Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00256)

Hi Morton and others of like mind,

I'm glad you agree with me that having sex with someone doesn't have anything 
to do with "loving" them (in the same sense that one can love all of creation 
stemming from the ubiquitous and eternal spiritual laya point that is the 
Mother-Father of us all, and centered in each of us).

More below...

In a message dated 09/01/04 6:29:10 AM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk writes:
>
>
>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
> is important and that is why we aught to sink ecstacy in Wisdom.

Who says? I wish I knew what you are talking about. What does wisdom have 
to do with ecstasy? (I take it you mean the same sort of ecstasy you have when 
you're in sexual congress and have a physical orgasm?) But, I can't see as 
how the spiritual ecstasy or "bliss" of union with the higher Self has anything 
in common with the sexually induced "ecstasy" of physical orgasm.

>I do not know who that teacher of yours is, but
>Is Love not important to spiritual development?

Depends on what you define as "love." Sexual love making (as you put it 
previously) has nothing whatever to do with spiritual development or the spiritual 
love of the universal Self. Where is the spiritual consciousness when one is 
in the pleasurable throes of physical "love making"? What makes you think 
that the Spirit has any need to come down to such a mundane level of physical 
and emotional orgasm? Since when did the spiritual consciousness take an 
interest in "making" anything? 

I don't know who taught you that physical ecstasy is the basis of wisdom. 
Most of the people I know who are constantly experiencing the ecstasy of sex, 
are pretty ignorant people from a spiritual knowledge and wisdom point of 
view... Including that Darvish friend of mine, who didn't realize the karma he was 
making, by following his Sufi gurus' interpretation of the meaning and purpose 
of physical love. But, then, he never claimed that such acts were in any way 
spiritual -- although he was very sentimental about it. And, as far as his 
understanding of reality went, he was a theosophist (at least in metaphysical 
knowledge) although the Heart Doctrine teaching that physical sexuality (or 
"love making" as you put it) is a hindrance to spiritual wisdom (or 
enlightenment) left him cold. 

But, then different strokes for different folks. I guess it just comes down 
to Patanjali, the Tibetan Masters and HPB vs. Indries Shah and his Sufi 
Masters, about what is the right practices that lead toward spiritual enlightenment 
-- which, in the long run on the path, each one of us has to find out for 
ourselves. 

In any case, I don't feel that normal sexuality along with sincere love of 
another human being, under the right time, place and circumstance will make much 
difference to the sincere seeker of spiritual knowledge and wisdom. However, 
I do believe that using sex for such purposes is a waste of vital energy, and 
can be detrimental to succeeding on that path -- since one can easily get 
hung up in the Astral realms.

But, since you wondered about it... My only spiritual teacher is the Master 
within, whom I can contact at will, in deep meditation, without the need for 
sexually induced ecstasy -- or any other emotional feeling induced by the 
sensory system, the imagination, or the fantasy's of the mind.

The personal guru(s) who you identify as my "teacher" (but whom I say are 
simply my "guides") are those who have pointed out to me the paths and practices 
that helped open the door to my inner Master (the only real "teacher" I know). 
Their names are many, and include all the Masters and ancient philosophers 
and mystics from Thoth-Hermes through Plato to the Tibetan Masters who pointed 
out that path to HPB... Who, along with some of her other students, such as 
WQJ, Robert Crosby, Anita Atkins, Joe Pope, etc., helped point it out to me in 
their own words... (And, without quoting anybody else's) 

But, even with all that help, I still had to find my "path" in this life, on 
my own. (Only I can know how many times I have been on it or strayed off it 
in my past lives.) 

How can any one guru, even one as wise as Idries Shah beat that? 

Such a guru may be able to show you how to live your life without fear or 
shame, and to experience it to the fullest without disrupting its harmony (which 
is only the first step before starting on the way to spiritual wisdom)... But. 
how does that lead one to the highest levels of spiritual wisdom -- that only 
the inner Master can show you? 

>Are you saying, that having sex has nothing at all to do with love?

Yes, i.e., if you take "love" in the spiritual sense explained above. 

Having sex, and experiencing the ecstasy of orgasm, is Nature's way of "bribi
ng" us to procreate. It's purely an animalistic experience, and is related 
only to the physical-astral planes. It has nothing to do with spiritual "love" 
on the highest planes. The attraction, which you call "love" that one feels 
toward the person who he/she has sex with is based on physical chemistry alone, 
which is quite subliminal. Such attractions depend on female (or male) 
pheromones that, by affinity, attract particular opposites of complementary 
genetics -- which, on the statistical averages by which evolutionary nature works, 
serve for the sole purpose of improving the racial stock. Sometimes that 
genetic pheromone connection gets mixed up, and so we have homosexuals and lesbians, 
along with incestuous relations, mixing into that picture -- which you (and 
other tantric practitioners) paint of "animal" love that almost always includes 
sexual desire -- that we could better (in contrast to spiritual love) call 
"lust." 

The ecstasy of orgasm that results from such lust is nothing more than a 
chemically induced emotional feeling -- and cannot be equated with the spiritual 
bliss of unity of self or soul on the highest plane -- that is beyond mind, 
sensation, or emotion. To think that sexually induced ecstasy is related, 
equivalent, or leads to that "bliss" of spiritual unity, are simply wrong views. 

Therefore, what has such so called "love making" to do with enlightenment or 
theosophical wisdom -- which can come about only through one's individual self 
devised and self determined study, practice, and meditative efforts -- 
directly through one's higher intuition (Buddhi-Manas) and focused directly from 
one's spiritual ray (Atma) emanating from the higher universal Self? 

>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.

Depends on what you mean by "love." Understanding love in the spiritual sense 
as true theosophists see it, has nothing to do with your definition of love 
(or sexual attraction) between individual beings. Spiritual love is on a plane 
far higher than can be expressed through or reached by our physical natures. 
The wise theosophist knows that the ego expressed through that lower animal 
self, which is dependent on the physical senses rooted in the Astral, has to be 
totally extinguished before spiritual enlightenment can be reached and the 
Nirmanakaya body attained.

>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 don't know any real theosophists who think any kind of "love," whether 
sexual or spiritual, is a sin (in the Christian sense). But then, your 
understanding of love seems to refer to "love making" solely for personal pleasure, or 
perhaps, in order to gain siddhi powers -- which is still based on 
selfishness... And, therefore, cannot lead to any sort of worthwhile spiritual knowledge 
or wisdom. In that sense, real theosophists might consider such as action as 
non productive of the goals of their theosophical practice. But, of course, 
that doesn't make it "evil," as some people define sin. There's nothing wrong 
with enjoying sexual love. But, let's not make of it something that leads to 
any higher sort of spiritual wisdom or enlightenment. Unfortunately, some 
people tend to equate theosophical magic (tantric practices) -- which never goes 
any further than the Astral plane -- with theosophical wisdom. If some Sufis 
teach that -- then I don't think they are real "theosophists" -- in the sense 
of fully understanding the Heart Doctrine as taught by the Theosophical Masters 
through their "messenger," HPB. 

>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.

Well, whenever people justify any changes in the mores of their society, 
something different is bound to happen. The question is... What happens? But, 
the sexual taboos of the Islamic people, based on blind religious belief, or 
blind faith in their gurus, is for them to work out. In any event, the actions 
they chose will not make any iota of a difference with respect to their degree 
of spiritual attainment... Although, it may act as an even greater deterrent 
to their further gain of spiritual wisdom if it becomes as blatantly 
promiscuous and disassociated with their religiosity, as it is in the West... And, IMO, 
can only serve to set many of them further back on the path to enlightenment. 


>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 industry 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.

Yes, but talk without conclusions, or suggestions for correction of the 
problems talked about is just empty rhetoric. 

Since, true theosophists can only be a small part of the world's population 
-- most of whom haven't the faintest idea about how their selfish and 
materialistic views, and consequent wrong actions (not in accord with the true nature 
of reality) retard the evolution of the race -- what need is there to talk 
about it, or try to change them through man made laws? 

It's obvious that the only thing that can be done about it, that may be 
worthwhile from a theosophical point of view, is to practice true theosophy in 
one's own life, and by example and promulgation's of the teachings, show others 
the error of their ways. No amount of preaching, lawmaking, proselytizing a new 
religion, or dictating new ways of living can help bring the bulk of mankind 
toward a true understanding of the fundamental principles and the theosophical 
truths they underlie -- which can enable and empower them to fulfill the 
objects of the theosophical movement. Universal Brotherhood is not something that 
can be dictated.

>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.

Wherever they are "flying" -- that's their problem. As for us "independent" 
theosophists (which is the only thing a true theosophist can ever be)... Who 
cares? And what difference does it make? What does the practices of any 
theosophical group, based on the opinions, egos, and prejudices of their hierarchy, 
have to do with the fundamental teachings of theosophy per se? 

I thought that this dialogue was discussing the difference between sexual 
love and spiritual love from a theosophical point of view -- not about politics 
or how individual organizations carry out their business. 

Either we agree that sexual love (in your sense of personal love making) is 
not the same as spiritual love (in the theosophical sense of the impersonal 
unity of individual souls with the oversoul) -- or we are trying to compare 
apples with orange, and bringing in non sequitur organizational, economic or 
political practices and personal opinions, that apply only in narrow areas of 
cultural, political, or religious beliefs that have nothing to do with theosophy per 
se... That, in its metaphysical and physical teachings of the "eye doctrine" 
and in its meditative and spiritual practices of the "heart doctrine," is 
based on certain fundamental principles that are inimical to those beliefs. 

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

"Physician, heal thyself," said the Master Hermes (which concisely said the 
same thing as Master Jesus' question; "And why beholdest thou the mote that is 
in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?") 
Each of them gave out advice, metaphorically, to their disciples and to the 
people of their own time and culture, in their own particular way. But, if 
interpreted correctly, such metaphorical teachings have profound meanings that 
could only be fully comprehended by the awakened disciples present at the same 
time and place of these teachers. Yet, even today, true theosophists have no 
trouble in understanding them. 

Consider that both of these teachers came long before Idries Shah -- who may 
be just as wise a theosophist as they were... Yet he gave out his advice in 
his the only way that would appeal to his own people in his own time and culture 
-- who are limited in their thinking, religious and government ideas and 
practices to what is written in their Koran. Thus, the modern disciple, to fully 
understand him -- must transcend those written commentaries beyond their 
simple dead letter meanings. When they do so, they will understand the true meaning 
behind the metaphors that Idrias Shah used in his teachings to the common 
herd of religious believers in his own cultural milieu -- which is quite 
different from the culture of most Western theosophists. 

HPB and the Masters who gave theosophy to the West, never "dictated" but gave 
out the same advice in their own way to a people and culture whose thinking 
and religious and governmental practice is limited to what is written in their 
Bible and in the Constitution and laws of their Governments, along with 
practical rules of their political and economic systems. Therefore, modern 
theosophists have to be able to transcend all that also, if they are to understand the 
true meanings behind the words of these teachers.

Thus, the comparison between the teachings of the different theosophically 
minded Gurus of different people and cultures cannot be made unless one 
thoroughly understands the true meanings behind the different metaphors and parables 
that they each had to use -- which are particular to those different peoples, 
cultures and governmental systems. This also applies to the differences in the 
subtleties of the language and its idioms that each Master is forced to use 
in his particular time, place and circumstance. 

In any case, the fundamental truths of theosophy, that underlie the wisdom 
behind their teachings, no matter how said, has always been the same. For the 
Western theosophist, what better place to find such truths in their pristine 
clarity, than in the fundamental books written by all the great Masters of the 
past, that have been consolidated and outlined in its basic metaphysical 
understanding without embellishment -- provided one can read "in and around the 
words and between the lines" (and through the "blinds") in the Secret Doctrine. 

How we interpret and use such truths in our lives and our further meditation 
practice toward attaining self realization, must be left up to each of us, 
individually -- through our own self devised and self determined study and effort 
(to practice theosophy, as we see it, both in word and deed).

Leonardo 
-- with hope that we all may see the light (of spiritual love) -- which 
belongs to everyone, and needs no physical, sensual, or emotional contact to 
experience. 



>from
>M. Sufilight with peace and love...