[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Sex

Mar 31, 2005 12:27 PM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck

Mar 31 2005

Dear Friends:

On the subject of "sex" can we consider these views?

What is the main REASON for intercourse ?

Is it to have children and take on the responsibilities of family life and
raising decent children or is it not ?

If it is pursued purely because of some pleasure -- then does that justify
promiscuity? And from that prostitution ?

What is our attitude towards motherhood, sisterhood, one's wife or daughter
(or reversibly, one's father, brother, son, other men ?).

Apparently some exaggeration or a degradation of the kamic principle has
cast the protective instinct into the discard and glorified sexual appetites
-- which
historically and traditionally have been always regarded as very sacred
matters, not to be placed on display and thus made a casual plaything of.

Only the most vile of humans who have descended to the level of the
sub-bestial, have ever made of sex a matter of usage and display -- and yet,
here we now live in an age of permissiveness, and one's "rights" are thrown
against the old customs and views of the past ?  

Are we any the better or safer or happier for this condition ? 

Are we happy to read of rape and rapine lurking in dark corners and making
victims of the weak and unsuspecting?  

Are of the opinion that any sexual activity of ours entails no further
responsibility -- for wife, children, girl or boy-friends?

Do the laws of any land sanction rape and violence to children or to women?

One of the signs of the sad condition of our times is the fact that
so-called psychologists have made it their work to find excuses and
persuasive reasons why sex-activity or sex-life (and its many kinds of
perversions) ought to be advertised.  

If the continuing individuality (immortality of the Monad) , reincarnation,
and karma are not to be considered, are we to do worse than the animals do,
who have their natural seasons for conception and exercise, usually the
greatest protective care over their little ones ?

Why do honorable and responsible people feel a disgust for such a condition?

Is it not the violation of one of the fundamental objects of the
Theosophical Movement -- the T S and of all Nature ? I mean of
BROTHERHOOD, and of that universal compassion and protection that the strong
are expected to extend to the weak ?  

Where is true chivalry, and honor one might ask.

Does it no longer well up spontaneously from deep within? Why is there in
the world today such a concentrated effort to make our children in their
inexperience aware of sexuality without the responsibilities that are a
concomitant of exercising it ?

I would say that it is very fortunate to be brought up in an environment
where historically and customarily, respect for privacy, and for children
and women-folk is still exercised.  

But, of course if this is exaggerated and carried to an extreme there is
also in those customs and their imposition an infringement on free will and
the right of self-education and self-decision.  

All these things need consideration and adjustment on the basis of that
which is
reasonable. The Soul is neither male nor female. Only the body of the
present incarnation is provided under karma in one sex or the other for the
purpose of meeting and adjusting our past karma -- says Theosophy.

As students of Theosophy have we considered Karmatically what promiscuity
implies -- in terms of liaisons that may last for many lives -- in terms of
children who are not PROTECTED by their fathers or mothers and are the real
orphans, the changelings, of the world ? This may appear a strange
question. But Theosophy presents us with a view of karmic operations not
provided in, or by, any other source. It is one of real importance for us
this stage of our joint evolution.

If it is said that occultism prohibits connubial life, one should ask why.
What is the pursuit of occultism as a motive ?

Can one devote the same amount of importance to occult development (whatever
that may mean) if one is married, or not ?

Is it possibly a case of divided loyalties, in the sense that the very
careful work of developing one's occult nature (again, I say what is that ?)
and of executing all the responsibilities of family life demand too much
time in and of themselves ?

Now comes a clincher for me: Would it me possible for one to be both an
occultist and a family person simultaneously ?

Ancient Indian history records the case of King Janaka who did this.
Krishna in the GITA uses him as an example. King Vikramaditya was another.
Krishna himself as myths surrounding him show, had this capability.

If interiorly, in the recesses of our own True Nature we are ATMA -BUDDHI
-MANAS or the imperishable IMMORTAL True Man/Woman -- then is not
the practice of occultism and of family life simultaneous ?

Apart from the quotations from the SECRET DOCTRINE offered, there are also
those which re given on pages: SD I 223-229 to be considered.

Best wishes to all,


PS	Here are some suggestions made by HPB


These are some suggestive ideas to consider from HPB




These principles may be applied in this particular case. The "privation" of
the child which is to be, we locate in the invisible mind of the Universal
Soul, in which all types and forms exist from eternity--privation not being
considered in the Aristotelic philosophy as a principle in the composition
of bodies, but as an external property in their production; for the
production is a change by which the matter passes from the shape it has not
to that which it assumes. 

Though the privation of the unborn child's form, as well as of the future
form of the unmade watch, is that which is neither substance nor extension
nor quality as yet, nor any kind of existence, it is still something which
is, though its outlines, in order to be, must acquire an objective form--the
abstract must become concrete, in short. Thus, as soon as this privation of
matter is transmitted by energy to universal Æther, it becomes a material
form, however sublimated. 

If modern Science teaches that human thought "affects the matter of another
universe simultaneously with this," how can he who believes in a Universal
Mind deny that the divine thought is equally transmitted, by the same law of
energy, to our common mediator, the universal Æther--the lower World-Soul?
Very true, Occult Philosophy denies it intelligence and consciousness in
relation to the finite and conditioned manifestations of this phenomenal
world of matter. But the Vedântin and Buddhist Philosophies alike, speaking
of it as of Absolute Consciousness, show thereby that the form and progress
of every atom of the conditioned universe must have existed in it throughout
the infinite cycles of Eternity. And, if so, then it must follow that once
there, the Divine Thought manifests itself objectively, energy faithfully
reproducing the outlines of that whose "privation" is already in the divine

Only it must not be understood that this Thought creates matter, or even the
privations. No; it develops from its latent outline but the design for the
future form; the matter which serves to make this design having always been
in existence, and having been prepared to form a human body, through a
series of progressive transformations, as the result of evolution. 


The Secret Doctrine teaches that man, if he wins immortality, will remain
for ever the septenary trinity that he is in life, and will continue so
throughout all the spheres. The astral body, which in this life is covered
by a gross physical envelope, becomes--when relieved of that covering by the
process of corporeal death--in its turn the shell of another and more
ethereal body. 

This begins developing from the moment of death, and becomes perfected when
the astral body of the earthly form finally separates from it. This process,
they say, is repeated at every new transition from sphere to sphere of life.
But the immortal soul, the "silvery spark," observed by Dr. Fenwick in
Margrave's brain (in Bulwer Lytton's Strange Story), and not found by him in
the animals, never changes, but remains indestructible "by aught that
shatters its tabernacle." 


Forms pass; ideas that created them and the material which gave them
objectiveness, remain. These models, as yet devoid of immortal spirits, are
"Elementals"--better yet, psychic embryos--which, when their time arrives,
die out of the invisible world, and are born into this visible one as human
infants, receiving in transitu that Divine Breath called Spirit which
completes the perfect man. This class cannot communicate, either
subjectively or objectively, with men. 

The essential difference between the body of such an embryo and an Elemental
proper is that the embryo--the future man--contains in himself a portion of
each of the four great kingdoms, to wit: fire, air, earth and water; while
the Elemental has but a portion of one of such kingdoms. As for instance,
the salamander, or the fire Elemental, which has but a portion of the
primordial fire and none other. Man, being higher than they, the law of
evolution finds its illustration of all four in him. It results therefore,
that the Elementals of the fire are not found in water, nor those of air in
the fire kingdom. And yet, inasmuch as a portion of water is found not only
in man but also in other bodies, Elementals exist really in and among each
other in every substance just as the spiritual world exists and is in the
material. But the last are the Elementals in their most primordial and
latent state. 


These beings are known by the adepts to be attracted toward certain quarters
of the heavens by something of the same mysterious property which makes the
magnetic needle turn toward the north, and certain plants to obey the same
attraction If we will only bear in mind the fact that the rushing of planets
through space must create as absolute a disturbance in the plastic and
attenuated medium of the ether, as the passage of a cannon shot does in the
air, or that of a steamer in the water, and on a cosmic scale, we can
understand that certain planetary aspects, admitting our premises to be
true, may produce much more violent agitation and cause much stronger
currents to flow in a given direction than others. 

We can also see why, by such various aspects of the stars, shoals of
friendly or hostile Elementals might be poured in upon our atmosphere, or
some particular portion of it, and make the fact appreciable by the effects
which ensue. If our royal astronomers are able, at times, to predict
cataclysms, such as earthquakes and inundations, the Indian astrologers and
mathematicians can do so, and have so done, with far more precision and
correctness, though they act on lines which to the modern sceptic appear
ridiculously absurd. 


The various races of spirits are also believed to have a special sympathy
with certain human temperaments, and to more readily exert power over such
than others. Thus, a bilious, lymphatic, nervous, or sanguine person would
be affected favourably or otherwise by conditions of the astral light,
resulting from the different aspects of the planetary bodies. Having reached
this general principle, after recorded observations extending over an
indefinite series of years, or ages, the adept astrologer would require only
to know what the planetary aspects were at a given anterior date, and to
apply his knowledge of the succeeding changes in the heavenly bodies, to be
able to trace, with approximate accuracy, the varying fortunes of the
personage whose horoscope was required, and even to predict the future. The
accuracy of the horoscope would depend, of course, no less upon the
astrologer's astronomical erudition than upon his knowledge of the occult
forces and races of nature. 


Pythagoras taught that the entire universe is one vast series of
mathematically correct combinations. Plato shows the Deity geometrizing. The
world is sustained by the same law of equilibrium and harmony upon which it
was built. The centripetal force could not manifest itself without the
centrifugal in the harmonious revolutions of the spheres; all forms are the
product of this dual force in nature. Thus, to illustrate our case, we may
designate the spirit as the centrifugal, and the soul as the centripetal,
spiritual energies. When in perfect harmony, both forces produce one result;
break or damage the centripetal motion of the earthly soul tending toward
the center which attracts it; arrest its progress by clogging it with a
heavier weight of matter than it can bear, and the harmony of the whole,
which was its life, is destroyed. Individual life can only be continued if
sustained by this two-fold force. The least deviation from harmony damages
it; when it is destroyed beyond redemption, the forces separate and the form
is gradually annihilated. 


Every organized thing in this world, visible as well as invisible, has an
element appropriate to itself. The fish lives and breathes in the water; the
plant consumes carbonic acid, which for animals and men produces death; some
beings are fitted for rarefied strata of air, others exist only in the
densest. Life to some is dependent on sunlight, to others, upon darkness;
and so the wise economy of nature adapts to each existing condition some
living form. These analogies warrant the conclusion that, not only is there
no unoccupied portion of universal nature, but also that for each thing that
has life, special conditions are furnished, and, being furnished, they are

Now, assuming that there is an invisible side to the universe, the fixed
habit of nature warrants the conclusion that this half is occupied, like the
other half; and that each group of its occupants is supplied with the
indispensable conditions of existence. It is as illogical to imagine that
identical conditions are furnished to all, as it would be to maintain such a
theory respecting the inhabitants of the domain of visible nature. 

That there are "spirits" implies that there is a diversity of "spirits"; for
men differ, and human "spirits" are but disembodied men. 

To say that all "spirits" are alike, or fitted to the same atmosphere, or
possessed of like powers, or governed by the same attractions--electric,
magnetic, odic, astral, it matters not which--is as absurd as though one
should say that all planets have the same nature, or that all animals are
amphibious, or that all men can be nourished on the same food. 

To begin with, neither the elementals, nor the elementaries themselves, can
be called "spirits" at all. It accords with reason to suppose that the
grossest natures among them will sink to the lowest depths of the spiritual
atmosphere--in other words, be found nearest to the earth. Inversely, the
purest will be farthest away. In what, were we to coin a word, we should
call the "psychomatics" of Occultism, it is as unwarrantable to assume that
either of these grades of ethereal beings can occupy the place, or subsist
in the conditions, of the other, as it would be in hydraulics to expect that
two liquids of different densities could exchange their markings on the
scale of Beaume's hydrometer. 


Görres, describing a conversation he had with some Hindûs of the Malabar
coast, reports that upon asking them whether they had ghosts among them,
they replied: 

“Yes, but we know them to be bad bhûts [spirits, or rather, the "empty"
ones, the "shells"], . . . good ones can hardly ever appear at all. They are
principally the spirits of suicides and murderers, or of those who die
violent deaths. They constantly flutter about and appear as phantoms.
Night-time is favourable to them, they seduce the feeble-minded and tempt
others in a thousand different ways. 

Porphyry presents to us some hideous facts whose verity is substantiated in
the experience of every student of magic. He writes: 

“The soul, having even after death a certain affection for its body, an
affinity proportioned to the violence with which their union was broken, we
see many spirits hovering in despair about their earthly remains; we even
see them eagerly seeking the putrid remains of other bodies, but above all
freshly-spilled blood, which seems to impart to them for the moment some of
the faculties of life. 25. 

Though spiritualists discredit them ever so much, these nature-spirits--as
much as the "elementaries," the "empty shells," as the Hindus call them--are
realities. If the gnomes, sylphs, salamanders and undines of the
Rosicrucians existed in their days, they must exist now. Bulwer Lytton's
"Dweller on the Threshold" is a modern conception, modelled on the ancient
type of the Sulanuth of the Hebrews and Egyptians, which is mentioned in the
Book of Jasher. 

---- H P B [unpublished incomplete MSS ] ----------

LUCIFER, August, 1893 (Published posthumously) "ELEMENTALS" 



“Student. - What is the relation between sexual force and phenomena? 

Sage. - It is at the bottom. This force is vital, creative, and a sort of
reservoir. It may be lost by mental action as well as by physical. In fact
its finer part is dissipated by mental imaginings, while physical acts only
draw off the gross part, that which is the "carrier" (upadhi) for the finer.

-----Original Message-----
From: James 
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 
Subject: Re: Sex

>The main reason for having sex is not to have children. Heavens knows there
>are enough people in the world today. It is also not to experience physical
>pleasure. The main reason for having sex is to express love between two
>people in a manner that modern psychology calls intimacy. [Jerry S]

I am surprised that no-one has taken you to task over this view. Are you 
saying that the expression of love came first and the physical transmission 
of genetic material became associated with sexual activity because of 
convenience? Are the two activities simply contiguous?

Also, I don't understand why you think that the success of an activity i.e.,

sex should somehow vitiate its reason for being there in the first place.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application