|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
 Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 12:19:08 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by emc
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.
Hi & Namaste EMC,
Ultimately you're correct, and Adya would likely agree with you -- just as he would likely agree with me (not that either of those likelihoods matters, of course.  ) -- for we are essentially saying the same thing, and experiencing the consciousness afficianado's ongoing challenge: attempting to express the inexpressible.
There is either no Self (see: The Buddha) or only the Self (see: Ramana Maharshi) - two ways of saying the same thing (and apologies if I wasn't clear in my expression of that same thing in the post to which you are responding.)
Maybe this (the following) will help clear up what I am intending to say - and (FYI), I trust / experience the statement as true, based in my trust and experience of Adyashanti's realization, and my own partial experience in that same direction:
"Sense of self is an operational necessity."
--Adyashanti
At his last Satsang in Palo Alto, CA in early August (please see www.adyashanti.org if interested in Adya and his teachings), Adya clarified that the statement above does *not* mean there's a self there - but does mean there is a "sense of self" - including after realization.
That's what I was referring to, as far as "after enlightenment".
Yes, there's recognition / awareness / beingness of no one being there - yet there's *also* the sense of self that drives its car, answers when its name is called, might enjoy eating fritos from time to time (and knows where to put them ...), and just possibly might be aroused by a nice butt in tight jeans, or a warm, caring and spiritual heart (or both, hopefully without parasites!   ).
A satsang attendee once asked Adya about how to deal with the "lower" energies, such as anger, sadness and lust.
His response?
"Many people think enlightenment is the state of being free from being human; it is actually the awareness of our true nature, which enables us to be fully human."
As Yogani might say, "Like that".
Peace & Namaste,
Kirtanman |
 |
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 12:26:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by meg
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?")
Hey Hey & Namaste, David & Meg,
I got my first, genuine AYP *LOL* from the parasite comments!
(Thanks!)
I usually just recite the sloka from the Vijnanbhairava Tantra that outlines the woman's obligation to serve my [male] Tantric evolution -- works great with the college chicks ("Ooh, I love Rimbaud! French is so sexy!")
Cheers & Namaste,
Kirtanman |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 12:50:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
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.
Howdy & Namaste David,
Getting old can be amusing (me, not you! ) - when I first read "Satan", I thought you had written "Satori" - and spent a few befuzzled moments, until I cleaned my reading glasses.
Yeah, I get your point, and Krishnamurti's.
Personally (as the oscillating conglomeration of conditioning typing this response ... ), I like the term "conditioning" *because* it's so non-specific (aka vague) - there's not much that the term doesn't cover, which helps bring it full-circle back into the realm of accuracy.
Vis a vis this thread, for instance.
Not only my personal sense of sexual attraction, but also my writing style, and the tone of my response(s), are driven by .... conditioning:
Biological [current], genetic [longer term, closer to fundamental, for this body-mind], mental, emotional, familial (my family of origin, extended family), social (greater social world, beyond family), historical [life experiences], socio-historical [cultural - i.e. I tend to notice breasts, because I have learned "breast focus" (from a very early age, as an American male guy dude) as a member of this society and culture], spiritual [what is, or is not "enlightened" or "yogically correct" in this situation? I don't let those thoughts govern my behavior, but there's certainly a pull ....], karmic [whatever exactly *that* means], egoic [ditto], gender-based, age-based / generational, geographical [nationality, and even state-coast], neurophysiological [does mega-ecstasy affect my outlook and behavior? Why yes, it does ....] etc. etc. ETC, etc.
And yes, the above paragraph might seem exceptionally "Kirtanman-ish" - but it's with a purpose (to outline how much we tend to function as expressions of conditioning, nearly 100% of the time.
It really boils down to "who's driving?"
If it's the ego - we're a mass of conditioning, as illustrated above.
If it's the One, that same conditioning may be expressing, but as an expression of the One, and *not* as the mass of conditioning.
One can munch Fritos completely unconsciously:
(Yum, Frito .... oh, man, I shouldn't be eating these! Crap, I need to get back to work. I gained three pounds - why am I eating Fritos! Ramana wouldn't eat Fritos. I suck, yogically. Maybe I should go vegan. Hey, wow, she has a nice butt ...")
Or consciously:
("Yum!") [crunch, crunch, snorf, swallow, repeat]
Hence my sense of affinitude with the term "conditioning".
But hey, that's just me.
Or not.
Cheers & Namaste,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 11:47:39 AM
|
there's not much that the term doesn't cover, which helps bring it full-circle back into the realm of accuracy
Fair enough! It looks like it means to you the sum total of what makes you tick, including genetics and biology. I've no issues with that language. J Krishnamurti's use of language was different -- whatever conditioning was to him, he seemed to think (mistakenly I believe) that he didn't have it. And so his followers tend to idealize freedom from conditioning.... I'm not sure where all that is going because I think there are significant mistakes there....
So there you have it. (And K thinks he doesn't!)
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 31 2006 3:01:33 PM |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 11:53:01 AM
|
So if I would get enlightened I would still have my inability to attract men due to "wrong biological equipment to trigger the conditioned response from a male", but I will have no attachment to it? My ego would still be functioning as a like-dislike master and doom itself out in the sex-competition as a "non-sexy but girl", but I will just be aware of it and just accept it?
Boring. |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 12:39:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by emc
So if I would get enlightened I would still have my inability to attract men due to "wrong biological equipment to trigger the conditioned response from a male", but I will have no attachment to it? My ego would still be functioning as a like-dislike master and doom itself out in the sex-competition as a "non-sexy but girl", but I will just be aware of it and just accept it?
Boring.
It's not as though the ego is going to be satisfied forever. It sometimes gets what it wants, and in youth it more often gets it than in later years. But eventually the ego's going to have to bite the bullet in the looks department, as all nice butts go south. An 80-yr-old butt in jeans is...(well, you know). We're just not 'conditioned', as they say, to get aroused by sag. The non-preferential enlightened state that you're talking about, E, is the ultimate enlightened state, ie, after death. Then and only then will we have no preferences for one thing vs. another, as all will (presumably?) be one. But on this side of the grave, while there is still steel and flesh to choose from, we choose to cozy up to flesh. I don't see enlightenment as a cosmic sex change operation, where we go in liking blonde, blue-eyed hunks and come out liking large, hairy-knuckled bald men. Do you? Would you be able to look past your egoic preferences and be with a guy with for whom you had zero sexual attraction?
Let's face it - there are partners with whom we have good sexual energy, and those with whom we do not. As we all know, it's based less upon physical attraction than something else - who knows what - but that which really turns us on has nothing to do with looks or conditioning. It's our animal instinct, and when it happens (seldom), there's no such thing as "wrong biological equipment", because whatever your partner's got, and whatever you've got, is right. This coupling won't necessarily be the best long-term partnership, as it's based predominantly upon sexual compatibility and nothing else. So choose wisely, ye sons and daughters - great sex is but a piece of the pie. But to be with an enlightened man with whom there is no sexual charge? As you say, bo-ring. |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 1:19:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by emc
So if I would get enlightened I would still have my inability to attract men due to "wrong biological equipment to trigger the conditioned response from a male", but I will have no attachment to it? My ego would still be functioning as a like-dislike master and doom itself out in the sex-competition as a "non-sexy but girl", but I will just be aware of it and just accept it?
Boring.
Sorry, don't know what will happen to you when you are enlightened.
May be you will be able to attract men at your will ...
but would you really want to be able do that ?
And if you would have the best most attractive equipment,
would you be happy that every guy turns around and chases after you ?
Ok, for me it would indeed be flattering if every girl turns around
and admires me, but then I may feel that I have to please every girl,
and that would soon a bit of a burden 
|
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 1:55:55 PM
|
quote:
So if I would get enlightened I would still have my inability to attract men due to "wrong biological equipment to trigger the conditioned response from a male", but I will have no attachment to it?
Hi EMC,
I just like replying to your posts I guess, you always ask great questions!
What comes to mind first is that society has conditioned you to see certain attributes that some people possess as ultimately attractive. What these attributes are today are different than what they were in the 50s and different again from what they were in ancient Greece. I have a male friend who women seem to think is outstandingly good-looking yet he has a penchant for heavier women, God-bless him!
So what am I saying? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, your eye beholds your own beauty or not. They way I see attachment evolving in this situation is to no longer be attached to the idea of what you think others will find attractive and at the same time, no longer being "attached" to the set-frame work in your mind that you have always used to define beauty or what you are attracted to. Haven't you been strangely attracted to someone who didn't fit your "ideal" frame-work for beauty before? I know I have.
quote:
My ego would still be functioning as a like-dislike master and doom itself out in the sex-competition as a "non-sexy but girl", but I will just be aware of it and just accept it?
Who knows for sure, but I suspect you won't be emotionally involved in it. It will exist for others but won't affect your life in one way or another. Other far more wonderful and enjoyable things will enter your life and keep you entertained!
A
|
Edited by - Anthem on Sep 01 2006 12:41:20 PM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 3:09:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
Other far more wonderful and enjoyable things will enter your life and keep you entertained!
Great point, Andrew - I think this is the key. So much to be interested in, so little time! |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 4:25:55 PM
|
Anthem, I totally agree with you. I hope you understand that it was a rethorical question from me. Logically, your answers could also be applicated on mens sexual drive-preferences, then. If it goes for dislikes, it goes for likes as well...
One will no longer be attached to the "set-frame work in your mind that you have always used to define beauty or what you are attracted to". - - - "I suspect you won't be emotionally involved in it. It will exist for others but won't affect your life in one way or another."
So... sexy women will not affect one's life any longer whether you are a man liking them or a woman disliking them... That's what I believe as well. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2006 : 5:10:58 PM
|
Anthem/EMC said:
no longer being "attached" to the set-frame work in your mind that you have always used to define beauty or what you are attracted to
Well, I'm not sure what "attached" means but in the sense I see it normally being used, it means being disturbed if something is being taken away or is inaccessible. Well, I for one am already not attached to a framework in my mind that I have always used to define beauty or what I am attracted to. Neither has such a framework ever been entirely fixed, either for me or my society, as Anthem has indicated using the examples of ancient Greece or the 1950s. If I wake up in the morning finding Marilyn Monroe my ideal, I'm not going to be even slightly upset about it. So I'm not so sure what 'enlightenment' is supposed to be producing here, if I already have it.....
|
|
|
|
Lavazza
69 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2006 : 08:35:43 AM
|
Anthem 11:
I do not agree. The most important stuff is more or less eternal. Signs of health, youth and fertilility are always attractive and have never been out of style. The changes in taste and style over the centuries have been marginal and have never been as important as health, youth and fertility.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2006 : 10:17:34 AM
|
The changes in taste and style over the centuries have been marginal and have never been as important as health, youth and fertility.
Yes, Lavazza, you are right. And you can add 'beauty' to the list. There are changes in style and fashion, but, contrary to various canards there is in fact a remarkable cross-cultural and cross-historical underlying consistency in what is found to be a physically beautiful person.
|
|
|
|
Lavazza
69 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2006 : 11:17:18 AM
|
David:
To me, beauty is a sign of youth, health and fertility. "Parasite free", you know.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2006 : 12:04:17 PM
|
Well, there are 'beauty' things that don't seem to be directly related to health at all. They seem to be just about.... well, beauty. An example is high cheekbones.
|
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2006 : 12:43:31 PM
|
| My understanding is that most (if not all) cultures define beauty as that which moves away from the bestial; that is, we favor non-animal characteristics. Thus the refined characteristics in Greek statues (which were also painted, to emphasize their flawless beauty), and the soft (ie, no sharp angles) angelic features of Renaissance art. Our culture takes is one step further, favoring extreme youth as the paradigm of beauty. I disagree with you, Lavazza, that health (or the appearance thereof) is favored in women, as the ideal seems to be over-thin bodies, sometimes bordering on the anorexic. Not good breeding material. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2006 : 1:04:08 PM
|
Meg, I agree with you that it isn't just about health and immediate fertility. But I don't agree with the theory that it is just about being different from beasts either. It's a very complex affair that can't be reduced easily.
Let's face it, we humans find certain animals more attractive, more physically beautiful than others, and the same indeed for plants. We tend to prefer the look of a jade plant to cabbages, for whatever complex reasons apply.
Most people can identify what they consider a beautiful horse, and you'll find a lot of commonality between what people choose as the most beautiful horse out of an array of horses. Likewise, almost all human beings I believe find the horse more beautiful than the hyena or the warthog.
Then aesthetic attractveness and 'physical sexual attractivenss' are related but not identical either.
A note on skinniness -- there is the advertising ideal and then human attraction and they are related but not in general the same. A fashion model has the purpose of advertising and is in general a clothes-rack, not necessarily good breeding material and not identical to what the average man finds attractive.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Sep 04 2006 1:04:47 PM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2006 : 2:24:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Meg, I agree with you that it isn't just about health and immediate fertility. But I don't agree with the theory that it is just about being different from beasts either. It's a very complex affair that can't be reduced easily.
It's complex, fer sher. But I do that think physiognomy is most attractive when it's non-animal in appearance. I haven't spent hours pondering this, so you may be able to convince me otherwise. But it makes sense to me that the ideal of beauty leans away from the more brute characteristics of animals. We all think Lassie is (was) cute, and we melt over a kitten, but we wouldn't necessarily want a partner to resemble either one.
You're right that the advertising ideal is contrary to the 'real person' ideal. I don't know too many people who are attracted to the ultra-skinny models in magazines. But it is our cultural ideal, for whatever reason. Who gets to decide these things? And why are they perpetuated....makes me want to eat a hot fudge banana sundae. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2006 : 6:07:33 PM
|
You're right that the advertising ideal is contrary to the 'real person' ideal. I don't know too many people who are attracted to the ultra-skinny models in magazines.
Now this is true and surely valuable for women to know.
Who gets to decide these things? And why are they perpetuated....makes me want to eat a hot fudge banana sundae.
No-one gets to decide them. And that's partly why their perpetuation cannot be stopped. Women are just too interested in beauty.
There's also something of a myth that 'men' are driving this. Not true. Most men don't give a damn about fashion magazines, or even women's fashions. If you check out women's-beauty-centered advertising, I think you'll find 90% of it is actually directed towards women. Only women and gay men really get into women's fashions; if a woman is a year or two out of fashion, only fashion professionals, other women, and a certain number of gay men will have a clue . Women are driving the fashhion and beauty industry because so many women are extremely enthusiastic about being beautiful. They love it, like so many men love cool cars and sports. Sure, attracting men is part of it, but not the whole story. Many women just love being as beautiful and/or as fashionable as they can be, and, if, in the morning every man (and woman) in the world lost sexual interest in women, so there would be no person to attract with it, the womans-beauty industry would still thrive.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Sep 04 2006 7:43:31 PM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Sep 05 2006 : 01:02:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Only women and gay men really get into women's fashions; if a woman is a year out of fashion, only fashion professionals, other women, and gay men will have a clue .
Now there's a generalization for you! Barry would be proud. Don't you know that ALL generalizations are false? <--- (including that one?) I happen to know a hetero guy who's a fashionista, and he'll size a person up in a split second just by the shoes they're wearing.
quote:
if, in the morning every man (and woman) in the world lost sexual interest in women, so there would be no person to attract with it, the womans-beauty industry would still thrive.
No argument from me there. God knows why we do it. Most women are as interested in the kind of car a guy drives as the guy is interested in the label she's wearing. FWIW, I don't think too many women are interested in the GQ kind of glamour guy, either. Those kind of good looks can be pretty dull. It's interesting that the glam mags present idealized images of men and women which hugely influence our identities within the culture, and yet our personal preferences tend toward a more relaxed, parasitic version of that ideal. |
|
|
|
Lavazza
69 Posts |
Posted - Sep 05 2006 : 03:39:25 AM
|
Contrary to popular ideas, fashion models are curvy in a fertility related manner. The hip-to-waist ratio for fashion models is 0,70-0,72 and for Playboy models 0,69 to 0,71. Even Twiggy had a hip-to-waist ratio of 0,72.
The most of women coming to fertility treatment have hip-to-waist ratios above 0,90.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 05 2006 : 11:04:09 AM
|
Hi Lavazza, that's interesting but what I want to hear is what is the waist-to-hip ratio of women not coming in for fertility treatment.... do you know what it is?
Now there's a generalization for you! Barry would be proud.
No he wouldn't be proud of it. It's a light-hearted, joking generalization about a small matter. It's not a generalization delivered from a mile-high god-pedestal on matters cosmic, to be swallowed whole and used as a basis for living by a swarm of devotees. As Barry Long's website says, "'I speak only of love, life, truth, death and God.'" No, Barry long would not be proud of this little generalization.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Sep 05 2006 12:17:35 PM |
|
|
|
Lavazza
69 Posts |
Posted - Sep 05 2006 : 1:02:49 PM
|
I do not get it.
I am just relating info from the book "The Survival of the Prettiest", hopefully correctly, I do not have the book at hand right now, and the research related in the book might have been critisized later on.
Women of many different forms have babies, if that is what you are getting at.
I am interested what reasons are plausible for so many men wanting to make babies with a smaller number of women who have certain characteristics: Is it cultural? Or is more connected to biology/fertility?
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 05 2006 : 1:44:42 PM
|
I am just relating info from the book "The Survival of the Prettiest", hopefully correctly, I do not have the book at hand right now, and the research related in the book might have been critisized later on.
I wasn't criticising it myself. Just trying to get a picture that would nicely complete the picture. A low waist-to-hip ratio for models; a high one for infertile women. The big obvious question now is, what is it for ordinary (fertile) women? If you don't have the statistic, you can't help me. I'm not putting your story down, on the contrary, I'm interested and greedy for more if available.
There's more here to confirm what you said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist_Hip_Ratio
I looked around at some sites, but frustratingly, most of the articles I have seen are leaving out the obvious -- what is the average waist-hip ratio for a woman?
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Sep 05 2006 4:11:46 PM |
|
|
|
alan
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - Sep 05 2006 : 4:51:04 PM
|
MMM...Ugh..Ahhh..Yeahhh...MMMM...Oooh..Aahhh..Yeahhh..Ugh...Rrrrr!!!!
Just a few bestial sounds for your raw sexuality entertainment |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Addiction to raw sexuality, sex appeal and looks
