Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00440)

On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote:
> > This is the most outrageous and silly thing that I have
> > ever heard.  It is pure disinformation.  There is almost
> > no such thing as "according to ALL of the Mahatma's" on
> > any subject.
>      Yes, there is,specifically on this topic.  The purpose of sex is to
> bring children into the world.
	There *may* be, on a very few topics, *apparent* unanimity among
the *exoteric writings* of the *few adepts* that have allowed their names
to be used in the public realm - but this certainly does not even begin to
justify such an absolute statement ... and I have found no such unanimity
in the very few places those small amounts of writings mention sex - and
even further, would not expect to. "The purpose of sex is to bring
children into the world" is almost unbelievably simplistic ... and they
are not (whatever they are) simplistic beings ...

> > In any case, modern psychology has clearly
> > demonstrated that sex is absolutely essential for intimacy,
> > and intimacy is absolutely essential for a healthy psyche.
>      As one who is trained in modern psychology there is no such
> demonstration.  For physical intimacy to be valid it must be concordant
> with the agreement to have children.
	*What* psychology? Psychology is a *science* ... you may disagree
with those researchers that have tried to demonstrate various links
between sex, intimacy, and psychological health ... may argue with their
statistics, methods of demonstration, or premises, but you rather betray
yourself with your second statement - which a normative statement, a
*personal value judgement* ... "psychology" would no more say physical
intimacy must be allied with the agreement to have children to be "valid"
than economics would say that money must be used by free market system to
be "valid" - though many economists might *personally* prefer free markets
to closed ones.

> > So, if your statement is true, then the Mahatma's are
> > plain wrong.
>      The Mahatma's are right, your assessment as to the position of
> modern psychology is innaccurate.
	Both statements are (IMO) somewhat inaccurate - "modern
psychology" is not some single entity with a unanimous opinion (of course,
neither are "the Mahatmas") - the link between sex, intimacy, and health
is one about which much is written in the literature of the field, and
while the first statement does portray a dominant current of thought, it
is certainly not the only one ... but I would very much like to see any
peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal, any book by a reputable
psychologist, that actually attempts to make the case that the "purpose"
of sex is children. Even *biologists* ... who focus solely on the physical
aspect of things ... would not say that the *only* purpose of sex was
procreation. And the field of psychology, perhaps more than any other, has
spent a century exploring the vast array of different motivations and ends
resident in our sexuality.

> > I agree that some Mahatmas make this claim,
> > but hardly all,
>      Yes, all do (is there a statement of counter example?)
I wonder what we mean by "Mahatmas" here? Patrick, are you speaking of the
TS Adepts? Are you reading Alice Bailey? *Who* are the one's you are
talking about?
	Its hard to find a "counter-example" when I don't even remember
seeing an example ... but (as a for instance) my edition of the Mahatma
Letters mentions two references in its index under "sex": The first is
about gender (rather than "sex" the way we are using the word), and the
second is the infamous 12th Letter - the one in which KH slams religion -
and says the following:
	"..."Food, sexual relations, drink, are all natural necessities of
life; yet excess in them brings on disease, misery, suffering, mental and
physical, and the latter are transmitted as the greatest evils to
future generations .... All this then - food, wealth, ambition, and a
thousand other things we have to leave unmentioned, becomes the source and
cause of evil whether in its abundance or through its absence."
	These are quite sane sentiments - seem to recognize the basic
drives resident in human beings, and rightly suggest that health is a
matter of balance - of *recognizing* the drives and achieving the balance
between surplus and lack. (No mention of sex being reserved only for
procreation I notice). 	

> > and those who do obviously know nothing
> > of the human need for intimacy--
>      The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our
> true needs perfectly.  Modern psychology is beginning to understand the
> relation of sex to the human psyche.
	Yes ... and in the letter just mentioned, apparently understand
sexual relations to be one of those basic needs.
	Sexuality (IMO), as with virtually all significant components of
the human psyche, does not have one, but indeed multiple "purposes" - to
attempt to reduce it to some one single one ... and to further then try to
hold that *all* the "Mahatmas" hold a unanimous view of the subject - a
view that hasn't had much credibility since the Enlightenment (and only
was held by small Christian sects prior to that) - just doesn't make any
sense whatsoever.
	You may choose to believe that the purpose of sex is procreation,
and that only within that context is sex "valid" (whatever the devil that
means) ... but not only don't the writings of either "the Mahatmas" or
modern psychology unanimously support such a thesis, many of the writings
of both would argue vigorously against it.
								-JRC