Theos-Talk Archives (February 2004 Message tt00018)

Feb 4 2004



RE: Homosexuality -- HPB and others on





Dear G----





I ran through my references on this subject - and there are some. 



I have been held up in work and so I might not be able to expedite as
full an answer (copies of quotes) as I desire to send,



In the meantime would you be able to look up these ?



---------------------------



Origin of sexual differences S D II 132, 262



A Creative Force Glos 95, WQJ Art II 451-2,



Kriyasakti S D II 283, 296, 410-1, 



Continence HPB Art III 120, S D I 438, II
411fn, 458, 509,

Grihasta I U II 135, S D II 411fn, 458,

Celibacy, chastity S D II 295 (top) WQJ Art II 451-2.



And Occultism HPB Art II 108 (top); S D II 458,



Marriage Judge LETTERS 66-7, 120,; Key 262-3;


WQJ Art II 451-2, S D I 136fn



Phallicism Glos 252 (top); S D I 264, 390, II
54, 84-5, 

S D II 285, 460-1, 470, 526-7, I
u 



Sex desire S D II 216, 410-1, 415, 



Adultery MAHATMA LETTERS 188;

LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM
2ND Series, 150,



Degrading Sex S D II 216, 381-3, 411fn, 



Free-love M L 150, HPB Art II 107-8, 515,



Lust (Karabtanos) Voice 18; WQJ Art II 522; M L 107, Glos
206

I U I 276, 282-3, 300, 355, HPB
Art III 120, 124, 130,

S D I 195, 217, 248, II 279 &
fn,



Reincarnation and change of sex WQJ Art II 486.



Future - a Race of Buddhas S D II 415



----------------------------





Also, consider this:



SEX & RESPONSIBILITY





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 mean 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,



As always



Dallas

-------------------------------------------





-----Original Message-----
From: G----
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 11:07 AM
To: W. Dallas TenBroeck
Subject: Fw: Homosexuality







----- Original Message ----- 

From: G-----

To: Dallas <mailto:dalval14@earthlink.net> TenBroeck 

Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:43 AM

Subject: Re: Homosexuality



Dear Dallas,



Thank you for taking the time to put some of your thoughts in this
e-mail. I did send you the question because of a big difference of
opinion I have with a young theosophist on this matter. I shared with
this person an article that I thought had some very interesting,
possibly very true, perceptions of the whole problematic. Though the
person presenting these ideas is called 'Jesus,' (which might or might
not be true, though personnaly I doubt it), the ideas themselves very
much resonated with my own esoteric thinking on other matters. I'll
attach the article for your possible comments. On one item I might not
agree with you. Yes, sexuality's function is primarely for the creation
of offspring, but, secondarely, I think it has also the function as a
means for the deep bonding of couples, and tertiary as a means of
affectionate expression. Therefore couples can engage physically without
necessarily having the objective of creating off-spring. Let's say it is
one of the extras of marriage. I do agree that homosexuality involves an
escape of responsibility, though that seems to be somewhat mitigated by
the recent movment to make it legal for homosexual couples to adopt
children, which seems an expression of actually taking responsibility.
On the other side, looking at the life-style of many homosexuals, it is
blattantly clear that they are in dangerous denial of their physical and
spirutual health, though thare are many exceptions. I'll leave it at
this and await your evaluation of the attched document. 



Thanks in advance



G------



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





----- Original Message ----- 

From: Dallas <mailto:dalval14@earthlink.net> TenBroeck 

To: 'G-----

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:36 AM

Subject: RE: Homosexuality



Feb 2 2004



RE: Homosexuality





Dear G------



I have nothing at hand on a theosophical view of homosexuality."



I can only offer the following opinion. It is based on Nature's
obvious laws and the doctrine of Karma and, universal evolution.



We have at present a cycle where sex assumes great public curiosity (a
prurience, rather than a reasonable attention), instead of something
that parents decide on -- having their offspring and the up-bringing of
children for many years - until the "majority" of independence as a
future independence of responsibility is attained by them.



Consider that the sexual act is a natural function and is designed
almost universally by Nature. It seems to me it is aimed by Nature at
the reproduction of physical forms in practically all its kingdoms, and
it includes a causal quality not only on the physical, but also on the
deepest levels of personal virtue, morality and individual being..
This is Karmic and it involves all the levels of any being from material
form, through motive to the highest plane of its own individuality - the
3-in-1 Monad (ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS).



As I see it homosexuality is a form of pleasure-seeking and is selfish.



It defeats the purpose of its original intention: the production of
future generations. It therefore is designed to escape responsibility.



I would say, therefore, that it is inadvisable. Some of the Karmic
effects may prove adverse to the true progress of the Monadic entity. 



But having said that, I observe, because of ineradicable individual
freedom of choice, that it always remains solely within the capacity to
choose of those individuals who seek for such personal pleasures, while
apparently escaping some of the contingent normal consequences and
responsibilities. 



Friendship is a totally different thing. It does not depend on sex. It
depends on honor and trust. It is a moral virtue. Therefore Theosophy
advocates Brotherhood based on the understanding that we are all
immortal, and, as "eternal Pilgrims" we are all passing through this
stage of living and learning the responsibilities involved.



But how does this reasoning appeal to you?





CUT







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