A Call to Freedom of Choice in Religion and in Sexual Practice

A
Call to Freedom of Choice in


Religion and in Sexual Practice

An Essay  by

Avatar Adi Da Samraj

In scholarly and popular commentaries on religion, it
seems that no religion is ever indicated to be among the so-called “great”
religions unless it has, by some historical means, acquired sufficient
political power (within some large geographical region) to enforce its
views on the mass population. Indeed, before there was the modern political
trend toward the proliferation of pluralistic democracies, religions grew
in size (and “greatness”) mainly by political conquest (and not, at large,
by argument, evidence, or proof of Truth). However, the time has come when
it should no longer be presumed that any religious institution, tradition,
or ideal has the right to grow in numbers by means of political conquest,
or (otherwise) to presume that it, by virtue of some past conquests (or
any history of presumed power), has the right to its views on the general
population of any presumed democracy.

Surely, the time has passed when . . . any region (or
domain) of pluralistic democracy can be (or ever should be) presumed to
be inherently (or, otherwise, necessarily—and “officially”) identified
with any particular religious institution, tradition, or ideal.
Truly, in a democratic society, every human individual must be free to
choose his or her own form and manner of religious (or, otherwise, philosophical)
commitment and practice. And, because sexual practice is necessarily based
on the particular views associated with one’s own religious (or, otherwise,
philosophical) understanding, every human individual within a democratic
society must be free to choose his or her own form and manner of sexual
practice and sexual commitment. Particular religious institutions, sects,
or communities have the right and the obligation to guide their own adherents
relative to what (from the point of view of the particular religious institution,
sect, or community) is right practice relative to sexuality and every other
aspect of functional, practical, relational, and cultural life.
1 
However, a strong objection must be raised whenever any particular religious
(or, otherwise, philosophical) institution, sect, or community presumes
the ”official” right to speak for all members of any general (and
generally pluralistic) democratic gathering (or even for the pluralistic
all” of mankind), and (thus) presumes the right to universally
declare, make, and enforce laws, rules, and principles based on
the point of view of some particular institution, sect, or community within
the whole.

It is appropriate for anyone to comment upon (and to work
to establish) views and principles and practices within his or her own
religious sect and tradition. And it is always appropriate for anyone to
write about and (in general) to publicly communicate his or her views on
any matters at all. But, in a democratic society, it is not appropriate
for anyone (or any particular tradition, institution, sect, or community)
to universally establish and enforce laws, rules, and principles
that are sectarian (or that prohibit universal free choice relative to
the basic matters of human functional, practical, relational, and cultural
life).

In a society in which human beings cannot be legally owned
(or treated as legal property), sexual relationships should themselves
be inherently free of all that is implied by the idea of “property”.
The sanctioning of marriage by the State is, basically, a device for controlling
the transmission of property from generation to generation. The traditional
“rule” (and legal expectation) of monogamy (or of any other sexual arrangement)
is, basically, a means for imposing property laws (and tax laws) upon relationships
of sex and love. (And, additionally, politically powerful religious sects
have used sexual “rules” and laws as a means for imposing their sectarian
control on the behaviors of mass populations.) Thus, in democratic societies,
relationships of sex and love should be set free from State-“licensing”
(and from arbitrary sectarian controls), and intimately related individuals
should be free to make their own contracts of property (or, otherwise,
to contractually release their relationships from any or all implications
of property).

It is also clear that human beings must be helped and
guided toward greater and greater Growth in the ego-transcending process
of the (potentially) seven stages of life.
2
Therefore, democratic societies should, as a whole, greatly value
and allow the cultural and community activities of all particular
religious (and other general cultural) institutions, sects, and groups—for
it is only such institutions, sects, and groups (and not the all-inclusive,
and necessarily non-sectarian, democratic “State” as a whole) that are
the right, true, and really effective means for helping and guiding their
particular adherents in the basic exoteric and esoteric matters of functional,
practical, relational, and cultural practice.

It is certainly the case that, for most (but not
necessarily all) individuals, the true and full requirements
(both exoteric and esoteric) of sex and love will themselves (once they
are understood and valued) limit sexual activity and sexual relatedness
to (generally) only one partner in any significant period of life
(or, in many cases, even for a lifetime). Nevertheless, the public rule
and law of democratic societies should always be one that both permits
and honors free choice relative to all sexual, and emotional-sexual,
matters (whether heterosexual or homosexual). And all religious
(and non-religious) people should, in every democratic society, always
practice public tolerance, respect, and love. Indeed, “civilization” (in
its true, free, and democratic sense) depends on such freedom, tolerance,
respect, and love—and not on the imposition of arbitrary and sectarian
ideals, expectations, rules, and laws. And it is only by truly democratic
practices of public freedom, tolerance, and love that every human
individual can be set free from the political and religious tyrannies of
the past.




N O T E S

1. The functional, practical,
and relational disciplines of the Way of Adidam are forms
of appropriate human action and responsibility for diet, health, exercise,
sexuality, work, service to and support of Avatar Adi Da’s Circumstance
and Work, and cooperative (formal community) association (or at least significantly
participatory affliation) with other practitioners of the Way of Adidam.
The cultural obligations of the Way of Adidam include meditation,
sacramental worship, study of Ruchira Avatar Adi Da’s WisdomTeaching (and
also at least a basic discriminative study of the Great Tradition of religion
and Spirituality that is the Wisdom-inheritance of mankind), and regular
participation in the “form” (or schedule) of daily, weekly, monthly, and
annual devotional activities.

2. The entire Spiritual Process culminating
in Divine Enlightenment has been exactly “mapped” by Avatar Adi Da, Who
Describes It in terms of seven stages of life. In the total (or full and
complete) practice of the Way of Adidam, the seven
stages of life
are, from first to last, a Process in Consciousness,
Revealing (ultimately) that you are Consciousness, and not merely
the body-mind.

The first three (or foundation) stages of life constitute
the ordinary course of human adaptation—bodily, emotional, and mental
growth. The fourth and fifth (or advanced) stages of life are characterized
by the Awakening to Spirit, or the Spiritualizing of the body-mind.

In the sixth and seventh (or ultimate) stages of life
Consciousness Itself is directly Realized, beyond identification with the
body-mind. In the sixth stage of life, the Realizer Identifies with Consciousness
(in profound states of meditation) by excluding all awareness of phenomena.
Avatar Adi Da has Revealed that this was the highest form of Realization
known in the religious and Spintual traditions previous to His Appearance.
But this Realization is incomplete. Even the necessity to turn away from
the world in order to fully Enjoy Consciousness represents a contraction,
a refusal of Reality in its totality. The seventh stage of life (or the
Realization of “Open Eyes”), which is Revealed and Given only by Avatar
Adi Da, transcends this last limit. No exclusion is necessary, because
the world is Realized to be a mere modification of Consciousness, not separate
(or “different) from Consciousness at all.

 


————————————————————————————————-—————————

The Da Love-Ananda Samrajya Pty Ltd.,

as trustee for The Da Love-Ananda Samrajya,

claims perpetual copyright to all photographs
and

the entire Written (and otherwise recorded)

Wisdom-Teaching of Avatar Adi Da Samraj and

the Way of the Heart, or Adidam.

© 2006 The Da Love-Ananda Samrajya Pty Ltd.,

as trustee for The Da Love-Ananda Samrajya.

All rights reserved.

Used in DAbase by permission.

note to the reader

—————————————————————————————————————————-


(Return to Politics)

(Return to Truth For Real)

(Return to Adidam Revelation Excerpts)

(Return to DAbase Main Page)

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *