|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
 Posted - Aug 24 2006 : 5:25:32 PM
|
emc said:
In my humble opinion, all "wise men and women" I have so far read or heard speak have captured a bit of the whole stuff, interpreted it through their own minds when they write and ooops, there comes the readers minds misunderstandings into it all, depending on which terms and words are used.
I've captured a bit of the whole stuff too, and so has Meg: some of this Barry Long stuff, shall we say, "needs work", to put it politely. 
I'd watch out for mythologizing "the wise". And what could be less humble than assuming you know who can't possibly be making mistakes?
Hm. Are you two judgemental and emotional now? One might interpret it as if you had an "ideal" guru and knows exactly how a such talks and behaves. Haha, Things like this may go on for ever.
No, just discriminating on the matter of quality-of-teachings, in a certain dimension. Being a good spiritual teacher is not an on-and-off thing, neither is 'spiritual realization'. All people have gaps and weaknesses. You, me, Meg, Yogani, Barry Long and Gautama Buddha (not necessarily in ascending spiritual order, LOL ). Perhaps I am clear in some ways in which Barry Long is a bit cloudy? Perhaps you would say it is the reverse in other areas?
Don't go 'all-or-nothing' on anyone or anything. 'Everything in this world is a mix of sand and sugar. Be like the wise ant who seizes the sugar and leaves the sand alone.'
If there is One Lord, Meg and I on the one hand, and Barry Long on the other, are parts of that Lord. One hand may give you something, another something else. One hand may improve on or correct what has been given by another.
If you put a halo around some part of that Lord and think that nothing but light comes from it, and think that it can't be corrected or improved-upon by something outside that halo you have made, you are in that being a fundamentalist, even if you are spending your days singing and dancing with flowers in your hair and 'judging' no-one.
One never really knows where 'the light' is coming from, and what the light will 'look like'.
But indeed, you are right not to take it personally. Enjoy AYP!
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 24 2006 11:08:49 PM |
 |
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2006 : 06:32:44 AM
|
That is nicely put, David! We seem to have the same point of view to the approach towards gurus and spiritual truths.
You use the word "discriminating" in stead of judging. That is excellent!
How do I discriminate between what actions, behaviors and thoughts in my life that are prolonging my spiritual growth? How do I discriminate what is "dirt" - to use Yoganis word - and what is enhancing my development?
For a man in the sexual area:
To rape someone would be "dirt", wouldn't it? What would go under the "dirt"-classification? Possibly anything that "hurts" another person? Is that a base for the discrimination?
Rape, assault, sexual molestation, committing adultry.. Is that obvious "dirt"? Then where the line drawn? Flirting openly with others in disrespect of the partner... Putting psychological pressure by saying things like "If you are not beautiful and sexy enough I will chose another one"? Is the last thing really rightly placed under the classification "dirt"? If so, in how subtle ways can a such thing be said? When media shows ideals of how a sexy woman should look today - is that a such pressure?
Is my point getting any clearer? What sexual actions and behaviors in both men and women are actually prolonging the spiritual development? Without judgement - only discrimination...
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2006 : 11:08:50 AM
|
Hello EMC,
I would say not to roll things into one 'morally' just because they have the same effect on you. If a man you are having a relationship with makes you feel "If you are not beautiful and sexy enough I will chose another one", that is one issue; if you then receive the same feeling from advertising (or are reminded from advertising of what you felt from him), you mustn't morally charge the advertising industry (an inevitable result of capitalism) as if is is somehow responsible for the offense you feel from this man, or feel in general.
Within that broad arena called the 'woman's movement', women are right to investigate the nature of their unhappiness and its mechanisms. If a woman says 'When I see a beautiful woman being used in advertising, I feel bad in this way....', that's fine and good. It's good to investigate the nature of unhappiness, and the path of ones feelings. When it starts to go wrong is when they promote the notion that advertising, capitalism, male domination, 'The Beauty Myth', etc. are to blame for their suffering, or should be, or even can be, changed. This produces misdirected, diffuse and hopeless anger, and misguided hopes about how to fix these problems. It 'politicizes' what are in fact private emotional issues. It's like blaming the rain because you have no umbrella -- or longing for mythical days when there was no rain, or politically agitating to bring those days back.
I'd also watch out for (maybe?) idealizing a 'spiritual man' who would, in contrast with ordinary men, have all it takes to make you happy. Wouldn't that be just a version of 'Some Day my Prince will Come?' Better to just be pragmatic about relationships.
Any given woman's ideal man is not necessarily 'spiritual'. I tell you something, if I were a woman, I wouldn't have been interested in Barry Long or anyone like him. A self-proclaimed 'god-realized' Aussie, who thinks he has the Mystical Key to how we can fix women (and the world) with our you-know-whats -- No way! Not my type of man, by any means. I'd much prefer Crocodile Dundee. He's not at all on a god-pedestal, and he looks like he'd be fun to be around. 
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 25 2006 7:03:32 PM |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2006 : 12:43:54 PM
|
Thank you for your thoughts, David. They help me sort things out.
Any one else that understands what Yogani means by "dirt"?
|
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2006 : 1:45:44 PM
|
If I was dating someone and he told me that if he found someone more beautful and sexy he'd choose her instead, I'd let him. He'd never see my face again. No blame, no anger - I simply wouldn't want the pressure, and I have more interesting things to do than vie for one's attentions. E, as a doctor of psychology, you know that the #1 rule in self-improvement is taking responsiblity for oneself. The blame stops here. This is one of the underlying premises for AYP as well - we're all taking responsiblity for our lives, regardless of what we've been given to work with. You can't change other people or their sexual preferences, but you can find a partner whose sexuality is in alignment with yours. Don't settle for someone who makes you feel unattractive, and don't try to change him to suit you. Just move on, girlfriend....there's someone better for you.
And Barry Long? He's clearly obsessed with sex and blame and generalizations, which are NOT a signs of high intelligence. His appeal must be to angry women and guilt-ridden men. What do you get out of it? I'm genuinely curious, as you're so intelligent, and he seems so slimey to me, at least when it comes to sex. Maybe he's brilliant in other areas. Yeah, I steer away from the self-proclaimed spiritual men. They usually turn out to be the most insecure, else why would they need to tell you? |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2006 : 3:45:18 PM
|
The "dirt" in my understanding is a symbol for the undealt with thoughts and hence emotions which pull our attention away from the here and now and the awareness of our true nature.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2006 : 4:05:41 PM
|
Meg said:
I'm genuinely curious, as you're so intelligent, and he seems so slimey to me, at least when it comes to sex.
Meg, you are right that the tendancy to make over-generalized, uncompromizing pronouncements isn't a mark of high intelligence, or a powerhouse intellect anyway, and unfortunately it's not confined to Barry Long's teaching on sex, alas. ( Example: "All communities are distractions from living the truth. " etc. etc. ) His intellectual limitations in tending to over-simplify and over-generalize are quite evident in his teachings. He's very Krishnamurtian in this way. I'm not sure he's 'slimey' though Meg. Probably just an 'alpha male' (really meaning someone who very much needs to be or tends to be the alpha male in their setting), probably not extremely bright, and who like all alpha males has the tendancy tho think he is utterly brilliant. The sex-based teachings are particularly alpha-male. Whatever transcendence he went through, he just didn't transcend alpha-maleness, that's all, and then it's almost inevitable that he strays from his domain of competence and his teachings are accordingly affected. If it fails to purify it away, spiritual progress can even exacerbate this kind of inflation.
Perhaps some of the women who are attracted to him are the women who are attracted to alpha-male personalities?
Eckhart Tolle made good use of him, and I have a lot of respect for Eckhart Tolle (from everything I can see). So obviously, there is some light there, something of value. Maybe emotionally he was very warm and positive or something, and or had some sort of light or beauty to his person that was helpful for people.
Some of Barry Long's people have criticized Tolle for not openly declaring his learning period with Barry Long. Perhaps Tolle has his reasons though? Perhaps in the end he has reservations about promoting Barry Long's teachings but doesn't want to be explicit about it? I don't know.....
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 29 2006 2:37:19 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2006 : 4:10:26 PM
|
EMC said:
Thank you for your thoughts, David. They help me sort things out.
Great!
Any one else that understands what Yogani means by "dirt"?
Agreeing with Anthem here. Sometimes also called 'karmas' or 'negative karmas'. In the TM world they called 'stresses'. In the Christian world, maybe 'sin', but more like 'the state of sin' than a set of bad marks!
|
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2006 : 6:55:42 PM
|
Okay, maybe the 'slimey' part was slimey of me. I apologize, and admit that I was on a bit of a rant. The message, which didn't come through, was that I think highly of emc, and respect her intelligence,and therefore am wondering what about Barry Long is attractive to her. Are you with me, E? :)
ps - But if I was a guy, he'd really bug me.
pss - how about 'creepy'?
ppss - 'misinformed'? |
Edited by - Manipura on Aug 25 2006 7:00:24 PM |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Aug 28 2006 : 02:14:09 AM
|
I'm thinking of how to present a good answer. It's coming, I just have to do what I have to do at work today first...
To be continued.... |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 28 2006 : 10:00:24 AM
|
Meg, just as a sidebar, why would he really bug you if you were a guy?
Looking forward to EMC's answer too....
|
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Aug 28 2006 : 5:44:01 PM
|
The force is working with us on this. We had a major break through during the weekend.
Meg, one thing I do believe is true is that you can't get away from your own wounds. All wounds that awaken in a relationship are meant to be dealt with. One can choose to do it within the relationship or on one's own. I choose to work on it within the relationship since it is faster (you get provoked all the time) and you have great support between the storms.
If you guys can quit the idea that I am stuck in Barry Longs teachings for a while, I'll tell you what happened.
This is my truth at the moment.
In the beginning, our arguments were all about guilt. We blamed each other for CAUSING the emotions that were triggered. I wanted to have a faithful, attentive and loving partner. I wanted safety. He wanted to have good sex, a relationship that did not suffocate him - an easy going partnership without quarrels. What we got was exactly what we feared the most. I got a man who was not bringing safety to me, a man that always threatened to break up or in action separated from me by showing disrespect. He got a woman who tried to bind him closely in fear of losing him and who was upset and bitchy when he didn't comply. So - we were designed to trigger each other's wounds. And we did. We did not find a method to handle our quarrels. Most of the time it was very much love, tantra etc... lots of things happened that brought me closer to the spirit. So the good times were definitely the greatest part of it. But the wounds were there to remind us all the time.
Eventually we noticed that the quarrels looked exactly the same:
He saw another woman and sought confirmation by flirting, searching eye contact etc etc. I reacted with fear of losing him, feeling humiliated, got sad and angry. He responded with anger towards me and defended himself with all kinds of explanations of the type (women are beautiful, it is natural, I am the way I am etc). And the situation was locked.
When we analyzed it we could see that he had been so humiliated by many women in his life (mother, old beautiful girlfriends, wife, daughter etc). He had never been seen or confirmed. They had used him, dumped him and/or refused him sex. He badly needed the attention from women to compensate for things he had not gotten enough of. Actually, he was furious also. Those beautiful, sexy bitches that just tempered but never GAVE HIM anything... He wanted revenge.
I had been so hurt from childhood sexual abuse, disrespect from boyfriends who complained at my looks etc. I had big wounds in the area of looks and sex. I did not trust men, really. Not at all. Although, I longed for a loving, faithful man, that man never came. In the end I even gave up the idea of ever finding a man and got bisexual and started to look for women. I hated men. Women were sexy, weren't they?
So we were attracted to each other. Cruel, huh? Not really. From a spiritual point of view we were attracted to each other in order to finally sort this out. To heal ourselves and each other. And I have always had an inner voice telling me not to let go of this man. I still listen to that inner voice.
We understood that we were presented a way, but did not see the method. Bernie Prior and Barry Long's (and obviously others as well) teachings gave us a hint. I started to both feel and understand that I should not agree to be disrespected any longer.(Meg is so right in that! Thank you, Meg, you have been a great support!) My partner understood and felt strongly that he should NOT agree to be restricted any longer. He also understood that I was not getting upset to black mail him emotionally, which confused him somewhat. He had a feeling it was some sort of game here, and that his actions really triggered something in me. But he couldn't grasp exactly what it was he did. He was still defensive and thought all he did was okey, that I was sensitive or something.
So we came to the conclusion that if I could not STOP my pattern of getting angry, blame him and try to bind him and control him HE would leave me; and if HE could not STOP disrespecting me and stop his pattern that triggered my emotions I would leave him. But what was the egg and what was the hen? Who should start the changing process?
We came to the paradox "If you only would stop gazing and love me truly I would not have to get angry"- "If you only would stop trying to control me and stop being so emotional I would be able to love you truly". Guilt, blame, no willing to GIVE before you GET anything.
But we experimented. We found out that when I managed to find my sorrow and show my hurt without anger he could listen and feel my pain. Then he would not respond with anger. When he had his attention on me and had a warm heart I was never emotional. Hm...
First lesson: Love is to GIVE 100% and not expecting ANYTHING in return. Then there is no emotionality, no suffering, no problems. As soon as YOU WANT something the problems start. And there is no room for guilt.
Second lesson: How can one be guilty of one's wounds? You have the luggage you have. Who can be guilty of carrying a trigger for the wounds another person have to work through? No one is causing another person any pain. There can be NO JUDGEMENT of a person's actions.
Still, a week ago, we felt so small. I was unable to stop my emotions more than once in a while. I felt somehow that he had not grasped the whole thing, still defensive, not willing to see his own wounds/patterns fully. I told him that I was ready to let him go. He was also ready to let me go. So we left each other for a week. And strangely, it felt okey. I felt sad sometimes, but not for very long. I did not long for him, miss him or felt any craving to get him back. I felt that if I could continue my journey with him it would be very nice. In fact, I felt I loved him so much. But if the journey ended here, that would be perfectly alright. I would find another man who would continue to trigger my wounds. It was really not so important that it was HIM. And he felt the same. We could set each other free without misery or pain. I have felt my true nature - I am pure love. How can I restrict my love to one single human being? It is impossible. I do not exist in time and space. How can I bind my love to one person?
Lesson number two: Love wants to be FREE and it is IMPERSONAL.
But still... the decision was there to be made. I tried not to think of the future. Rather, I became philosophical and wrote to this forum. And as you know, my decision was to WAIT.
Lesson number tree: When you don't know what to do - just wait and life will show you the way. Meanwhile, I worked on my sorrow, my own pain.
He came to visit me on Friday night. We had been apart for one week. I had told him I was rather low and shaky. On top of it I had my period. Extra spiritual connection. He came and the first thing he did was being sexual, touching me. Without listening to my signals. I got cold. I told him kindly that I was not in the mood for sex. He felt rejected and he didn't sleep at all that night. Bad start for a reunion. 
Then we went away for the weekend. We visited a place where he had been to many work shops, a beautiful house. We arrived and it was one other woman there, not very beautiful, but still... my partner directly connected with her and I got a stomach ache instantly. I had to leave the company, I thought I would throw up. He came after me and we went away. I told him what I had perceived. He responded directly with defence and anger. Same procedure.... At the same time the sky got all black and a thunder storm started. I stopped and just asked him "Please, there's no blame, no guilt. I just respond in this way due to my wounds. Please, help me stay in the pain and work it through!" We went inside a barn and the exact moment when I started to cry out all my pain, the sky opened and it was raining buckets. And he could hug me, and I let it all out. He listened, felt my pain, but still had an idea that it was only MY pain, my business. He had sort of nothing to do with it...
After 30 min I stopped crying and the rain stopped. We went to eat with the others. During the dinner it became obvious to ALL persons around the table that the woman tried to capture my partners attention all the time, flirting openly, with her man beside her. Her partner looked sad, my partner tried to avoid her obvious invitations and I just smiled. We were connected again and it didn't hurt me at all. There was no sense of threat at all.
After the meal, I asked him "Now, did you see her behaviour? Do you think you had NOTHING to do with it?" He was amazed and said "This was the biggest AHA-experience! I had NO IDEA I had gotten her so on so much." Suddenly, he saw his own pattern. He understood the subtle character of the "sex and flirt"-game he played with all women. It was served to him on a plate. Not a chance to ignore. And he suddenly understood how much pain that had been triggered in me by his behaviour when he associated that with the crying in the barn. A stone fell from me. I cried and the love just flowed between us again.
My feelings toward the woman was "Thank you, sister! You have helped both of us enormously!"
Lesson number four: Be thankful for every difficult emotion you get - it carries a message. Whether it is sadness, anger, anxiety, irritation, resentment, criticism or a feeling to banter or tease... There is always something behind it that needs to be cleaned out of the system or it will at least clearly show you what your ego WANTS, even when you don't think it is the ego. And when you finally let the feeling out... it feels GOOD! It is FREEDOM! It is embraced by the forces.
Lesson number five: Everything is MUTUAL. Everybody are mirrors to all persons' own issues. If you have any issue with a person you are GIVING a gift to each other in some way. It is never only one way.
So where are we now? I am working through my oceans of sorrow and pain. It is slowly getting transformed into peace. On my own and with my partner, always in company of the spirit. My partner knows he has to dive down there into his sorrow, but is not yet there. So his behaviour continues. It triggers him in a different way now. He has got distance. He does not lie to himself or me anymore. He is watching his own behaviour, getting a greater awareness. I know that when he dares to start working on his emotions and his past events that gave him this pattern, he will stop.
And I love him endlessly. I am in no hurry. I can wait for as long as it takes. I know he will make it through his barriers, his fears.
And if he doesn't.... I will be able to walk away whenever I want to. Or whenever my inner voice says: "It is time to let go now." Then I will listen and walk. And thank him for all the love we had together.
|
Edited by - emc on Aug 28 2006 6:14:25 PM |
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - Aug 28 2006 : 7:54:50 PM
|
Hi EMC,
I'm really glad to hear about this resolution and these lessons the both of you have arrived at. It is so much better to resolve things, especially if you two will stay together, and even if you would leave. The resolutions relieve a lot of karmic ties, and allow much spiritual growth. The issues would have needed to be resolved another time instead, so it's much better now, and be able to move on, spiritually and otherwise. My best wishes! |
|
|
|
nearoanoke
USA
525 Posts |
Posted - Aug 28 2006 : 11:19:26 PM
|
Hi Emc,
Your problem is a common issue in many couples. One being traditional and possessive while the other being modern and loves freedom. Recently there is even an indian movie on the same theme with two couples (who are family friends) having fights because of the traditional/modern issue and getting attracted to the other partner with similar ideas.
I think it is a very important thing to be getting a partner with similar ideas otherwise lot of time would be wasted in these quarrels. There will be little time for love and more of wasted love, hurt and pain.
Personally I dont think it is neither wrong to be traditional nor to be modern. Theres nothing wrong to feel possessive and theres nothing wrong in loving freedom. It is just the way we are bought up.
Once we are married or past beyond the stage of making a choice then the best thing to do spiritually is NOT try to change the other person but learn to develop ourselves in being less possessive or less attached. As we grow spiritually am sure possessiveness will go away and be replaced by more pure love, less wanting, more giving.
-Near |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Aug 29 2006 : 01:41:23 AM
|
Thank you, weaver! I can feel you know what I am going through! Yes, a lot of karma resolving! And I am bound to do it. So my thinking, Near, is that as weaver says... one day or another I would have to go through this. I might as well do it now. Or actually... my whole evolutionary nerv system urges me to do it NOW! As if I am in some sort of hurry... (but I'm not, I know)... it is just that everything is falling in place so quickly.
I no longer have any romantic ideas of a relationship. My love has no direction. The reason to hold on to ONE partner is for the sake of the ego mostly. The ego is so scared that the safety of familiarity is needed. Otherwise I would not be able to proceed and dare to do the journey. It is practical for the spiritual development. But actually, I love the divine masculine when it merges with the divine feminine. |
|
|
|
Lavazza
69 Posts |
Posted - Aug 29 2006 : 11:17:42 AM
|
"Well, it hasn't been my experience. Over the years, I've definitely experienced a lot of 'purification' and 'inner silence' and the development of a loving heart, and yet I found that it did not make physicality a less important element for sexual attraction in my case.
When I discovered this, it was something of a surprise for me too, because I too was under cultural and personal presumptions that it would. You know, I was somehow thinking that if I have spiritual development that I would make me care only about 'Inner beauty'. But no, it didn't, and that's the way it is."
Very interesting to know.
I spent 14 years with a woman with whom I did not have much in common, but who is exactly my type, when it comes to physical attraction. I have sometimes wondered if I would have had a better life with a woman with whom I had more in common (more into spirituality, more low maintenance etc.), even if I would have been less physically attracted to her. According to Schopenhauer attraction is just to assure the best offspring possible, and I cannot imagine a greater success in that field than what we had.
I do not want any more children, but I still find it impossible to pursue a relationship with a woman who does not trigger my "mating instincts", so to speak.
I have not done as much spiritual work as you, but in my imagination I was convinced that over time I would become less "shallow" in my preferences in that field. I guess I would just hurt myself, if I would try too hard to get into that line of thinking/feeling.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 29 2006 : 1:50:57 PM
|
I have not done as much spiritual work as you, but in my imagination I was convinced that over time I would become less "shallow" in my preferences in that field.
Yes, I thought exactly the same at one time. But I've learned to presume a lot less about sexual preferences.
Does the word 'shallow' meaningfully apply to a sexual preference? When we use a value-laden word like that, what are we thinking? Are we implying that some or all of the following are true:
1. That it would be better for us and the world if we didn't have this preference?
2. Given that we do have it, that it would be better for us and the world if we suppressed it (or didn't allow it to be involved in our choices)
3. That we can actually change it
4. That 'spiritual development' will change it
I believe that, for many given sexual preferences that might be called 'shallow' or deemed for some reason to be imperfect, it is true of all four presumptions above that they are often wrong (though of course, none are always wrong -- never say never, and never say always). So if 'shallow' is supposed to mean these 4. above, it is not necessarily making sense as a term.
Take for example a preference for athletic bodies. It should be pretty clear that this is a good probabilistic indicator of health and vitality. So it is not necessarily better for humanity if we do not have this preference. Regarding physical beauty, it's very likely to be something your children are better off having, regardless of anyone's 'spiritual' ideals, so it's not necessarily better for society if you don't have the tendencies that tend to lead to beautiful children.
By the way, it's interesting that certain kinds of sexual preference are almost never criticised as 'shallow' or deprecated in any way, while there would seem to be few objective reasons to consider them less 'shallow' than a preference for physical beauty. Why is this? One example is a sexual preference for someone who is funny, someone who makes you laugh, which is actually quite a common preference too, especially in women. Why is this not 'shallow' and the preference for beauty presumed shallow?
And here at AYP, we probably won't get much criticism of sexual preference for someone who is 'spiritual' or a yogi, except maybe a wry bit from me occasionally. |
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 29 2006 2:25:27 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 30 2006 : 02:47:18 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
I have not done as much spiritual work as you, but in my imagination I was convinced that over time I would become less "shallow" in my preferences in that field.
Yes, I thought exactly the same at one time. But I've learned to presume a lot less about sexual preferences.
Does the word 'shallow' meaningfully apply to a sexual preference? When we use a value-laden word like that, what are we thinking?
[SNIP]
And here at AYP, we probably won't get much criticism of sexual preference for someone who is 'spiritual' or a yogi, except maybe a wry bit from me occasionally.
Namaskara David & All,
Adyashanti was engaged in dialog with a satsang attendee, and the guy was quizzing Adya on monogamy, along the lines of, "Well, if it's all One, and you know it - and you are Love - why would you restrict a particular expression of that love - namely sexual love - to only one person?"
(Adya is happily married, and has publicly stated the monogamous nature of that marriage, more than once.)
Adya shrugged, and said, "I dunno - conditioning, probably."
And then he went on to say something that, for me, gets to the very heart of this whole discussion:
"Enlightenment doesn't eliminate conditioning - it eliminates our unconscious attachment to our conditioning."
Enlightened people who liked chocolate before enlightenment will probably still like chocolate after enlightenment has happened in the space of that body-mind, that was formerly governed by the ego (and what is the ego, if not a temporarily swirling eddy of conditioning - stronger at times, weaker at others?)
Enlightened people who were sexually attracted to athletic bodies, or dominance, or people of their own gender, or vulnerability, or nice butts in tight jeans ---- will probably still feel the same way, after awakening / enlightenment.
I don't claim to be enlightened (another great Adya quote, "Those who claim to be enlightened --- aren't") - but have had what I would call an "awakening process of increasing intensity".
The only changes I have noticed in my sexual proclivities are:
A. Greater equanimity
Cool if it's happening (in general, in my life); cool if it's not; okay either way.
B. Greater Clarity, Concerning Conditioning
Today at lunch, I caught myself thinking about a woman at work, who I find particularly attractive - and she is admittedly the type of woman, who would be considered "hot" - er, wait - make that "ultra-hot"  in terms of society's general standards of female "attractiveness" (young, exceptionally pretty, in shape, really truly exceptionally nice body, smart, nice, genuine personal depth, consummately professional, etc.)
I kind of smiled at myself, and thought something like, "Wow, that conditioning sure runs deep, but hey, it feels good - and it's kinda fun!" - and went right back to enjoying my thoughts (not overt fantasies, but leaning in that direction).
If I could sum it up, based on the awakening experiences I've had (and understanding that ego still "gets" me at times, every day - these comments aren't from a place of spiritual ego, but from a place of simple reporting), I would say:
Awakening produces more changes on the inside (how I think and feel, including how my body feels, how I experience each moment), and less on the outside (I still eat junk food, am quite lazy in ways, can be sensitive to other people's feelings, etc.) - than I expected.
(I thought being [kinda-sorta sometimes] awake and being lazy, or being awake and being horny, were mutually exclusive .... "apparently not"!).
(And, obviously, many or all of these qualities _may_ evolve, as we each evolve, spiritually -- but it's very unlikely that they will evolve in the ways our ego / mind thinks they will, and *exceptionally* unlikely that they will evolve [for each of us] in the way anybody _else's_ mind / ego thinks they will.)
All this applies as much to sexual attraction, as to any area of life, for me (and, FYI, I've heard very similar sentiments from female yogi friends of mine - this doesn't seem to be a male-specific set of outlooks or experiences).
Namaste,
Kirtanman |
|
|
|
Lavazza
69 Posts |
Posted - Aug 30 2006 : 03:58:52 AM
|
Thanks for your reply, David.
I agree totally with your view that you canot call one preference more shallow than the other, they are preferences that is all. I have read a very interesting book by Nancy Etcoff, called "The Survival of The Prettiest", that deals with the biological explanations for sexual preferencies. For example good looks are more important in societies with a lot of parasite illnesses and less so in societies without them.
Looking for women who practice Ashtanga yoga is my best solution this far. Good looks and spiritual. Like this woman, with whom I have practiced (she is engaged, though).
http://www.siamweb.org/content/Sano...ndex_eng.php
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 30 2006 : 10:43:08 AM
|
Thanks Lavazza. Yip, she's pretty low in parasites. You should tell her this -- maybe she'll be so charmed she'll leave her fiancee for you. :)
|
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Aug 30 2006 : 12:15:22 PM
|
| Hint to all you yogis, horny or not: Telling a woman that she looks low in parasites might not get the results you're after. There are better pick-up lines...maybe try a Barry Longism: ("Hey babe, wanna fully integrate?") ("What's a personification of love doing in a place like this?") |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 30 2006 : 12:45:14 PM
|
Thanks Meg. They are great. How about also, 'Hey Babe, I could show you the end of your perennial discontent.'
No doubt, if you say something like that, you are home and dry every time without fail. The only downside is that you might have a 'follower' on your hands.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 30 2006 11:56:31 PM |
|
|
|
nearoanoke
USA
525 Posts |
Posted - Aug 30 2006 : 2:13:50 PM
|
Hi Lavazza,
I think this the search for lot of guys. girls who are good looking & spiritual.
ISKCON has a matrimonial website just for iskcon followers. You find good spiritual girls there.
http://www.vedicmarriage.com
Does anybody of you know of other sites like this?
-Near |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Aug 30 2006 : 3:31:41 PM
|
Kirtaman
quote:
"Enlightenment doesn't eliminate conditioning - it eliminates our unconscious attachment to our conditioning."
Enlightened people who liked chocolate before enlightenment will probably still like chocolate after enlightenment has happened in the space of that body-mind, that was formerly governed by the ego
Enlightened people who were sexually attracted to athletic bodies, or dominance, or people of their own gender, or vulnerability, or nice butts in tight jeans ---- will probably still feel the same way, after awakening / enlightenment.
Who will be there to have the preferences?
I think he meant that the ego that was there before to think it had preferences is no longer attached to any kind of identity. The awareness will see the body react in certain ways, but there will be no particular feelings, no thoughts about it. The awareness does not have any likes or dislikes. And everything on earth will be so fantastic - it will be vibrations or energies - the whole earth will be alive and we will love it. To see the stones and trees will be so beautiful. You would probably love a piece of steal as much as a sexy woman. It is just that our bodies are not made to make love to a piece of steal. Our bodies are made to make love with another body of opposite sex. So we will make love and rejoice in the union of male and female energies that lives in our bodies.
There will be no one there to have any preferences. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 30 2006 : 11:47:14 PM
|
Hi EMC, I am not sure a person who doesn not have preferences has ever existed, ever will exist or ever would ideally exist.
A person whose attachments are very light yes -- that is, a person for whom there is very little at stake. But that person will still prefer eating food to eating tar, driving the car properly rather than crashing it, and .... and.... and..... OK I can't think of anything else but I am sure there are others.
Kirtanman, thanks for your response. This thread has developed into several, which is kinda cool. I've always found the word 'conditioning' a bit vague. Krishnamurti seems to have used it as his version of 'Satan' (I'm being wry but not entirely joking) and I think he was one of the people who brought it into vogue.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 30 2006 11:55:28 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Addiction to raw sexuality, sex appeal and looks
