Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tl00110)

Hi K again,

K.:
>Mon, 27 Apr 1998 M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com> wrote:

>R> (Leadbeater)Theosophy (and ES)followers are firm believers in the
>"theory" R> that with sex you cannot progress spiritually, in spite of all
>the

>It isn't Leadbeater's invention. Blavatsky wrote that "in practical
>occultism all sexual contacts are prohibited". But most of so called
>followers, as Bailey, Roerich, Prophet, Lomborg - were all married.
>They & their followers say that now times has changed & sex is allowed now.

Modern psychology has discovered that such strict sexual prohibition only
creates neuroticism and is unhealthy for the psyche. I'd rather follow a
leader with a healthy sexual outlook, not extreme one way or the other.

>R> undisputed allegations about Leadbeater on sex matters. (Some
>Leadbeater R> followers try to clear him by saying that he was never
>convicted and R> hence in "our" system of justice, a man is innocent until
>proven guilty.)
>In "Letters of masters of wisdom" vol.I K.H. warns Leadbeater that because
>he is a priest, he may yield karma of that "caste". So it makes me suspect
>that convictions against Leadbeater could be false, as those made by other
>priests against Blavatsky.

Either way, I wouldn't discount Leadbeater or Blavatsky's studies based on
their personal shells. They're both dead, so what does it matter? Only
their concepts survive. If some concepts don't appeal to me, I don't use
it. A true student of theosophy will make discerning choices of any
teaching from any teacher. To blindly and rigidly follow anybody goes
against all that a seeker of truth would try to do.

<snip>
>R> And he [K] never "presented" himself as being celibate. According to the
>Did he ever mentioned, had he a sex himself? Maybe he is simply theoretical?

I heard he had an affair with someone's wife. Doss would know the story.

>>So sex becomes the one issue which is our very own, which is not
>>second-hand. And in the act of sex there is a forgetting of oneself,
>>one's problems and one's fears. In that act there is no self at all."

>He always said what people wanted to hear from him, so in it lies the
>secret of his popularity.

Doesn't that also mean he is touching upon the "guru" within each of those
people? Since his popularity reflects that, that would mean that his
teaching is mostly true. Whatever our education and our background, it all
comes down to what rings true within us after we try to discard all the
outside distractions.

>Similiarly of Osho Rajnish & others of
>that kind. Anyway, what other he could recommend, if he denied existence
>of any kind of soul and explaned all the psychic activity by action of the
>brain cells? It's natural for lokayata.

He did not explain the soul through the action of the brain cells. I don't
think he went on at length about soul. Instead, his focus was on conceptual
thinking, which makes use of psycho-somatic energy. Contrary to what you
say, he wants to use the mind-energy which will not go back to the brain
cells. Instead of using the computer mind, which is composed mostly of
memories and preset ideas, he wanted us to increase our awareness. This
awareness uses our dynamic mind-energy, which is more creative, more total.
I would consider his teaching to be an enhancement to all the other
teachings, and not a detriment to them.

I find it interesting what the Leadbeater camp and the Krisnamurti camp
have to say about one another. I find misconceptions from both camp.

<snip>
>I think that Krishnamurti was the greatest CWL's mistake, much worse than
>his sexual affairs. Impurity of one, even leading TS member doesn't mean a
>thing at all, but Krishnamurti destroyed the work of many years and
>converted TS from a newage locomotive to mere club of amateurs of the
>occult.

I wouldn't say Krisnamurti alone set the wheel of change in action. I'd say
several other events, including the political atmosphere of the TS, the
deference to gurus, and the hierarchical structure helped it along. I don't
believe any event in this world occurs singularly. If you think on it
deeply enough, everyone's to blame. Everything is the flow of the tao.
Maybe it was time the atmosphere of Leadbeater's time be changed to
democracy and independence. In this case, the meaning of democracy includes
the world outside of the occult societies.

>Returning to sex, I think that many arguments pro are collected in "Sex &
>marriage", the digest from several Bailey books.

>BTW, have anyone of you read "Disciple's mirror", a book written down by
>Brigit Lomborg? Is it popular among the western theosophists? That book
>states that sex is not prohibited, and moreover, recommended for the
>disciples. An author, who declared himself to be that Tibetan who wrote
>Bailey books, stated that an experiment with the groups of disciples has
>failed because humanity isn't developed enough, so hie- rarchy tried an
>experiment with the least possible group - a pair. One member of the pair
>is more developed (approx. one life ahead) and leads another one. An
>author, whoever he could be, seems to me a very informed person; our
>Roerich fans don't deny that though regard him to be a black lodge
>emissar. Of course the book overviews different questions, most of them
>have no obvious connection with a sex.

Sounds interesting. I think the balance of yin and yang, whether it be in a
couple, or within one person, is the best solution. I haven't been focusing
on sex beyond the earthly part of it. I'm just trying to get through the
basic esoteric writings, and they are numerous!

Thoa :o)