example, "The Secret Doctrine", Vol II, 295/296.  Extract:
>>    [snip]            During human
>>life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and
>>especially to the acquirement of *Yoga* powers, is the activity of our
>>physiological senses.  Sexual action being closely connected, by
>>interaction, with the spinal cord and the grey matter of the brain, it is
>>useless to give any longer explanation".
>
>
>I get it. If we stop using all our senses, we'll have the least impediment
>to the way of spiritual development. The organs of smell, hearing and sight
>are virtually extensions of the brain, and that of touch covers our whole
body.
>
>Where's the nearest sensory deprivation tank?
>
>Murray
>
>PS: Is this one of those blinds we're told about? If we scratch below the
>surface, what's *really* going on here? Saying it's useless to give any
>longer explanation is probably just a factual statement that a deeper
>explanation would be almost guaranteed to be misunderstood by the public.
>They just wouldn't have the background or insight to see the real picture.
>
>We are 110-odd years down the track, and this is a kind of public forum
....
>I wonder if we're still in that bracket? :-) It'll be touch and go. Maybe
>what we really need to abstain from is making definitive statements based
on
>a few things we've read until we're qualified by a bit more first-hand
>perception.
>
>
>
>[Quoting Paul more completely]
>
>>Celibacy is an absolute RULE as regards *practical* Occultism.
>>
>>See, for example, "The Secret Doctrine", Vol II, 295/296.  Extract:
>>
>>"The question is often asked, "Why should celibacy and chastity be a *sine
>>qua non* rule and condition of regular *chelaship*, or the development of
>>psychic and occult powers?  The answer is contained in the Commentary.
When
>>we learn that the "third eye" was once a physiological organ, and later
on,
>>owing to the gradual disappearance of spirituality and increase of
>>materiality (Spiritual nature being extinguished by the physical), it
became
>>an atrophied organ, as little understood now by physiologists as the
>>spleen - when we learn this, the connection will become clear.  During
human
>>life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and
>>especially to the acquirement of *Yoga* powers, is the activity of our
>>physiological senses.  Sexual action being closely connected, by
>>interaction, with the spinal cord and the grey matter of the brain, it is
>>useless to give any longer explanation".
>
>
>
>