Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00038)

Jerry Schueler wrote:

> HPB and her Masters are of the opinion that the only way to enlightenment
> is via celibacy, if I read them right.

Here is a msg I posted to theos-l some time back on this issue of celibacy and
spiritual progress, which some some may find it interesting.

mkr

> Date: Sun Jun 01 23:24:45 1997
> From: "M K Ramadoss" <ramadoss@eden.com>
> Subject: Re: Celibacy and Spirituality

Here is an excerpt from a recent book by Mary Lutyens on Krishnamurti, where
she discusses the issue of Celibacy. I think it is a very interesting point
of view.

..........doss
=====================================

And he [K] never "presented" himself as being celibate. According to the
tenets of Leadbeater-Theosophy, celibacy was essential for any aspirant to
the Path of Discipleship but K broke away entirely from Theosophy and its
tenets in 1929 and thereafter often spoke publicly against celibacy. Here
are a few quotations from his published talks to prove this point:

"So-called holy men have maintained that you cannot come near God if you
indulge in sex, therefore they push it aside although they are eaten up with
it. But by denying sexuality they put out their eyes and cut out their
tongues for they deny the whole beauty of the earth. They have starved their
hearts and minds; they are dehydrated human beings; they have banished
beauty because beauty is associated with And again: "I think we should
understand what love and chastity are. The vow of chastity is not chastity
at all, for below the words the craving goes on and trying to suppress it in
different ways, religious and otherwise, is a form of ugliness which, in its
very essence, is unchaste. The chastity of the monk, with his vows and
denials, is essentially worldliness which is unchaste. All forms of
resistance build a wall of separateness which turns life into a battlefield;
and so life becomes not chaste at all." And yet again: "To deny sex is
another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When we are
intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when we are
following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed; when
action is merely a mechanical repetition and not a free movement, then there
is no release; when there is this incessant urge to fulfil, to be, then we
are emotionally thwarted, there is a blockage. So sex becomes the one issue
which is our very own, which is not second-hand. And in the act of sex there
is a forgetting of oneself, one's problems and one's fears. In that act
there is no self at all."

In answer to a question he was asked at a public meeting, "Is it possible
for a man and a woman to live together, to have sex and children, without
all the turmoil, bitterness and conflict in such a relationship?" K said,
"Can't you fall in love and not have a possessive relationship? I love
someone and she loves me and we get marriedÄthat is all perfectly
straightforward and simple, in that there is no conflict at all. (When we
say we get married I might just as well say we decide to live together.)
Can't one have that without the other? Without the tail, as it were,
necessarily following? Can't two people be in love and both be so
intelligent and so sensitive that there is freedom and an absence of a
centre that makes conflict? Conflict is not in the feeling of being in love.
The feeling of being in love is utterly without conflict. There is no loss
of energy in being in love. The loss of energy is in the tail jealousy,
possessiveness, suspicion, doubt, the fear of losing that love, the constant
demand for reassurance and security. Surely it must be possible to function
in a sexual relationship with someone you love without the nightmare which
usually follows. Of course it is."
= end=================