Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00001)

In a message dated 08/31/04 7:09:19 AM, global-theosophy@a... writes:
>
>So Leon having Sex is mostly not a totally selfish activity.
>I thought you knew that?

When did I ever say that I didn't? 

But, Morten, what does "having Sex" to do with gaining spiritual wisdom or 
achieving enlightenment? (Which is what this discussion is all about, isn't 
it?) 

Case in point (which you might appreciate. :-) My late Sufi Darvish friend, 
M. G., a mountain climber (did Everest) and famous Persian author (14 books in 
Parsi and two in Swedish) -- who was also a consummate rake and a sexual 
athlete -- always said that whatever he did outwardly had justification in the 
Koran, and in the poetry of Rumi and Omar Khayam, but had nothing to do with the 
attainment of spiritual knowledge or enlightenment. (He was very versed in 
theosophical metaphysics which we discussed in great length.) Besides having 
sex with any woman he met whom he could charm, he "whirled" for the experience 
of ecstasy (and also smoked pot and opium ;) -- but made no claims that any of 
it was a spiritual experience. BTW, since his inflammatory books in Iran put 
him on the CIA hit list, he sneaked into the US by "jumping ship" of a tour 
group from Sweden (he was married to the daughter of the Swedish ambassador to 
Iran, had a Swedish passport, and two very European cultured teen aged 
children whom I met when they visited their father in America)... And spent two years 
here writing a book called the "All American Girl" about his sexual escapades 
while exploring the whole country, and mountain climbing in the Grand Tetons, 
living in a small van that was decorated inside like a Nomad Sheik's tent. 

Unfortunately, when he went back to Tehran (after a third year underground in 
NYC) they caught him making a pass at (talking to) a married Moslem woman, 
dug up an older conviction on the same charge (from which he originally escaped 
stoning by bribing a guard, and running to Sweden) and they executed him (BTW, 
they still "stone" people who commit sexual crimes in Iran)... Even though he 
was instrumental in the overthrow of the Shah, coined the words "American 
Satan" in one of his books, and was a friend of the first Mullah Khomeini as well 
as the current President of Iran. 

Incidentally, I still have the original edited manuscript of his book in 
English (written, more or less in the style of Hemingway, whom he admired) which 
he willed to me... But, no one would publish it, since it was too insightful 
about the emasculation of American males, and too explicit about American 
women's sexual relationships with their dogs.:-) So much for being a Sufi monk -- 
er-- Darvish. (I understand the word actually means "outlaw." ;-)

As for me being a theosophical monk, considering that my interest in 
theosophy is to attain self realization in the most direct manner possible without 
falling into any sort of ritual monkish traps, I would rather look at it from the 
standpoint of the Buddha who said, in essence -- there is a time for being a 
householder, falling in love, and enjoying the pleasures of the body along 
with the satisfaction of raising a family -- but there is also a time when all 
that becomes meaningless and the soul must set out to become one with the 
universal Soul, which makes no distinctions between individuals, and certainly 
separates one's consciousness from the mind and the body. One doesn't have to be a 
sequestered monk to accomplish all that -- since one can always follow the 
path of the Master who is "in the world but not of the world." I'm sure Jesus 
enjoyed being "anointed" (today we say "massaged" ;-) with oil by Mary (among 
other worldly things ;-). And Buddha made no admonitions against having sex 
whenever it fell in front of one's path.

Therefore, intimate emotional and sensory love between two people, and 
directed toward pleasing each other, whether expressed heterosexually or otherwise, 
has nothing to do with the impersonal "Love" that encompasses all of nature. 
Experiencing the so called "ecstasy" of sexual union, still includes an 
element of self satisfaction and thus contains a degree of selfishness. Even the 
thought that such an act of giving pleasure to another is unselfish, and 
considering it as a personal virtue, or as a necessary stage on the path toward 
spiritual awakening -- is nothing more than a hypocritical rationalization by those 
who phallically interpret (by identifying it with the lingham -yoni) the 
yin-yang (creative-receptive) nature of fundamental reality. 

None of such experiences have any relationship to the ecstasy, which I'd 
rather call "bliss" of an "impersonal" mystical experience -- that has nothing to 
do with the sensations of the flesh, the emotional feelings, the 
rationalizations of the mind about the personal love that accompanies them, or about the 
unselfishness of such an experience considered as a virtue. Being in love with 
another individual (personal love) is, essentially, always selfish -- since, 
if thinking about, seeing, touching, feeling one's supposed loved one didn't 
make one feel good, that so called "love" would soon evaporate. So, no matter 
how you shake it, all sexual ecstasy is essentially based on lust rather than 
"love" (in its true spiritual meaning). And, most long abiding love affairs 
between two people are usually nothing more than psychological codependency's.

HPB made all that perfectly clear when she denigrated the phallic 
interpretations of those who practice sexual Tantra while they justified that it reflects 
the true nature of the androgynous reality of the ALL PRESENCE. In my view 
(as well as HPB's, I'm sure) such practices are a hindrance along the way to 
true spiritual enlightenment rather than leading toward it... For, once on the 
true path of self realization, all those experiences have to be put behind and 
completely forgotten -- since the being who experienced it in the past no 
longer exists, and all its karma must eventually be totally transcended by the 
Higher Self... That, once enlightened, can still choose to rest eternally (or at 
least for one Manvantara) in Nirvana -- or not. 

And, if not -- why not enjoy the world's pleasures as well as its pains, 
while helping others attain that same enlightenment... But, don't pretend any of 
those pleasures (or pains) helps any lesser awakened beings to reach such a 
state any faster than their own self devised and self determined efforts will 
allow. Maybe the only thing such ecstatic sexual experiences can teach such a 
one -- with sufficient repetition (although three should be enough :-) -- is 
that whatever goes up with fast and furious expression will always come down 
with just as fast and furious depression. Such proof that the laws of karma 
never fail could, at least, be one step on the way toward enlightenment. So, sex 
may have some usefulness in spiritual work after all. (That is, for some less 
bright people who can't learn that truth in any other less debilitating and 
less strenuous way. :-) In addition, I don't remember HPB saying anything about 
one's private sexual practices, other than that it had nothing to do with 
one's spiritual path. Although, it could be considered a detriment to it, since 
it's disrupting effect on the brain and mind is not much different than the 
drugs and alcohol that she said were inimical to spiritual development.

I thought you knew all that? ;-) 

(Although, I'm sure Jerry S. will disagree, since he doesn't believe there is 
such a thing as an eternal Higher Self. ;-) 

Leonardo 


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

Hallo Leon and all,


My views are:


To some people climbing the Path or ladder

do not absolutly have to happen using the "nun" or "monk"

technique.


To some people this "massage" of the lower bodies are quite important - to

their possibility of adavancing towards more permanent chalaship. Chelaship

of the same kind you mention Blavatsky talked about.

You Leon are obviously not one of them who needs this path. So the "monk"

path is your path?


I agree, that the physical intercourse it self is not what we aim for - in

the end of our devleopment. Then we use it like Dallas mentioned - when

there is a spiritual need for an individual to be born and else not.


The problem is, as I see it, - that these issues was not described very

well by the main theosophists - Blavatsky included.


I am not the only one having a different view than you on this.

I will allow myself to quote Jerry S.:

"The sex act, and yes I can still remember it, need not be selfish at all.

If done as an exression of love, it is part of human intimacy and a

wonderful way to express love between two people. The sensation of a loving

orgasm is the closest experience that we human beings have to the ecstasy

of a mystical experience. The object should be to bring enjoyment to one's

partner, not to oneself."


So Leon having Sex is mostly not a totally selfish activity.

I thought you knew that?

from

M. Sufilight