Re: Theos-World Working with controversy
Sep 07, 2004 00:52 AM
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).
In a message dated 09/01/04 6:29:10 AM, email@example.com writes:
>Hallo Leon and all,
>My views are:
>"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?) "
>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
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
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
>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
>The Sex industries are growing very powerful due to the amount of money
>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
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).
-- 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
>M. Sufilight with peace and love...
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application