Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00387)

K. said:

>"To deny sex is another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When
>we are intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when
>we are following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed;

Since what K. wrote is essentially true, why then did he find it necessary
to "deny" his responsibility in his relationship with Rosalind?  Blaming it
on her husband, or on the woman herself - that is definitely a form of
"following, obeying, imitating," - geez, how many times have we heard that?
Admitting responsiblity, then sensibly dealing with it, is far more
courageous than the route K. seems to have chosen here when asked about this
issue.  'Course, he seems to always get a bit perturbed when asked any kind
of questions.  Anyway, his excuse/explanation of his sleeping with a married
woman doesn't pass the smell test. . .

Paul wrote:

> And perhaps worst of all, demanding very coldly that
>his paramour have a series of abortions--  obviously he was
>not using the only kind of birth control that was available
>back then.

K.'s insistence on repeated abortions tells me that he may have looked upon
some individuals as nothing but "playgrounds."  Did he really have no
thought about what this may be doing to the woman, or women - what this may
be doing to both her physical and mental state?  How can one offer advice to
humanity when they cannot grasp the fundamental concept of respect and
concern for other beings?

I hate to sound like a "Susie-one-note" but, the more one knows, the more
responsiblity one has.  People are far too accepting of people who claim to
be "wiser" than others and they too often look the other way when these same
individuals commit acts they would not tolerate in their next door neighbor.

The manifestation of the "higher ideals" will not come into being until
people believe that it is possible. . .and that they are worthy of it.

Patrick wrote:
>
>     The purpose of sex, according to ALL of the Mahatma's writings is
>to bring children into the world, and when natural cycles (generally
>making love around the new moon) are followed the sex impulse is
>automatically balanced.

When I read the above, I jumped up with such a force that my Hostess snack
cake flew out of my hand and made a horrifying sound as it hit the back wall.

I boldly declare that the Mahatmas, if the above assessment is true, are in
serious error here.  The above is not consistent with human psychology or
human physiology.  It is these kinds of ideas, put forward by those who
claim, or are claimed, to be "special" in their knowledge, that can cause so
much chaos, disharmony, guilt, and unwanted children.  People want to
express their love to each other, in the physical, more often than "around
the new moon."  Not every woman who engages in intercourse wants the
consequence to be pregnancy. And on and on and on. . . I am surprised that
those who recognize the complexity of life would turn around and make such a
simplistic statement about sex.


I think the clothes have yet to find their emperor.

Kym