|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
May 31, 1997 04:42 AM
by Tom Robertson
>Einar here: > >When once asked about sex and spiritual practices, J.K. answered, (as >far as I remember): 'Have sex, or don't have sex, it doesn't matter - just >don't make a problem out of it.' > >This is in line with his teaching that when you impose an 'unnatural' >suppression upon the psyche as a spiritual means, you will only >inflict an inner conflict, and therfore make a psychological havoc out of >the whole thing. This does not implicate though, that one should >'Indulge in some kind of spiritual sex', as some would have it. > >As we proceed naturally in our spiritual search, ALL needs will come >to an end, naturally and permanently. To impose unnatural control or >suppression on the process will simply not work. Neither will an >unnatural indulgence. Transcendance is sort of perpendicular direction, >away from both 'do it' and 'don't do it'. One day the 'needs' arenīt there, >because they have been repalced by something more profound. More than 20 years ago, I went many times to a seminar given by a man who worked with youth, and, in commenting on St. Augustine's "love God, and do as you please," which echoes Krishnamurti, he said that that was "devastating" advice to them, as it would be too likely interpreted as a license for self-indulgence. Self-indulgence _is_ what is natural for those who haven't reached a certain stage of maturity. There may be more danger in the psychobabble that discourages suppression of desires than there is in unfulfilled needs.