Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00035)

>I quoted this with other material in my first posting on Tantric sex,
>karmamudra, etc. hoping that you would elucidate in some detail your
>thoughts on why you disagree with HPB's Masters about their teaching on
>"sex." Exactly what is their teaching on this subject as you understand
>it and exactly why do you disagree?

HPB and her Masters are of the opinion that the only way to enlightenment
is via celibacy, if I read them right. G de P clearly says this and Pasadena
has echoed it recently. John and Nancy Coker and myself several years
ago wrote a lengthy article on Theosophy and sex suggesting that sex was
not such a bad thing and really had no real adverse affect on enlightenment
(we did not advocate free or loose sex, but sex as an expression of love
and intimacy between consenting adults). This was printed by Ralph Nurrie's
Theosophical newspaper. It stirred up a lot of flames, passionate reactions
all equating celibacy with Theosophy. Many Theosophists used Buddhism
as a source for advocating strict celibacy. Since then Lust for
Enlightenment
has been printed which shows that some (actually a small but significant
handful) Masters indulged in sexual activities over the centuries of
Buddhism's development and that may sexual activity does not retard
spiritual progress after all.


> Even more important, if you think
>you have a better grasp of the subject than they do, why do you think
>HPB's Masters held such outdated (?), untrue (?) or unenlightened (?)
>"views"?

G de P, for example, clearly says that sex is for procreation only. This
is the Catholic Church viewpoint, and one that flies in the face of
psychology
which says that most people need intimacy (Erickson has intimacy
as a major life developmental task). Psychology also shows that forced
celibacy leads to a lot of mental problems.  Personally, I believe strongly
that
sex doesn't enhance or retard spiritual growth so much as how you think
about it. Celibacy per se is neither right or wrong, but forced celibacy
is very wrong. If you force yourself to be celibate just because you
want to be spiritual, then I think you are fooling yourself. If you do it
willingly
as part of a purification process, then it is probably benificial.


>And how does all of the preceding relate to, for example, John
>Powers' treatment of "karmamudra" in the Tibetan Budhhist tradition,
>especially in the Gelukpa tradition?
>

I do not practice it, but I do think it is a reasonable practice when
done in the Tantric context described in the literature. However, it
smacks too much of sex magic and is so easy to be abused that
it probably should be avoided by us Westerners. Jnanamudra is
another story because we have Jungian psychology telling us
that men have a feminine anima and that women have a
masculine animus and so a practice that can unite these seems
to be a much better approach for us Westerners.

Jerry S.