Gottfried de Purucker was president of the Theosophical
Society of Point Loma for twelve years (from 1929 to 1942) and in 1935 he wrote
the following article for an Encyclopedia about Sexuality that produced the
leading medical journal in the United States.
THEOSOPHY AND SEX PROBLEMS
Editor's note
In 1936 Encyclopaedia Sexualis was published under the auspices
of the Medical Review of Reviews with the subtitle "A Comprehensive
Encyclopaedia-Dictionary of the Sexual Sciences". Editor-in-Chief was
Victor Robinson, M.D., Professor of History of Medicine, Temple University
School of Medicine in Philadelphia.
Among more than a hundred distinguished contributors were the Nobel
Laureate Thomas Hunt Morgan, F. R. Lillie, President of the National Academy of
Sciences, and Gottfried de Purucker, leader of the international Theosophical
Society (then of Point Loma, now of Pasadena, California).
In his letter of invitation to Dr. de Purucker Dr. Robinson explained,
"While considerable attention is naturally devoted to the medical and
biological aspects, the psychological, philosophical, theological, legal and
literary aspects likewise receive adequate attention."
We take pleasure in sharing with our readers Dr. de Purucker's
contribution.
* * * * * * *
« Matters connected with sex and the
abuse of the so-called procreative function have attained an entirely unmerited
prominence or notoriety in the modern world for the simple reason that any
philosophical knowledge on the subject is largely based in our time upon
medical experimentation and the shaky foundation furnished by certain branches
of modern psychological study.
It would not seem too much to say that there is no real sex problem in
so far as nature herself is concerned and her normal functioning regarding
man's being, but that the problems (and they seem to be all too numerous in our
modern world) arise, as above hinted, entirely out of the fact that the modern
West no longer believes in the controlling sanctions of its one-time religion;
and because it has no widely accepted philosophy of life there are, of course,
no controlling or inhibitory factors of a philosophical character.
Modern man looks upon the function of sex, or rather the procreative
act, only incidentally as a matter of racial importance (i.e., for the propagation
of the human species) and almost entirely as an avenue for sensuous if not
actually sensual indulgence.
In the religion-philosophy of the ancient wisdom which in modern times
is called Theosophy the present division of the human race into two sexes is looked
upon as (stated in brief) an evolutionary phase in the steady unfolding in
growth of humankind.
Humanity was not created as man and woman, but was in the beginning of
the history of the human race asexual or sexless, if the word be preferred; and
it was only during the slow progress of the development of the human
characteristics now so familiar to us all, that the asexual condition slowly
merged into the androgynous state, which, after long millions of years, in its
turn gave place to an unfolding into the condition of the two sexes which now
prevails and has prevailed for some six or seven million years past.
The Esoteric Philosophy teaches a slow and gradual evolutionary
unfolding, from within outwards, of the human race from the first appearance of
the human protoplasts on this globe as parthenogenetic beings propagating their
kind after a virginal manner, through (at a much later stage in geologic time)
the hermaphroditic or rather androgynous condition, which again, after long
ages, slowly merged into and finally became the man and woman of opposite sex
of the present day and of millions of years past, as stated above.
It needs but a glance of the observant botanical and zoological mind
into the different creatures of the lower orders and classes and genera which
exist on earth today to see that even among these early, although specifically
evolved, forms, both parthenogenesis and hermaphroditism are as well
established, even at present, as is the sexual method of racial propagation.
Both in the kingdom of the plants as well as in the kingdom of the
animals are still to be noticed these primeval forms of propagation which now
survive as holdovers; and it is curious that in either kingdom (i.e., in both
kingdoms) may be found examples of all three methods of reproduction, in each
kingdom the highest being the sexual, then on a somewhat lower scale the
hermaphroditic with probably far fewer individuals, and last the virginal or
parthenogenetic.
(The explanation given by Theosophy about this previous
development that humans have gone through in their way of procreating, I
mention the details in the chapter entitled: “the hidden history of sex”.)
In man himself there still survive both zoologic and physiologic
remnants or holdovers, as, for instance, the imperfectly developed mammas in
man as also the equally imperfectly unfolded uterus; and, mutatis mutandis, the
same observation applies to woman.
All too little importance has been ascribed to these still surviving but
persistent if imperfectly developed vestigial organs and, if they proclaim
anything at all, they point with some violence to a past condition, the
androgynous, when the human race was, as individuals, double-sexed, or
bisexual.
It is to be remembered that the true human individual is not his
physical body, which is but the vehicle or gross material integument in which
the real man works and through which he manifests himself; for it should be
obvious to any thinking person that the real man is neither legs nor arms, skin
nor hair, bones nor tissues, but:
1)
mind,
2)
the delicately balanced emotional apparatus commonly
called the psychological nature, and
3)
the lofty spiritual and high ethical instincts.
All which, in their aggregate union,
form the true human being.
In other words, man is not merely an animate "robot", but a
thinking, self-conscious, morally conscientious and feeling, being.
From the foregoing statement, however, it should not be misunderstood
that the theosophical teaching is based on the philosophical dichotomy first
formally introduced into European philosophical and scientific thought by Rene
Descartes: i.e., that the "soul" is one thing, and the body in which
it manifests or lives is something else and disjunct and of different essential
nature from the indwelling consciousness.
Quite to the contrary of this, the Esoteric Philosophy, Theosophy,
teaches that the physical body of man is but the expression in the material
world of the characteristic and strongly defined inner powers or energies
alluded to above as composing the real man.
It is this real man, the inner and invisible being composed of thought
and feeling and consciousness, which evolves through the ages by unfolding from
within itself the latent powers, attributes, faculties, characteristics, which
it draws from the spiritual part of the man's high essential nature, much as
the rays streaming from the sun draw their raison d'être and their characteristics
from the solar heart.
In other words, man is not separate from the universe in which he lives
and moves and has his being, as Paul of the Christians put it, but is an
integral and inseparable part of the cosmic source from which he draws all that
he is.
From this prime philosophical fact, which is today so accordant and
concordant with the statements of the foremost men of ultramodern science, such
as Eddington, Jeans, Planck, Bohr, Einstein, and others (to the effect that the
essential "stuff" or fundamental thing in the universe is
"mind" or "consciousness") the reason of the statement made
in the preceding paragraph starts instantly into clear outline, and it is seen
that as the essence of man is therefore "mind" or
"consciousness" derivative from the universe, man is substantially
and fundamentally consciousness or mind throughout all his being, both in those
invisible element-principles above alluded to and in their very partial
expression as his body in the material physical world.
Just as a plant in the springtime throws out from within itself the
characteristics of its inner life expressing itself in verdure or foliage,
flower, bud, and fruit, or as the germinating egg unfolds from within its own
substance the being, be it chick or man, which later is to become the evolving
entity in this physical world (all coming from within) just so is man the
invisible the real being and his body is merely his material expression on the
physical plane.
Thus it is that evolution proceeds from within outwards, it being the
inner or real man who evolves, and his body, irresponsibly and as it were
automatically, through the cycling ages expresses in partial measure in the
physical world the manifestations of the unfolding or evolving attributes and powers
within.
Thus man at one time was asexual because his inner and partially
unfolded characteristics were asexual, so to speak; in a subsequent geological
age he was hermaphroditic or rather androgynous, because the inner or real man
had unfolded this aspect of latent attributes; and in a still later age
appeared sex in its two present and opposite forms in the human body, being the
evolutionary expression on the physical plane of the bifurcated lower
psychology of the inner or real human being.
Sex, therefore, as stated above, is a passing evolutionary phase, a
phase of the unrolling of inner characteristics, which the human race in its
present evolutionary development is passing through, but which phase, in its
turn, in future ages, will be succeeded by some condition as yet scarcely to be
defined.
(But since humans are heading back to the union, it is
likely that in a still distant future, humans will tend towards androgyny
again.)
The consequence of this philosophical and scientific postulate is that
sex per se, outside of any opinions that individuals may hold about it, is a
perfectly natural, normal, and it may be said even necessary, stage or step in
the evolutionary growth of the human race. Therefore, in itself, sex has
nothing evil about it, nor is it a necessary sign of a present degraded
condition of being.
Sex is an evolutionary fact. In itself it is neither wicked nor unnatural,
nor was it brought into function because the two supposititious distant
ancestors of the human race ate of a forbidden apple.
Any problems connected with sex, therefore, arise not out of sex itself,
or the sexual function itself, but solely out of its abuse, which is equivalent
to saying its use in a manner contrary to the clean and unsoiled following of
this one of nature's processes, the sole right purpose of which is the
propagation of the human race.
All the "problems" of sex, therefore, as just shown, arise
from abuses of a perfectly natural function, innocent in itself, and necessary
for the continuance of the human species. Such abuses spring almost universally
from ignorance — ignorance of natural law, and that particular and perhaps
worst kind of ignorance arising in lack of reflective thought. In our modern
day, the sanctions of religion, as stated above, have largely lost their hold
over men and women with respect to this wholly natural and proper function,
when not abused and when used solely for the purposes for which nature destined
it; and also (and there is no need to mince words in the matter) the
so-called problems have arisen largely on account of the wholly erroneous,
because mistaken, teaching and consequent mistaken deductions of a former
generation or two of scientific men who, being entirely of materialistic bias,
believed and taught that man was his body and naught else.
If a man is taught that he is but a more evolved beast, a higher species
of ape, and that when he dies that is the total end of him and of all of him,
he naturally says to himself:
Why not enjoy life while I have it?
Why not use every function that nature has given to me
in the manner that is most pleasing to emotion and passion?
There are here no inhibitions of a moral kind; there are here no
illuminating spiritual insights; there is here no philosophy upon which a
decent-minded man can lean; and the result is that it is now common in the
world to look upon the sexual function either as something disgraceful, or, on
the other hand, as something not to be used solely according to natural law,
but as a means of sensual gratification.
From the standpoint of Theosophy, the Esoteric Philosophy or the ancient
wisdom of all past ages and of all races of men, the sexual function is
nature's provision for the continuance of the human race, and in consequence
its only permissible use is that, and that alone.
Anything more than this is as much an abuse and therefore is apt to
bring about disease, both psychological and physical, as would be the case of
the abuse of any other of the functions of the body. If a man drink himself to
death, or gluttonize himself into disease, or womanize himself into imbecility,
everyone can see that the unfortunate practicer of these immoral perversions of
nature's provisions for health or propagation is a victim of ignorance or of
lack of ordinary reflection.
The so-called sex problems, therefore, do not arise in any innate
wickedness in the human race but solely out of ignorance and because the
ancient teaching, so simple and easily understood, has been forgotten.
Any abuse of the body will bring about its corresponding degenerative
disease, or, in the least evil cases, decay and premature senility.
It may be as well to state clearly that the body is so amazingly and
beautifully balanced that the abuse of any of its functions will bring about
disharmony in the physical structure, or equivalently imperfect response of all
other organs of the human frame.
Sex in the present human physical vehicle really serves two purposes:
- First and most important, the continuance of the human family;
- Second, the strengthening and building up of the human body as a whole, and of all its tissues and organs as particulars, by the retention therein of the vital sex-essences.
Sex problems, so-called, which so afflict and harass modern men and women,
really originate in childhood. Parents themselves are woefully ignorant of the
simplest facts of even their own physical frame.
Teach a child from the time that it is able to understand words,
something, in a cleanly, decent manner, of the nature of the sexual organs and
their proper function; teach it that any abuse whatsoever of the functions of
sex brings about sooner or later degenerative consequences not only as regards
general health, but as regards all the organs of the body, including those of
the sexual nature; and the child will learn to have respect not only for the
function but for himself as an intelligent unit of the human race.
It is perhaps too much to hope in these days of nervous tension and
moral slackness that the sexual function will be used solely for the purposes
for which nature has evolved it, as above stated; so that possibly for ages
hence the function will be misused even in marriage for purposes of merely
sensuous gratification; but let it once become clearly understood among men and
women of normal character that any use whatsoever of the function entails
consequences, and that abuse of the function entails disastrous consequences
leading to degeneration, and ordinary good sense and the instincts of
self-protection and self-preservation will in time attain increasing influences
in these human relations.
At least, an enormous amount of good could be done in the world and a
great deal of human misery in many walks of life be avoided, and probably some
of the most horrible diseases known to medical science could be stamped out, if
human beings once were to grasp and have their imaginations captured by the
simple natural facts outlined or hinted at in preceding paragraphs.
Furthermore, it is sheer stupidity to imagine that the human race, so
obviously as individuals inseparable and integral portions of nature herself,
can separate themselves from nature, whether in act or in thought; and if this
primal verity were once grasped it would be seen that many diseases, and at
least certain forms of insanity, and the widespread because thoughtless sexual
immorality in the world, are largely the results or consequences of ignorance
of the need of following nature's monitory warnings in the use of the function
of sex.
The meaning is: the procreative act is not solely brought about by the
union of two beings of opposite sex; this is but the physical mechanism;
conception and the consequent growth of the embryo are to a certain large
extent dependent upon cosmic and meteorological factors, concerning which,
alas, modern science in all its branches is in Cimmerian darkness; but with the
amazingly rapid strides forwards that scientific research and investigation are
making, it is earnestly to be hoped that this utter darkness may before long be
enlightened by some rays of a larger acquaintance with nature's interlocked and
interblending laws, energies, and substances.
To particularize: no marriage, provided the best health of the
child-to-be is hoped for, should ever be consummated during the fortnight
comprised between the full moon and the new moon; furthermore, no procreative
act should ever take place when the mother-to-be is either unwilling or
physiologically in a non-receptive condition; in other words, the periodic
menstrual function should enter into consideration.
Furthermore, in view of the cyclically annual risings of the generative
forces of nature, it would be extremely wise to have all procreative acts take
place during the early spring when the forces of nature are unfolding after the
winter sleep, when vegetation is burgeoning, and when all life feels the new
and rising impulse of the vital flow.
So well was this known in ancient times that the month corresponding to
late January and early February among the Attic Greeks was called Gamelian,
from the Greek word gameo, to marry, and Gamelion was the fashionable
month for marriages.
One may well ask oneself: Why?
To summarize: the remedy for all sex problems, so-called, is, as
hereinbefore stated, instruction, beginning with little children, in the nature
of sex and its function, and the proper uses thereof as contrasted with its
abuse and the consequent penalties inevitably following upon nature's violated
laws. Indeed, the only original "sex problem" that the present writer
is cognizant of is the curious compound of human ignorance of natural laws and
consequent abuse thereof.
Here, then, is the true problem and the only real one that the present
writer sees, because it is the fundamental cause of all the social misery, of
the immoral conditions, and of the common and heartless indifference to the
pitiful spectacle afforded us by overcrowded insane asylums and overburdened
hospitals — the problem is, as said, ignorance and stupidity.
Correct these by proper instruction about simple facts of the human body
and the penalties of abuse of natural law, and ninety-nine percent of the
so-called "sex problems" will before long vanish.
There will then remain a relatively minor "problem" to be
dealt with by the individual: that already stated as being the mutual or social
self-indulgence to the detriment of health, under the marriage vow.
Even this last perversion of one of nature's important and innocent
functions will largely disappear when increasing consciousness of the dangers
attendant upon its abuse grows greater. »
(Sunrise
magazine, August/September 1987)
Source: www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/36-86-7/issgdpsx.htm
OBSERVATION
Personally, I agree with what G. de Purucker said in general and big terms,
except when he says that sex should only be used to procreate and that every
other use is harmful.
And the reason why I think that statement he gave is incorrect is because
the research and practice that I have done on the sexual energy, has led me to
consider that what Purucker said is not true.
(That's my opinion, although I may be wrong.)
SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE ARTICLE
"THEOSOPHY AND SEX PROBLEMS"
And to illustrate this topic further, I transcribe also
the article that Grace F. Knoche wrote about it.
Grace F. Knoche was the editorial assistant of the
magazine "Sunrice" (which was the official magazine of the
Theosophical Society of Pasadena) and she later published an article in the
same magazine where she presented her reflections on the reactions her readers
had to Purucker’s article.
« A year ago Sunrise reprinted
an article titled "Theosophy and Sex Problems" written by G. de
Purucker in 1935 for the Encylopaedia Sexualis on the invitation of its
editor, Victor Robinson, M.D. Because some of de Purucker's views run counter
to current sexual mores, the article elicited a larger reader response than
usual.
Several objected to his statement that the proper use of the sexual
function is for the perpetuation of the race, and that any other use is
debilitating and against natural law.
One subscriber asked:
« Why did Sunrise publish this
article, and just at this time? Was it
because of the AIDS danger? Aren't there
other ways, more realistic and spiritual, to be found that will cure or at
least mitigate these threats to human life? And doesn't sex belong to mankind in our
present stage of evolution? How is it
that the author never used the word "love" in this article and
ignores the value of attraction between a man and woman who love each other
dearly? »
Quite a few took exception to the "authoritative and near-dogmatic
way in which principles, which may be basically correct, are pronounced without
reservation or qualification".
Others felt that the "thou shalt not" approach to sex was
unsatisfying since no suggestions were given on how to handle the problem of sex, especially during one's
younger years when the vital drives are strong:
« We do not question that the goal as G.
de Purucker stated it is precisely and exactly true. Our need is for more
information on how to get to that goal. We are all struggling with the question
of how to live in consonance with theosophic principles. Most writings offer compassionate
encouragement that though we fail to reach our ideals, there is merit in the
trying, but I felt discouraged after reading this article. »
Unfortunately there is so much more to the subject than the act itself.
One wonders about provocative clothing, perfume, walking hand in hand, hugging,
kissing, etc.
Why, for instance, does orgasm feel
like what mystics describe as a mystical experience?
Why should it be so confusing?
There is a whole sense of looking
for completion and devotion to an ideal that gets sex and religion and mysticism
all mixed in together. Why?
Please understand that I do not disagree with the idea that the ideal
role of sex is for procreation only. The questions arise after accepting that
ideal; the questions have to do with locating the path to that ideal.
Another reader wrote:
« If sexual communion is meant only as
a means of reproduction, what an enormous mistake we are making by the use of
contraceptives. And how about those entities who find their return to earth
blocked by a contraceptive?
What path do they follow, and is it
a good one?
Then there are the many homosexual relationships; among these there must
be many serious seekers.
Isn't nature arranged in a strange way if people, in ignorance or
blindness, make mistakes and then are punished by degenerative diseases, even
insanity?
Why should this be so?
How is it that practically everyone today misuses the sexual faculty
when men and women generally feel what is right and what is not right?
In other words, how can the sexual act be in harmony with nature when
used for procreation, but against nature when otherwise used? »
Recently a correspondent wrote:
« Your letter with its long and clear
explanation certainly makes everything much more understandable. Of course G.
de Purucker was right in writing this for the medical Encyclopaedia, but
for readers of Sunrise continence looks like a faraway ideal and might
make them think they have misused an action they thus far considered as an
expression of deepest love and care in a long and happy marriage. »
Before commenting on these thoughtful observations, it is essential to
state that the Theosophical Society has no creed and no dogma or belief system
to which anyone is required to adhere.
The philosophic truths and moral ideals of theosophy are open to all to
examine for themselves and to accept, reject, or put on hold, in whole or in
part, according to one's individual truth-sensor.
As H.P. Blavatsky made clear at the outset, the "very root
idea" of the modern theosophic effort is to inspire "free and
fearless investigation" of all branches of thought.
(The Theosophist [1:1], October 1879, Bombay, India,
p.6)
Each of us, therefore, is expected to do our own thinking, and to try to
live according to our best lights.
Why, then, did Sunrise magazine reprint this
article?
Primarily, to give our readers an expanded view of ourselves as evolving
beings, incarnating again and again on earth as a learning process — not to
indulge our every whim (and I refer to our whole approach to life, and not
merely to sex).
Even the simplest advertisement for toothpaste is designed to cater to
selfish and acquisitive instincts, while the entertainment industry profits by
glorifying the worst elements in human nature.
Only rarely is something created of pure inspiration, that dignifies the
power of love, courage, and sacrifice to ennoble the life.
In rereading the article, certain impressions come into focus: one, that
Dr. de Purucker's primary purpose was to delineate the broad evolutionary
picture of who we are — far nobler and greater than we dream, only a small part
of us being physical.
In tracing human evolutionary history through the early root-races (asexual,
androgynous, two-sexed) he was placing the sexual faculty within this larger
frame of reference.
By lifting the thought of the reader above the ordinary he was
emphasizing the almost forgotten truth, that we are not our body or even our
mind with only a single life in which to express the powers of soul; that first
and last and in the essence of our selfhood we are monads, gods in exile, with
a vast experience of many lives on earth, and that the present division of the
sexes is but a temporary evolutionary phase which one day we shall outgrow, a
minor and not a major aspect of our totality.
Two, he was addressing a select audience of professionals (medical
doctors, psychologists, anthropologists, and the like) and this would account
for his rather clinical psychological approach, and in this context there was
no call for him to discourse upon love and the sacredness of marriage.
Three, philosophically he had a vision to share as all his lectures and
writings testify. Because of this he may have painted a picture larger than life-size.
Of course he was aware that some of his statements would be unacceptable and unrealistic
to most people today.
But when has that stopped any
reformer from daring to go against established practice?
In his published works there are frequent references to the life of the
aspirant who seeks to tread the "still, small path" that leads to
mystical union with the god within and to the time, in the pursuit of
discipleship, when one must offer the full current of his being in the service
of his higher self. When this "moment" comes, one gives up the
personal life, including marriage and sex.
Most of us clearly have not reached that fork in the road, yet
undoubtedly there are a great many individuals in and outside of the accepted
faiths, who are sincerely trying to channel their energies into higher forms of
creative expression.
Where is the bridge between the
ordinary outlook on sex and the ideal that G. de Purucker's article portrayed?
Have we forgotten that every ethical code provides the stepping stones
leading to the supreme vow of the bodhisattva, the christos, "to live to
benefit mankind"?
Those steps are memorialized in the Sermon on the Mount attributed to
the Christ; the paramitas or transcendental virtues of Buddha; the injunctions
of Krishna (our higher self) to Arjuna (the aspirant) to become as a muni, a
sage, unattached to the fruits of his thinking and actions, unaffected by the
impact of pain/pleasure.
These are not unattainable and therefore impractical rules of conduct
meant only for chelas or avowed disciples; they are eminently pertinent to us
all. It is not only reaching the goal that counts; it is the setting of the
heart on the noblest ideal and living up to it as far as humanly possible that
is the triumph.
Today's civilization is proud of its progress, of having advanced beyond
the ethical codes of former eras; we are liberated from the hypocrisies of the
past, we think. But are we so certain of our destination?
Where are we heading?
Challenging voices are being heard all over the globe, calling for a
revolution of thinking and attitude, for a new way of addressing humanity's basic
ills, sexual and other.
They are beginning openly to state that the grave social problems of the
day will never be solved by working on effects alone. We must eradicate the
causes of human misery and disease because all ills of body and mind have their
seeding in the mind and psyche, and any distortion or imbalance therein
inevitably will have debilitating and sometimes disastrous effects on the body
of man — and on our planet.
AIDS, for example, is only one of many such diseases presently afflicting
humanity; it hasn't reached its peak and the predictions are sobering. We are
all involved: we are one humanity.
Can any one of us honestly say that we have not contributed to the
overall confusion of soul and of ideals that characterizes our times?
We cannot divorce ourselves from the great human need and the pain and
sorrow that weigh down the lives of millions. Their unspoken longing (for love
and understanding in coping with their often tragic circumstances) is our
longing.
But if we are ignorant of nature's
laws why should we suffer disease or other adverse effects?
Where is the justice?
May we not also ask why an infant is
burned when he puts his hand on a hot stove?
The laws of nature act impersonally, regardless of human ignorance; they
act on animals too, and on atoms and molecules. There is nothing intrinsically
cruel or unfair in this.
Actually, it may well be nature's most compassionate way of teaching her
children what it means to work with and not against her laws. How often we
suffer a painful reaction when we act contrary to what we intuitively know to
be in our best interests.
When we finally tire of being hurt or thwarted, we change our ways. We
know that physical pain is a godsend — if we didn't experience pain when
something is wrong with us, we would do nothing to correct the problem.
Wrong use or overuse of any faculty is bound to result in some form of
imbalance. Unless we can reap the consequences of our thoughts and feelings,
both constructive and destructive, it might take us ever so much longer to
evolve.
Theosophical ideals do have a direct bearing on the problems and
practices of today, and our challenge is to discover their relevance and
applicability to our individual lives.
Take the case of contraceptives: the problems arising from
overpopulation are becoming increasingly severe, but from the long-range view
we cannot help but wonder what type of karma we are building for the future by
our rather casual way of attracting returning souls and then preventing their
incarnation.
(Surely a strong magnetic pull is energized before actual physical
conception occurs.)
From the short-range view, however, some type of preventive program
seems to be the only practical, humanitarian solution, both for the potential
parents and for the children seeking birth.
When an incoming soul or ego is foiled in its attempt to be born, it may
have to try more than once before it finds a family where it can continue to
develop its potential.
We cannot say its path is either "good" or "bad,"
for whatever the environment or circumstances in any life, it will attract to
itself the experiences it needs, according to its stored-up karma from the
past.
Turning to the issue of homosexuality: apparently, as far as history
records, there have always been those in every race and era who have pursued
this line of sexual activity.
This is a difficult subject for we have no right to make value judgments
on individuals, heterosexual or homosexual, who are caught up in behavioral
patterns that divert sexual energy into unnatural avenues.
On the other hand, we are required to judge whether or not any act or event is in accord with nature
and for the benefit of the greater number. The only real protection for any one
of us against becoming enslaved by our body and psycho-mental and emotional
nature is to guard against overindulgence of any faculty or appetite.
By forgetting ourselves and channeling our energies into
service-oriented fields, we build constructive habits of thinking and emotion
that keep the nature in health and in balance.
The fact is we know very little about sexuality, how it will manifest in
future ages. G. de Purucker points to the theosophic teaching that just as the
human stock was androgynous (both male and female functioning in one form)
before the separation of the sexes, just so the time will come millions of
years hence when humanity will again be androgynous, able to produce offspring
by the power of thought and will.
(Such changes are not effected instantly but over long periods of time,
with many transition stages.)
Later still, we will have bodies of light, rather than of physical
matter. The point is that as we evolve spiritually, ethically, and
intellectually, the sexual aspect of our lives takes on less and less
importance.
Far more knowledge and understanding are needed with respect to the role
and destiny of human beings as a whole.
Above all, we need a credible philosophy of living that nourishes both
heart and mind, a philosophy of cosmic proportion that will help us see
ourselves as vital elements in an organic whole, self-conscious participants in
a divine enterprise spanning many world cycles.
Such a vision lifts us above the forbidding "curse" of
"original sin" and the equally untenable mechanistic view that would
reduce the fire of spirituality to a blob of protoplasm.
Neither of these provides a satisfying perspective on human problems, much
less on the mystery of sex.
In her Secret Doctrine, H.P. Blavatsky slips in this gem:
« The separation of the sexes was in the
program of nature and of natural evolution; and the creative faculty in male
and female was a gift of Divine wisdom. »
(SD II, p.217)
Could anyone say it more succinctly?
We have to ask ourselves,
What have we done and what are we
doing today with this creative faculty, this "gift of Divine wisdom"?
(In the same volume is a masterly passage in the section titled
"The 'Curse' from a Philosophical Point of View" (page 410 et seq.)
Creativity is not limited to the physical/astral, it is the source of
our grandest inspirations. Every moment in time the miracle of creation is
being enacted throughout space, the primal rhythm urging suns and planets and
human souls to issue forth again and again out of the darkness of the Unknown
into the light.
In his contribution to the Encyclopedia G. de Purucker was
casting into the thought consciousness of trained and dedicated minds
seed-ideas that will eventually germinate.
Every one whose voice is heard above the crowd, however, runs the risk
of having zealous followers overemphasize one or another aspect of his message.
This occurred with the beautiful ideal of chelaship which G. de Purucker
made much of in his meetings with students. But if this sacred theme is
misunderstood and misapplied, it can have unfortunate consequences.
Certain natures being fired with the ideal begin to imagine that they
are ready for discipleship when they have scarcely taken the first steps in
self-mastery.
Often they go to extremes of asceticism and unless their own pure
goodness comes to their rescue and they wake from their fantasies, they may,
like Icarus on his flight to the sun, take a fearful tumble.
Hold to our ideals we must, but if we would aspire sunward, our wings
must be self-grown and not held on by wax.
Hopefully, the discovery that we are human after all will help us
recognize that to live a normal, natural life may do more for humanity (and,
incidentally, for our own and others' progress) than to seek to climb the
Everest of the spirit totally unprepared.
The rigors of sustained aspiration must be fortified by inner discipline
over many lives.
G. de Purucker's dynamic evolutionary vision represents convictions
drawn from years of reflection on the wisdom-teachings of H.P. Blavatsky and
the philosophies and lore of many peoples.
Nonetheless, we are expected to test all things for ourselves and not
simply blot up without thought every word that is written or said. To do so
would deny the very platform of free and independent spiritual inquiry which Blavatsky
labored so valiantly to uphold.
Having said all this,
Where do we stand today?
We are touching on man's and woman's basic urge to unite as one in
loving communion. Ideally, as has been stated, this should occur only when
children are desired. But we do not live in an ideal world, and it is scarcely
to be expected that most people would choose a life of continence, especially
when the act is an "expression of deepest love and care."
It took us centuries to unburden ourselves of "guilt" with
respect to sex. To be told that sexual contact should be limited to purposes of
procreation seems little better than resurrecting the "original sin"
dogma.
To saddle us with guilt was never G. de Purucker's intent. His life's
purpose was to encourage us to drop our fears and aspire to live a more
spiritual life. To accomplish this we must first change the direction of our
thinking, from self-interest to genuine concern for others.
Are we implying, then, that if
continence were universally observed, humanity's ills would vanish?
Not necessarily. But just as we live in a world where water, air, and
food are becoming ever more polluted (due largely to human ignorance and greed)
just so are we living in an era when our sexual mores are distinctly out of
balance.
G. de Purucker's article does make us think about and question our own
attitudes about every aspect of our lives. To him marriage was a sacred
commitment, as was the responsibility of parenthood:
« The whole thing could be so beautiful
and holy, and should be. »
(Studies in Occult Philosophy,
p.109)
Nor are marital duties a bar to spirituality. On the contrary, marriage
and parenting are probably one of the finest training schools, for where are
patience, self-sacrifice, discipline and, above all, love in greater demand
than in re-experiencing the growing pains of childhood and adolescence?
So let us take a balanced view on sex and all matters, remembering that
motive is all, and makes the life tawdry or luminous, as we will. »
(Sunrise magazine, August/September 1988)
Source:
www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/37-87-8/sx-gfk.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment