Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00643)

Hi Adelasie,

I did not break any rule of Universal Brotherhood when I responded to  
Jake's first message. It wasn't me who was denying the right to be a  
sexually accepted being to anyone or to any group. It was Jake. In my  
response to him I only quoted Theosophical principles, to prove to  
him that he was wrong.

I don't understand why you mention to me about bigotry and hatred.  
Look at my first response to him and tell me where did I break any  
rule against Universal Brotherhood. And then read Jake's message with  
the same judging eyes as you read mine.

Fraternally,

Rodolfo Don

On Nov 11, 2006, at 6:33 AM, adelasie wrote:

> Hi Rodolfo,
>
> It's useful to remember karma and reincarnation when we are
> expressing bigotry and hatred in a theosophical forum. According to
> the teachings, each entity incarnates in all conditions in order to
> learn all there is to learn. So we may expect, if we find some one or
> other of the human conditions to be personally repulsive, that we
> will one day find oursleves in that very condition. Wisdom is not
> based on separatism. It is based on the consciousness of unity.
> Acceptance is a good tool to cultivate in one's own consciousness.
>
> Adelasie
>
> .
>
> 

Adelasie: This is my answer to Jake's original message, below.


A common sense response to a Very Queer Opinion

It has been determined that homosexuals are born with the  
predisposition to that sexual orientation. I myself was born that  
way, and I remember when I was in kindergarten I knew what my  
preferences were. Being homophobic goes against Universal  
Brotherhood, just like denying to them every human right that  
heterosexuals enjoy. Pretend that homosexuals should hide their own  
nature goes against Truth that should be honored by every  
Theosophist. Truth in thought, action and truth to himself or herself.

And about the comment that homosexuals that don't rise above their  
own nature (?) have their own higher two principles paralized, I have  
to disappoint you because all my seven principles are functioning  
very well. I am laughing about your retrograde thinking. Look at the  
rest of the world and see all the changes that have taken place in  
just a few years. Only religion with its prejudices and bigotry is  
holding back more changes particularly in very religious countries  
like the Muslim countries, Poland and our own country, U.S.A.

Why do you mention that the Dalai Lama is against "oral sex" in your  
diatribe against gays? Do you mean that oral sex is not practiced by  
heterosexuals? You can't be serious!

Do you know what I think about your little piece of writing below. It  
is promoting hatred and intolerance in a Theosophical list.

Rodolfo Don

========================================

On Oct 23, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Mark Jaqua wrote:
A Personal Opinion on a Very Queer Question

I've been wanting to write something on this
for a while, so think I will do so. It could be
called "esoteric," I think. So, if you aren't
"esoteric," don't worry about it.

Nobody writes about homosexuals in relation
to theosophy, because it is far too dangerous
to do so, Homosexuals being a very large
"vested interest." Does Theosophy have any
specific teachings in regard to them? No.
Nothing is said anywhere in the primary literature.
It is "2 Lo 2 go," and brings elevated concepts
down into the muck of lower life - so this
Post is personal opinion. Buddhism has a
precept agains "improper sexual action," and
the Dalai Lama condemned oral sex in an "Out"
magazine interview (Feb-March, 1994) It is
an important issue, and affects the whole
movement, mostly at its more esoteric level
- which where the real life of the Theosophical
Movement comes from. Throughout original
Theosophical literature there is the undercurrent
of the necessity of living a clean and moral
life. In the 19th century any reference to
morality and homosexuals was unnecessary, for
one thing, as it was common accepted truth
that it was immoral. Today that is not the
case and the gay lifestyle and politics is almost
a religion. The militant gay holds his gay
status more important than religion, politics
or anything else (certainly more important
than Theosophy!) The question could be ignored
in the 19th century, but can it today?

Why is this all important to Theosophy?
In my opinion because: (1) any group that
has a significant number of openly homosexuals
in it is DONE FOR, as far as the genuine
normal population being attracted. (I remember
the Buddhist event I went too, with the two
gay guys greeting each other with squeals,
and hugs.) (2) The homosexual, unless he
can rise above or indifferent to it, has
his two higher principles paralyzed. It is
incompatible with any type of Theosophical
"Inner Group." The probationary chela "Fern"
in the MLs is said to have had his two higher
principles paralyzed - from Jesuit training
when he was young. (MLs, p. 330, TUP) It's
the same thing, but from a different source.
Lower manas has to be open to higher manas
and buddhi, and this requires generally a basic
purity in lower manas and the lower self, and
in sex matters this means celibacy or heterosexuality
-
which are in tune with healthy human psychology
and Mother Nature, homosexuality is not. (3)
I think possibly one could say that homosexuals
have Wrecked the whole theosophical movment.
It might be possibly to breakdown the major
splits in Theosophical groups of the gays
vs. the straights, and the types of philosophies
they are inclined to accept. One can certainly
find a basis for this in Leadbeater-based
Neo-Theosophy at Adyar VS. Original Theosophy
at ULT and Point Loma. (Tingley was very
anti-homosexual, and Leadbeater and Wedgewood,
et. al. and their Liberal Catholic Church,
masonry and sex-teachings were homosexuals
and sympathizers.)

I remember reading an account
somewhere that Blavatsky had a deprecatory
nick-name for Leadbeater in reference to
his homosexuality (or pedophilia) - but can't
find the source. Purucker refered to homosexuals
somewhere, I believe, as an abnormality or
something to be pitied, sometimes an
evolutionary throw-back.

I joined an esoteric group about 30
years ago, and the Teacher's idea was that
the only way to go if one was really Serious,
was to be celibate. This isn't easy, wrecked
life with the girlfriend, and set me to mulling
occassionally over the whole sex-question for
the last 30+ years. The results of which I
think I got a lot of answers, some answers I
have to think were "shown" to me in one way
or another, because I don't see how I could
come up with the answers on my own. Some
general observations follow.

How does a person become a homosexual?
Is it something they are born with? I
think at least half are born with the skandas
or karmic tendency, which is something they
can't help. Where does this come from? Its
the karmic result of previous degeneracy,
for one source, I think. The hedonist becomes
jaded and looks for more and more extremes
for kicks. Just normal sex doesn't work
anymore and they fool their minds and experiment
more and more. Several hollywood stars come
to mind - who could have any woman or man
they wanted - but became homosexuals. Also,
people have all and any type of thoughts,
at least occassionally, and if in unhealthy
passivity. Naive persons who have an occassional
queer thought, become obesessed with the idea
that they are queer, when it should just be
ignored or forced out. People also get
obssessed. A male obsessed with a female
bhut (dead "shell" of someone who died early),
can become or urged by it to become queer,
and vice-versa. I know one case, I think,
of a young woman whose drug-addicted father
died, and then she became queer. What modern
psychologist would even consider such a thing!
Personally, I believe there is no such thing
in nature as a homosexual, but only arising
from various human-imposed causes.

Purucker says somewhere that the more
one is attracted to the opposite sex (and
acts on it), the more he becomes like the
opposite sex. This is how it is determined
if one is reincarnated as a male or female.
The hedonist gradually becomes like the
opposite sex, so the most "manly" or "womanly"
person is the celibate. If one gradually,
even in a normal lifestyle becomes and
reincarnates as the opposite sex, then there
must be a certain sort of "neutral point"
that is reached, and a person is born in a
male or female body, but is actually under-sexed
and "neutral" about sex more than most persons.
This could be a blessing, but the more asexual
person - especially nowdays - is convinced
by various propaganda that he is actually
homo-sexual instead of moreso neutral-sexual.
(You Have to be a sex-machine one way or
another! says modern psychology and media!)
How may young confused people who don't know
what to do with all the errant thoughts
put in their heads (put there by gay propaganda)
are convinced they are "gay" and Ruin their
whole lives - when they might have lived a
relatively normal life otherwise and even
cured themselves!! Believing the Politically
Correct propaganda that being a homosexual
is "just another healthy choice" - how many
100,000 young people have irrevocably entered
a lifestyle in which they are innerly-tortued
for life, many committing suicide directly
or in other ways???

In the world in general the homosexuals
are a "vested interest." Speak out in a
significant way about the suicidal immorality
of Society endorsing homosexual lifestyle, and
see what happens to you. A lot are
intelligent people, and a middle-class phenomenom,
and "gays" work together as interest groups.
They permeate the social-work system, the
medical system, and the police departments.
(Try being helpless in a hospital, when the
"gay-network" there of a couple hundred finds
out that you are a loathe-some "homo-phob."
[or "homo-disgusto"]) People become irrational
when a "hot-spot" is poked. We all have them.
Some psychological complex where we are
vulnerable and out of harmony with ourselves
and nature, and when it is "poked" we feel
raped. "Passion-crimes" are committed when
people's hot-spots get poked.

So, is this a call for a pogrom
on homosexuals. No, of course not. Most are
decent people, and try to be so (excepting
the prison-types.) There is nothing in Theosophy
or Buddhism that says sick people can't join,
as long as they don't wreck things. 'And we
are most ALL sick in one form or another.
One's open-mindedness and compassion is used
against oneself and theosophy, as often as
for it. But we are in the truth business
- not self-destructive make-believe for the
sake of social harmony, or social consequences
of knowing the real truth - for ourselves
at least.

- jake j.

__________________________________________________

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]