Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00476)

Patrick writes

>> There is almost no such thing as "according to ALL of the Mahatma's" on
>> any subject.
>
>     Yes, there is,specifically on this topic.  The purpose of sex is to
>bring children into the world.

[and later]

>The only purpose of sex is to bring children into the world.
>

A masterly feat of rolling together a huge number of facets of reality in a
few calm assertions, Patrick!

The latest edition of "The Mahatma Letters" contains only 2 references to
sex in its index, as JRC noted, one of them basically off this subject.
Hardly the basis for some of what you said above, if that's what your basis was.

Patrick, I would be most interested to know whether there are other writings
from spiritual teachers you consider to be of the Mahatma class, that have
more to say on this subject and, if so, what those writings are.

If your opinions are not based on written material so much, then what is
their basis?

Sex is one area where we are definitely called on to use our own abilities
to pull the generalities of Theosophical writing down into the
practicalities of life. You know, that hard work that HPB told us we had to
do! We have to grasp this one and not shy away from it. And not oversimplify
it, either.

One theosophical author who says some interesting things on sex is Geoffrey
Hodson in his "The Miracle of Birth". Quoting part:

Clairvoyant research suggests that the principle, by which the perfect
synchronisation of an oppositely polarised pair releases energy from higher
planes, operates throughout the whole of nature. The life behind the
vegetable form, for example, receives a distinct thrill from the planetary
life forces which descend into it every time fertilisation occurs. That
response quickens its evolution whenever it is experienced. The more highly
developed and sensitive of the flowers of the present day are already
beginning to respond in increasing measure to the stimulus of that descent
of power.  [End of quote.]

Is quickening the life of the individual less of a "purpose" than producing
new individuals, whatever the species?  Is the inner life and unfoldment of
parents less important than that of children?

I believe that a major way that energy released by the interaction of
opposites in humans is expressed, beyond the physical plane as well as on
it, is in building relationships. This is a hugely creative thing, operating
on several levels.

As far as bringing children into the world goes, when things go well, this
relationship-building leads IMO to the inner equivalent of building a nest,
a loving environment where they can develop and eventually find their own
wings. Physical sex is just one means by which this creative polarity is
expressed, and just one of the polarities relevant to children.

Polarity and energy exchange go far beyond nest-building though, of course,
and are enormous factors in the life of any human being, sexual expression
being just one of the ways by which this can be mediated. Energy exchange
like this is in fact the very fabric of our human lives, far beyond the
arena of procreative sex, in our participation in the wider structure of
society.

Think of a time when you worked really well alongside somebody and sparked
each other off with ideas, or learnt something from another, or received the
gift of love, if only in a fleeting smile. The list of ways in which there
is an energy release through the flow between giver and receiver is endless.

Two words that express the temporary polarity in energy exchange are
"radiant" and "magnetic" - far more expressive and far less loaded than the
old terms "masculine" and "feminine" for this purpose. One person can be
radiant with respect to another in one way, but magnetic (ie actively
receptive) in another way or level, and the roles can switch rapidly in
time. There's some healing value in this kind of idea, with respect to
society's negative attitudes to kinds of sexuality, and beyond.


>> In any case, modern psychology has clearly
>> demonstrated that sex is absolutely essential for intimacy,
>> and intimacy is absolutely essential for a healthy psyche.
>
>     As one who is trained in modern psychology there is no such
>demonstration.  For physical intimacy to be valid it must be concordant
>with the agreement to have children.

Responding to both writers here, I think it's more apt to say that intimacy
is extremely beneficial for the psyche and that sex is a major way, but by
no means the only way, for intimacy to be expressed.

Physical intimacy has many forms and only some of them have to do with
producing children. All, unless forced on one of the participants, are
health-promoting, IMO  - a view which I gather is now well supported by
psychological research.

However, as one trained in science, I would add that scientists are very
wary of the word "purpose".  It is just about as loaded as "sex", and put
the two together ....  I mention this because psychologists have definitely
been known to have scientific aspirations  :-) .

Murray