Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00657)

Jan 28 2003

Dear Larry:

Your question : "what does sexuality have to do with spiritual
development?"

Is an important one. Yet one of its aspects marks and
illustrates the whole difference between virtue and vice. This
difference is responsibility. Who faces this squarely?

Let me assume that the ideal answer would be one viewed from the
Theosophical view point of impersonality, universality,
seriousness, idealism, honesty, and brotherhood. It is one that
balances Karma, and does not make for selfish pleasure only.

Let me see if I can adduce some Theosophical propositions.

1. The Spirit/Soul in man has no sex. The sex of the body
at each incarnation is a result of personal Karma.

2. The sex function is to provide physical bodies for
children who will in their turn provide embodiment for the return
of reincarnating Human spirit/souls. The “emotions” at the time
of conception, then play an enormous part in the result and the
type of reincarnating character attracted to the couple to be
their children.

3. The sex act is accompanied by pleasure for the
personalities involved. It seems at times, to be inordinately
pursued as an “animal” as well as an emotional sensual and
selfish function, for that purpose.

3. Is it an exaggeration of an act which is designed to
provide for the Karmic return (see 2 above) ? [ Thesis: the
breach of Law -- any of Nature’s universal laws -- causes
evils. ]

4. The marriage (not just the civil ceremony) and
consequent production of children (all over the world, and no
matter what religion or culture) is actually considered to be the
indication of a profound social responsibility, of honesty and
sincerity -- a moral contract between two individuals -- to bring
children into the world and to provide them with the shelter that
they need until they are able to go out on their own. As I see
it, this is a fair rendering of the parenting responsibility.
Anything less is looked on Karmically to be deviant, selfish and
irresponsible.

4A. I have noticed in some cultures that the mother is
considered responsible for adultery. Why not the father? In the
case of rape, are there any efforts to consider the plight of a
defenseless woman? If the mother should be put to death by local
laws, then who assumes responsibility for the up-bringing of the
child ?

4B. This leads to a further consideration in regard to
violence, war, etc…Does the act of killing incur responsibilities
under karma ? If so what are they? Does any killing,
legitimate, or otherwise, incur Karma ? Who dares raise their
hand against another ?

5. I observe that (in the case of child-bearing and
rearing), this responsibility which lasts for about 21 years,
generally is NOT nowadays much considered. It is found to be
present and implicit in the vows and promises given at
marriage -- not just the public ceremony, but at the time when
the couple first unite. This however does not cause the
responsibility to disappear. A Karmic link is set up, first with
two individuals (Monads), and then with others, who come to them
as their physical “children.” A responsibility is assumed, and
it is not 100% the mother’s. [ One need only to consult Plato’s
THE REPUBLIC if one desires to see how this aspect of parenting
and of social responsibility is considered as an ideal way of
life. ]

See if this is a fair answer.

Best wishes,

Dallas

===========================



-----Original Message-----
From: Tatoorachael@aol.com [mailto:Tatoorachael@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:46 AM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: The Leadbeater Discussion


Dear Louis, Lenny, Gopi and David,




Thanks to each of you for the comments you have offered. The four
of you seen to be in loose agreement and each have made excellent
points. Dallas and Daniel have countered with some points of
their own and thus discussion may continue.

All should know that my own questions are oft times "devil's
advocate" type questions, meant to generate the type of
discussion we have seen and do not necessarily reflect my own
views. HPB used this type of questioning to herself in THE KEY.
It's an effective method of drawing out comment.

In that vein...how does this dovetail with the demand for
celibacy placed on chelas at least at a certain point in their
development. Or is that really unnecessary after all and simply a
reflection of Victorian attitudes (i.e., personality coming
through) on the part of HPB and others? I guess the real question
is "what does sexuality have to do with spiritual development?"




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]