Theos-Talk Archives (July 2000 Message tt00041)

Thanks Tony:

 I think you got it.  Any desire deserves examination and tracing
to the root cause.  Then we decide how much is to be employed.
We either rule desire, or it rules us.  There would seem to be
important lessons implicit in sexual activity -- as primarily,
the responsibility assumed for children.  It is not all "fun and
games."  I may be wrong in these views, and certainly contrary to
the average views today.  But I wonder if the moral/ethical
aspect deserves careful consideration.

All ailments, diseases that manifest physically are "on their way
out" from the astral focus for them.  And that is rooted in our
Karma of the past.  That is how Theosophy would put it I think.


Best wishes,

Dal
D. T. B.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Tony
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 3:41 AM
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Subject: RE: Theos-World RE: Homosexuality & Theosophy

Dallas wrote "in control" rather than: in control.  What he
seemed to be
suggesting, is that whether we are homosexual, heterosexual, or
whatever, as
Theosophists we need to go in the direction of killing out the
*desire* for
sex (or whatever), because of the occult implications.  Is it
possible to
over-ride (spiritual progress) our genetic make-up?  Why not?
Presumably
our genetic make up is due to Karma.  And by our actions that
genetic
make-up can be effected.   For example, if we have genes for
certain
cancers, this problem can be alleviated by not smoking.  If we
have genes
for unkindness, we can do something about it.  We don't have to
let our
genes rule us.

It appears that there have to be "diseases" for Karmic reasons.
When a
remedy is found, the "disease" is then replaced by something
else.  Can a
cure for a virus like aids be approached from a genetic point of
view?  The
atmosphere of the world (physical/mental) is rapidly changing,
and perhaps
the current atmosphere of pollution and nuclear radiation, the
thinning of
the ozone layer, plus other factors, is conducive to the aids
virus?

Tony

Louis wrote:
In a message dated 07/13/00 10:50:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dalval@nwc.net
writes:

<< Homosexuality refers to a physiological and an emotional
 (personal) condition which has nothing to do with the progress
 and existence of the REAL SPIRITUAL SOUL OF MAN or WOMAN.  The
 SPIRITUAL-SOUL  (Buddhi-Manas) is SEXLESS as is the ATMAN.  Only
 the personality has a "sex" at this cycle of our evolution.  Are
 we "in control?" or, are we not ? >>

Just so I am clear Dal. When you say physiological, do you mean
as in:
GENETICS/DNA phisiological? Are you saying that at the physical
plane level,
you believe homosexual behavior is not a learned sexual activity
but rather,
an inherent built in of characteristic? This point is at the root
of so many
modern dialogs regarding this subject.  I think it is imoportant
that we all
understand what we mean when we use certain terms.

<< Are we "in control?" or, are we not ? >>

Should we be in control? Control of what? Indeed, CAN we be in
control of
whatever is part of our genetic makeup?

<<What ought to be determined is the REASON WHY homosexuality is
attractive or repulsive to people.  What are the reasons for
sexual activity?  What duties relate to any family?  And,
especially to children?>>

I tried to pose the same thoughts, in different words perhaps,
but got
nowhere. I will be very interested to read the responses to the
way you have
phrased this vital question.

Louis

-----Original Message-----
From: Bart Lidofsky [mailto:bartl@sprynet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 7:39 AM
To: Thoesophy Activists List
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Theosophy

Teos9@aol.com wrote:
> Just so I am clear on the implications of this quote. Do I
understand then,
> that beyond personal ethical choices, there is no such thing as
a cosmic or
> universal ethical and moral bias? A bias which is associated
with and
> resonant of evolutionary intent. And the violation of which,
carries no
> Karmic consequence so long as ones ethical judgments are pure
at the personal
> level.  Is this what we are suggesting that the first object
should mean?

        I believe that there certainly is  "cosmic or universal
ethical and
moral bias". I also believe that:

a) Many decisions we make, because of mistakes we have made
leading up
to making these decisions, requires that we violate this to some
degree
b) Not being omniscient, we cannot tell for sure how to minimize
the
violation, and therefore
c) We must do the best we can and,
d) What Blavatsky calls "The Secret Doctrine" (not the book of
that
name, which is a book ABOUT the Secret Doctrine) contains the
information needed to make the decisions.

        Bart Lidofsky



-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --
theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting
of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --
theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting
of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.