|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
May 31, 1997 05:31 AM
by M K Ramadoss
At 06:44 AM 5/31/97 -0400, Tom Robertson wrote: >>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. > I agree. If only people start *thinking* about these issues without mindlessly adopting one course of action or the other, I am sure there comes a real understanding and when that happens all the issues are put in proper place with proper perspective. Thanks again.