Theos-Talk Archives (June 1997 Message tl00185)

>...However, I have a different view about two of his
>recent posts regarding dreams and celibacy.  Namely:
>
>          1.  Based upon my having lived a lot of years and, consequently,
>having experienced a lot of dreams I do not agree that "dreams are the
Higher
>Self communicating to us ...".  If this were so, every dream would be a
very
>significant vision or even revelation.  But the fact of the matter is...

Actually Dennis, I tend to agree with you.  The idea that dreams are
communications from the Self was Jung's idea, and is not entirely
theosophical.  They *can* be, but only on rare occasions--what Jung himself
refers to as Big Dreams.  HPB gives us a good occult look at dreams in
Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge, in which she delineates a wide variety
of possible dreams.

>IMHO dreams are simply the
>brain's method of sorting through and filing away information destined for
>permanent storage.  To use an analogy, it is comparable to "cleaning up"
or
>"defragging" a computer hard drive.

Possibly this is true with some, but certainly not all.  My feeling is that
at least some are actually astral traveling experiences that we have in
what the Tibetan Buddhists call our Dream Body.


>My systematic investigation of numerous
>dreams led me inescapably to the following conclusions:
>                 (a)  All of them had some connection with reality ---
>generally with recent events even though they seldom accurately
>"mirrored" those events.

It is interesting that you equate "reality" with the physical.  I don't.


> (b)  A few of them turned out to be premonitions of future
>events

HPB gives this as one possible type of dream.  It also equates to
a Big Dream.

>  (c)  Everyone dreams during extended periods of
>unconsciousness (i.e. normal ...

Agreed.  My own brother-in-law swears he never dreams, but
I am sure that he simply doesn't remember them.  Modern
psychology says that we all have REM dreams.


>          2.  Regarding celibacy, the essential thing is not to sublimate
or
>deny our physical nature but to learn how to control and rise above it.

Agreed, there is a fine line somewhere between sublimation and
transcendence.


>For the Biblically inclined, try 1st Corinthians 13:11 ("When I was a
child, I
>spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when
I
>became a man, I put away childish things.")

If you are equating sex with childish behavior, then I am not sure
I can agree with you.  Sex is only transcended when the physical
body is transcended, at the death of a jivamukti.  Celibacy is not
the same thing as transcending sexual feelings.  Control is step
one (i.e., we can control our behaviors), but transcendence is
another whole step.  And, I am not sure why anyone would want
to do this anyway?  Sexual feeling (the desire for bliss and unity)
comes with the human body, almost like food and air.


Jerry S.
Member, TI