Martinus: Livets Bog, vol. 5, sect. 1749

1749. It is obvious that one does not generally regard "man" or "woman" in the above-mentioned way. We see that "men" as well as "women" have been great experts on culture, great examples of humaneness with outstanding intellectual knowledge and ability. Indeed, do we not see "men" and "women" everywhere taking the lead with regard to the cultural creations or manifestations, as well as in relation to the above-mentioned dictatorial principle of oppression and its bloodshed and terror? Indeed, it is quite true that this appears to be the case. The "men" and "women" who promote the cultural and humane creations or manifestations certainly also appear in an outer form that must be described as "male" and "female", but they are "men" and "women" of another kind. They do not have the same psyche as the pure form of "man" and "woman". They thus all constitute a nature that deviates more or less from that of the pure "man" and "woman". But when they deviate from the pure "man" and the pure "woman" this thus means that to a corresponding degree they deviate from being a purely "male being" and a purely "female being". They have shown themselves to be beings that have had a greater or lesser degree of a sympathy or feeling of love alongside their purely marital sympathy or feeling of love. Indeed, for the furthest advanced beings this new sympathetic ability has been of such an overriding nature that it has even entirely eliminated the marital sympathy from their psyche. Here, for this reason, all their selfish or egoistic sympathies must to a corresponding extent leave their consciousness and the exercising of their will in favour of this new sympathetic faculty. The object of this sympathetic ability is simply all other living beings. This ability culminates in the relationship to all human beings, and at this culminating stage is independent of sex. The greatest, purest happiness such beings can have cannot therefore possibly be anything other than the promoting of light and happiness for all other beings. Where this new sympathetic ability culminates, the being cannot promote selfish, "animal", and thereby unloving, manifestations without having pangs of conscience. Since pangs of conscience are the opposite of being happy, it is thus a fact that these beings can find happiness only in serving others. For this reason these beings can love their own sex; Jonathan could love David, and Jesus could love John. It is not a marriage or the right to own any other being that is desired here, even though tendencies in this direction at the lower initial stages of this new mental state can be present to some extent and contribute to distorting the perception of the new sex in the eyes of the uninformed. In recognition of the presence of these new sympathetic faculties in their pure form in the highly developed human being, one better understands Jesus' plea for neighbourly love in his great commandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", and that he likewise had to express his view of himself with these words: "The son of man did not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life as a ransom for many." The reason why mankind's greatest sages or the most evolved, cosmically conscious beings are not bound to marriage but are free, sovereign beings has also become obvious here.