Re: Theos-World Working with controversy
Sep 07, 2004 03:16 AM
by Morten N. Olesen
Hallo Leon and all,
My views are:
Jesus Christ what a long email...!
I have to say, that I find your below accusations very distasteful - and not
in accordance with theosophical teachings.
I will give it one more try.
Sex or having sexual intercourse can be viewed as merely a physical
It can also be viewed as involving compassionate love and not only physical
The last view does not always has to involve the creation of a child - even
if it is said, that this is the main purpose of having sexual intercourse.
I think it is there that our views differ or clashes so to speak.
(Sometimes I get that feeling, that it is difficult to make any theosophical
Monk or Nun understand these issues.)
In the below are a few views - using ***.
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Working with controversy
> Hi Morton and others of like mind,
> I'm glad you agree with me that having sex with someone doesn't have
> to do with "loving" them (in the same sense that one can love all of
> 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, email@example.com
> >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?) "
> >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
> to do with ecstasy? (I take it you mean the same sort of ecstasy you have
> 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
> in common with the sexually induced "ecstasy" of physical orgasm.
Common sense does.
a) When an animal has sexual intercourse it is indeed very physical.
b) When a more ordinary human has sexual intercourse there is indeed mostly
physical activity or egotism involved - but also a certain minor degree of
c) When a somewhat evolved Seeker after Truth and Wisdom has sexual
intercourse there are from time to time much more compassion involved
than - for instance - any Brain-dead scientist will ever understand.
- Here ecstasy and Wisdom is involved while the sexual intercourse is taking
place. And not only physical satifaction and intellectual stimulations.
This is what the above in part was referring to. Of course Wisdom and
Ecstacy happens without a sexual intercourse is taking place. But the sexual
intercourse can actually help open the spiritual heart of compassion to SOME
seekers. Do you understand this?
d) When a high initiate has sexual intercourse there is sexual activity
going on. But a whole great amount of love is alos involved.
And the high initistes they do have sexual intercourse from time to time.
How did Krishna get born?
And they do not only have to get children. They also do it to teach their
friends and oput of compassion with the people on the planet as a whole.
On A planet where children are either being killed in a hostage situation or
trampled upon by a massmedia policy, which do not care a fart about
childrens feelings, fears and nervoussystems.
In the human scenarios b), c) and d) we have b) and c) learning about what
compassion is through having sexual intercourse.
Whereas d) so to speak has learnt what should be learnt on the three lower
levels since I am talking about two Masters.
Did this help?
> >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
> love of the universal Self. Where is the spiritual consciousness when one
> 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
> and emotional orgasm? Since when did the spiritual consciousness take an
> interest in "making" anything?
Is Love not love meaning an unselfish activity?
Or are the english speaking just watering down its use of these words, so
this is not a part of its vocabulary.
I at least use the word "love" with the meaning "an unselfish activity".
> I don't know who taught you that physical ecstasy is the basis of wisdom.
That was not what I said was it?
I am in the above saying the quite opposite.
You need wisdom to create a healthy kind of ecstacy.
This sometimes involves sexual intercourse taking place.
That is what I say.
> Most of the people I know who are constantly experiencing the ecstasy of
> 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
> of physical love. But, then, he never claimed that such acts were in any
> spiritual -- although he was very sentimental about it. And, as far as
> understanding of reality went, he was a theosophist (at least in
> knowledge) although the Heart Doctrine teaching that physical sexuality
> "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
> to Patanjali, the Tibetan Masters and HPB vs. Indries Shah and his Sufi
> Masters, about what is the right practices that lead toward spiritual
> -- which, in the long run on the path, each one of us has to find out for
Look in the above.
> 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
> difference to the sincere seeker of spiritual knowledge and wisdom.
> I do believe that using sex for such purposes is a waste of vital energy,
> can be detrimental to succeeding on that path -- since one can easily get
> hung up in the Astral realms.
It can be so, that is true.
But if one uses ones wisdom, it need not to be so.
Especially if one controls the astral energies in ones bodies.
> But, since you wondered about it... My only spiritual teacher is the
> within, whom I can contact at will, in deep meditation, without the need
> sexually induced ecstasy -- or any other emotional feeling induced by the
> sensory system, the imagination, or the fantasy's of the mind.
Then why do you even think and think about sexuality?
Or even email about?
Then you shouldn't be here should you?
> 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
> that helped open the door to my inner Master (the only real "teacher" I
> Their names are many, and include all the Masters and ancient
> and mystics from Thoth-Hermes through Plato to the Tibetan Masters who
> out that path to HPB... Who, along with some of her other students, such
> WQJ, Robert Crosby, Anita Atkins, Joe Pope, etc., helped point it out to
> their own words... (And, without quoting anybody else's)
You may try to convince me and others that your version of "back to the
Blavatsky sexuality" is the only real Path.
But don't expect that we just like that will fall on our knees - in front of
you - and say that there is only ONE single path when Blavatsky herself
admitted there was
(at least) Seven of them (Secret Doctrine vol.2, page 191).
> But, even with all that help, I still had to find my "path" in this life,
> my own. (Only I can know how many times I have been on it or strayed off
> in my past lives.)
> How can any one guru, even one as wise as Idries Shah beat that?
Now you are talking about a dead man, who never created a physical
organisation around himself.
"A Curriculum of a School" by Idries Shah
"Man has few alternatives in his search for truth. He may rely upon his
unaided intellect, and gamble that he is capable of perceiving truth or even
the way to truth. This is a poor, but an attractive, gamble. Or he can
gamble upon the claims of an individual or institution which claims to have
such a way. This gamble, too, is a poor one. Aside from a very few, wo/men
in general lack a sufficiently developed perception to tell them:"
1.. Not to trust their own unaided mentation;
2.. Who or what to trust.
"There are, in consequence, two main schools of thought in this matter. Some
say 'Follow your own promptings'; the other says: 'Trust this or that
intuition'. Each is really useless to the ordinary wo/man. Each will help
him use up his time."
"The bitter truth is that before man can know his own inadequacy, or the
competence of another man or institution, he must first learn something
which will enable him to perceive both. Note well that his perception itself
is a product of right study; not of instinct or emotional attraction to the
individual, nor yet of desiring to 'go it alone'. This is 'Learning How To
How to learn this is described in the book "Learning how to Learn" by Idries
---- /\/\/\___/\/\/\___/\/\/\___/\/\/\___/\/\/\___/\/\/\___/\/\/\ ---
See you in the Himalayas (smile...)
> 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
> is only the first step before starting on the way to spiritual wisdom)...
> how does that lead one to the highest levels of spiritual wisdom -- that
> the inner Master can show you?
Leon have I ever said anything to water down the view that the Inner
Master - and Wisdom is important ?
Why all these accusations?
You are definitely barking up the wrong tree here.
> >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.
It seem that we have a different view upon how to define the word "love".
Or at least how it can be defined.
> Having sex, and experiencing the ecstasy of orgasm, is Nature's way of
> ng" us to procreate. It's purely an animalistic experience, and is
> only to the physical-astral planes. It has nothing to do with spiritual
> on the highest planes. The attraction, which you call "love" that one
> toward the person who he/she has sex with is based on physical chemistry
> which is quite subliminal. Such attractions depend on female (or male)
> pheromones that, by affinity, attract particular opposites of
> genetics -- which, on the statistical averages by which evolutionary
> serve for the sole purpose of improving the racial stock. Sometimes that
> genetic pheromone connection gets mixed up, and so we have homosexuals and
> along with incestuous relations, mixing into that picture -- which you
> other tantric practitioners) paint of "animal" love that almost always
> sexual desire -- that we could better (in contrast to spiritual love) call
I will certainly not agree with that view.
To some what you say is maybe true.
But to many it is not.
I think you accuse me of being some kind of a weird tantric practitioner.
What is the basis for such an accusation?
> The ecstasy of orgasm that results from such lust is nothing more than a
> chemically induced emotional feeling -- and cannot be equated with the
> bliss of unity of self or soul on the highest plane -- that is beyond
> sensation, or emotion. To think that sexually induced ecstasy is related,
> equivalent, or leads to that "bliss" of spiritual unity, are simply wrong
So there is never compassion involved between a couple when they have sexual
If you say no - then I think it is there we depart in our views.
If you say yes - then you seem to have misundersood, what I was talking
about all along.
> Therefore, what has such so called "love making" to do with enlightenment
> theosophical wisdom -- which can come about only through one's individual
> devised and self determined study, practice, and meditative efforts --
> directly through one's higher intuition (Buddhi-Manas) and focused
> one's spiritual ray (Atma) emanating from the higher universal Self?
Enlightenment cannot happen without the development of compassion. Do you
Compassion is developed - how?
By being a Monk and a Nun for the rest of your life ?
No, certainly not always.
I depends what path you follow, and what nature your
"bodies" have. And they differ among people.
> >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
> as true theosophists see it, has nothing to do with your definition of
> (or sexual attraction) between individual beings. Spiritual love is on a
> far higher than can be expressed through or reached by our physical
> The wise theosophist knows that the ego expressed through that lower
> self, which is dependent on the physical senses rooted in the Astral, has
> 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).
Well Leon, the by the manner you talk I most certainly feel that we are lead
to believe differently.
But then, your
> understanding of love seems to refer to "love making" solely for personal
> perhaps, in order to gain siddhi powers -- which is still based on
> selfishness... And, therefore, cannot lead to any sort of worthwhile
> or wisdom. In that sense, real theosophists might consider such as action
> non productive of the goals of their theosophical practice. But, of
> that doesn't make it "evil," as some people define sin. There's nothing
> with enjoying sexual love. But, let's not make of it something that leads
> any higher sort of spiritual wisdom or enlightenment.
But of course Leon sexual compassionate love
will always only be a beginner manoeuvre.
But it will indeed be helpful to some Seekers. Don't you agree? (???)
The partner will look upon the Divine within his or her "consort".
Later on the Parh no physical (sexual) activities what so ever are
> people tend to equate theosophical magic (tantric practices) -- which
> any further than the Astral plane -- with theosophical wisdom. If some
> teach that -- then I don't think they are real "theosophists" -- in the
> of fully understanding the Heart Doctrine as taught by the Theosophical
> through their "messenger," HPB.
It goes further than the astral plane.
It also involves manas and opening up of the buddhi.
So I disagree with your crisp scientific outline.
> >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
> >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
> >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?
> the sexual taboos of the Islamic people, based on blind religious belief,
> blind faith in their gurus, is for them to work out.
I do not think that they all have blind beliefs.
Let us seek to be more objective.
In any event, the actions
> they chose will not make any iota of a difference with respect to their
> of spiritual attainment... Although, it may act as an even greater
> 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
> >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
> >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.
I disagree so very much.
Please understand that any sentence will have a certain degree of spiritual
impact on the reader.
Either positive or negative.
If Christ just handed you all the solutions on a plate you wouldn't really
learn anything would you?
> Since, true theosophists can only be a small part of the world's
They will hopefully not continue to only be a small part...
> -- most of whom haven't the faintest idea about how their selfish and
> materialistic views, and consequent wrong actions (not in accord with the
> 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
> one's own life, and by example and promulgation's of the teachings, show
> the error of their ways. No amount of preaching, lawmaking, proselytizing
> religion, or dictating new ways of living can help bring the bulk of
> toward a true understanding of the fundamental principles and the
> truths they underlie -- which can enable and empower them to fulfill the
> objects of the theosophical movement. Universal Brotherhood is not
> 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
> theosophists (which is the only thing a true theosophist can ever be)...
> cares? And what difference does it make? What does the practices of any
> theosophical group, based on the opinions, egos, and prejudices of their
> have to do with the fundamental teachings of theosophy per se?
If you do not understand the importance of what I wrote it is not my fault.
You will not get an answer to these questions from me.
Seek the answers and you will find them.
> I thought that this dialogue was discussing the difference between sexual
> love and spiritual love from a theosophical point of view -- not about
> or how individual organizations carry out their business.
> Either we agree that sexual love (in your sense of personal love making)
> not the same as spiritual love (in the theosophical sense of the
> unity of individual souls with the oversoul) -- or we are trying to
> apples with orange, and bringing in non sequitur organizational, economic
> political practices and personal opinions, that apply only in narrow areas
> cultural, political, or religious beliefs that have nothing to do with
> se... That, in its metaphysical and physical teachings of the "eye
> and in its meditative and spiritual practices of the "heart doctrine," is
> based on certain fundamental principles that are inimical to those
> >(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
> same thing as Master Jesus' question; "And why beholdest thou the mote
> in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own
> Each of them gave out advice, metaphorically, to their disciples and to
> people of their own time and culture, in their own particular way. But,
> interpreted correctly, such metaphorical teachings have profound meanings
> could only be fully comprehended by the awakened disciples present at the
> time and place of these teachers. Yet, even today, true theosophists have
> trouble in understanding them.
> Consider that both of these teachers came long before Idries Shah -- who
> be just as wise a theosophist as they were... Yet he gave out his advice
> his the only way that would appeal to his own people in his own time and
> -- who are limited in their thinking, religious and government ideas and
> practices to what is written in their Koran.
I disagree very much with that view. And others certainly also do so.
You obvioulsy are not aware of that Idries Shah's teachings has had the
greatest impact among westerners
(ie. former followers of Gurdjieff, old Theosophy, Bailey, and New Age of
Why don't you join the Yahoo forum "Caravansarai" and listen the followers
of Idries Shah's teachings?
You will then parhaps be able to save some souls then. (...Ironi is a part
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
> 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
Who "dictated" anything ?
> out the same advice in their own way to a people and culture whose
> and religious and governmental practice is limited to what is written in
> 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
> 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
> that they each had to use -- which are particular to those different
> cultures and governmental systems. This also applies to the differences
> subtleties of the language and its idioms that each Master is forced to
> 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
> Western theosophist, what better place to find such truths in their
> clarity, than in the fundamental books written by all the great Masters of
> past, that have been consolidated and outlined in its basic metaphysical
> understanding without embellishment -- provided one can read "in and
> words and between the lines" (and through the "blinds") in the Secret
There simply must be better places to look !
This cannot be the only place. It is stupid and ignorant to think
I could suggest that one first read a few books about "Brainwashing".
It is a new and growing science, not really know about at Blavatsky time.
And it in fact helps the new theosophical seekers to
get the theosophical books digested in a better manner.
And Blavatsky said that science was important - remember.
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> How we interpret and use such truths in our lives and our further
> practice toward attaining self realization, must be left up to each of us,
> individually -- through our own self devised and self determined study and
> (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
> >M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application