Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00003)

Hallo Leon and all,

My views are:

Leon ask:
"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?) "

Answer:
To sink wisdom in ecstacy or to sink ecstacy in wisdom - that is the
question when we talk about spiritual development.
But we also say, that If there is No ecstacy then there is No wisdom. But
wisdom is important and that is why we aught to sink ecstacy in Wisdom.

I do not know who that teacher of yours is, but
Is Love not important to spiritual development?
Are you saying, that having sex has nothing at all to do with love?

(A short note: When I mentioned Idries Shah I was talking about a real
theosophical Sufi and not a dictator.)

I have seen a lot of theosophists running around with big brains when
visiting
the always present local theosophical group. They all think they have
wisdom, but in fact because
they lack an understanding of love there is only intellectual fumbling
going on in their pretty heads.
I see so many theosophists who consider having sex as a being a "sin"
similar to a "christian sin".
When has loving anyone by having sex with them ever been a sin?

I think we can agree, that SOMETHING will happen to the American and
European views on sex and sexual relationships in the nearest future to
come.
The Sex industries are growing very powerful due to the amount of money they
earn.
And this industry and its more hardcore fractions allowances of all kinds of
sexual activities will for sure have to find another level of existence.
In The Middle East we will see and are already seeing a growing pressure to
release the Sexual tabu's from their long time prison sentences.
Somthing will definitely happen.

There are today way too many websites in the US and to a lesser degree other
countries with excessive and even evil sexual content.
This is something the politicians could do something about. But, maybe the
Sex industri has bought them?
And we all wonder happens in the various orthodox or non-orthodox churches
when they close at night?
Well the truth is dirty, and someone has to talk about it.

And with all the clone and genetic engineering talk, - I wonder where TS
Adyar and other theosophical groups are "flying" these days
with its strange manner of relating it self to sexuality and sexual
relationships.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <leonmaurer@a...>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Working with controversy


>
> 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
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>