Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tl00043)

Dear all,

I am late in responding, because it is not possible for me to read
my e-mail over the holiday's, so I had 200(!) e-mails waiting for
me after christmas and new-years. I only finished reading all of
them yesterday and now I am responding.

About the tanticism-issue: it seems very simple to me. If leading
tantrics atmit that sexrelated words are hardly (or not) used in
the original text: that they have in fact chosen to interpret them
as sex-related, then we can simply conclude, as far as I'm concerned:
that h.p.b. was right. They have debased spirituality into a more
convenient form. They have assumed that because sex was such a strong
factor in most of our lives, it must be important in spirituality too.

It seems to me that Krishnamurti can be of help in this: he says,
also in the e-mail for this month, that sex is alright, as long as
there is love. What that means to me is that sex is simply irelevant
to spirituality. It does not realy come into the same sphere. When
we need sex, we need it. If there are people that do not, they don't.

Supressing sexual impulses is not advised by psychology and I do not
know of theosophical sourses that do advise it. On the other hand
there are *normal* morals we have to live by because a sexual impulse
is not enough reason to force oneself on someone. But I will asume
that we all know that.

Katinka
Katinka Hesselink, hesse600@tem.nhl.nl