Addiction to raw sexuality, sex appeal and looks

[emc]

"The task of life on earth is to return to the undivided divine consciousness behind the brain, behind the male and female forms. That is called God realisation, the conscious re-entry or reunion with pure formless life within. - - - Only through the love of each other can they ever be united here. And that means giving up their selfishness and negativity."

That's how Barry Long puts it. No talk about ideals. No talk about blame. Just how things are. We have a "brain"/mind/ego and a "form"/body/physical manifestation that we have to come around somehow, come "behind", "kill the ego" etc etc... Whatever. I have heard so many expressions of the same idea now. Is that my ideal? No. It is just how things are. Or am I missing something important here on the basic idea?

[david_obsidian]

And David, have you ever thought of the possibility that it is in the area of sexuality you might have some emotional job to be done before you can detach from the addiction to attraction?

Thanks,  Emc,  but actually I've never been addicted to attraction at all.  Some people are like that -- they don't really have problems in this area.  Was there a reason you thought I might be addicted to attraction?

Barry Long seems betimes to present myth as given fact, ( a tendency he seems to have passed on to Eckhart Tolle,  along with the same myths),  while identifying our 'purity' with our love of truth.  If these teachers developed a little more in certain dimensions,  would they stop doing this?

I can feel the collective female victimhood, and he can feel the collective male perpetrator hood - and vice versa. A long time ago the order of the sexes was the opposite.

Well,  this is my opinion,  but you seem to be putting a heavy weight on the kinds of ideas that come from the Long/Tolle camp that I consider most dubious. Long has very specific (and I would say over-simplified,  and primitive,  and "magical") explanations of the causes of human unhappiness.  It's not just that I believe they are inaccurate,   I am not sure how healthy they all are.  You can be a judge of that for yourself.  But I would say be cautious.

That's how Barry Long puts it. No talk about ideals.  <SNIP>  Is that my ideal? No. It is just how things are.

No direct talk about ideals,  but enormous presumptions about the nature of existence and spiritual development,  and the ideals follow from that.  One of them is an ideal of a spiritually-developed person not having looks as a factor in their sexual attractions.

[Anthem]

quote:After all, isn't it so that this world was created to give us a ride? We have all been a part of creating EVERYTHING on earth in order to be able to EXPERIENCE something else than a constant loving. Getting a feeling of being separated from God is the prerequisit to be able to feel the enormous kick when merged again. In order to be able to feel LOVE and TRUTH "for the first time" (which is actually a RE-cognition, since that was our natural state before) we invented a physical game on earth where we could experience the exact opposite. Non-love. Therefore all miserys on earth are a blessing! And I have given that gift to myself.

Hi EMC,

I think this is a great insight that you have described above and I have always felt the same way. Is this something you read somewhere that elaborates on this idea or is it something that you have come to know intuitively?

thanks,

A

[emc]

Thank you for your concern, David. What if I use Yoganis words instead?

"A deep desire we all have is to merge permanently with
the ecstasy contained in this thing called "sex.

Tantra means "woven together," or "two fullnesses as one." It means
the same as yoga really, with some intimacy added. Tantra recognizes
from the start that there are two poles to be ecstatically merged for
enlightenment to occur – father heaven and mother earth, masculine
and feminine energies, shiva and shakti, yin and yang – and that
these two poles are contained in us, in our nervous system.

For
if we do not get a handle on the huge flows of prana involved in the
sex act, we may find that we are limited in what we can accomplish
spiritually in our nervous system. This does not mean we have to
entertain the dreaded "C" word (celibacy). It does mean we will
consider some intelligent methods to bring our sexual activities more
in line with our spiritual aspirations. In fact, you may be surprised
to find that intelligent spiritual sex can be far more enjoyable than
the run-of-the-mill kind of sex which is sometimes characterized by the
words, "Wham, bam, thank you Ma'am."

We have obsessions, strong emotional attachments relating to sex.
Let's remind ourselves that we are coming to the bed for a higher
purpose in lovemaking, and let's use bhakti to direct our sexual
obsessions to that.

etc etc... It was Yoganis words that gave me thoughts about this topic. To me it doesn't matter from where I get pushes to greater inward attention. I get immediate response in my deepest knowing when I read something that is right for me to hear in the moment. I do not go into any mind-judgement of different persons trying to communicate Truth. I have gotten important insights from Long, Osho, The Toltecs, Tarot cards, the pop groups System of a Down and Lucky People Center International, Yogani, people at this forum, friends, whatever. I feel that most of what I hear is the same thing basically. And I respond with deep breathing, tears or just strong "knowing" that what I hear or read is true.  As long as I listen inwards I am safe, always! =)

My thoughts about your sexual situation was this sentence: "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."

I do not know if you call yourself realized or enlightened yet. If you do it is interesting. If you don't I get a feeling of something behind this sentence. Your next reply contained the sentence: "Thanks, Emc, but actually I've never been addicted to attraction at all.", which gave me another hint that either we totally miss each others message, or you have something within you that you do not want to recognize. But I do not know. I only know I do not react with my ordinary "truth"-reactions when I read your replies. I react with emotionality which usually is triggered by emotionality... And emotionality covers deep truths about our selves.

This sensitivity has chocked my partner several times. He can come home and be happy and loving. But if I respond to that with coldness, distress, restlessness, anxiety or anger it usually takes a minor quarrel before it turns out he has not been honest or true to me during the day, carrying a small fear that "if he told me I would dislike what I heard". So he keeps silent. Once it took very long to find out what it was. It went so far that we went to bed and I just couldn't fall asleep. I started to get scared of the darkness. And it was extremely odd, so I said "What on earth? Am I scared of the darkness suddenly? Is this really my fear?" He then finally said "Ooops, you must be feeling my fear... something happened today that I haven't told you". I have noticed it is very difficult to lie to me nowadays. I will immediately feel that something is wrong. But this mostly goes for those close to me.

Anthem, I have both read it and experienced it. The site I saw it on was a dutch site, someone channeling things from Jeshua.

http://www.jeshua.net/

"From ego to heart". I recognize my own spiritual journey very much in those descriptions.

[david_obsidian]

I do not know if you call yourself realized or enlightened yet. If you do it is interesting. If you don't I get a feeling of something behind this sentence.

I would never call myself those things, and it isn't false modesty. To call oneself those things is to open oneself up to all sorts of things which are nasty for both oneself and others,  such as being mythologized/put up on a pedestal and being believed to be always making sense.  

This thread started with your looking for help.  I've given you my honest best,  which includes some opinions that some of your ideas might be a bit 'off' and leading you a bit astray,  and coming from a source whom you highly regard, whose ideas are a bit 'off' betimes too.  Perhaps that is enough for you to drive you out of your 'truth reactions'?

There are different ways to help people.  Meg, Weaver, Andrew and I worked from different angles according to our dispositions.  Maybe you can't find what I said helpful,  but I hope you got enough out of the others that you are still 'ahead' from coming here today.  

[sadhak]

quote:Originally posted by david_obsidian



This thread started with your looking for help.  

Butting in on this thread... But David, each thread begins with someone apparently seeking help... each person participating may not necessarily be only in an 'advisory' position, or even claim capacity for that. Doesn't each person participating in each thread get as much 'helped' as 'help'... and when insights of different kinds hit a person, the roles get reversed quite often, quite easily.

[david_obsidian]

Sadhak,  yes,  of course.  Who says otherwise?

[emc]

quote:  I've given you my honest best,  which includes some opinions that some of your ideas might be a bit 'off' and leading you a bit astray,  and coming from a source whom you highly regard, whose ideas are a bit 'off' betimes too.

Are you referring to Yogani here?

[david_obsidian]

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to Barry Long.

I don't have any issues with the stuff you quote from Yogani.  The following kind of stuff is a little different from what Yogani said and doesn't follow from it.

http://www.barrylong.org/statements/makinglove.shtml

Woman's basic unhappiness, her perennial discontent, is because man
can no longer reach her physically. Her emotional excess, depressions, tearful frustrations, even premenstrual tension and the conditions leading to hysterectomy and other uterine problems, are due to man's sexual failure to gather or release in lovemaking her finest, fundamental, female energies.
...
All men, without exception, are sex obsessed.
...
Man has failed to serve love and failed physically to serve woman, who
is the personification of love.
...
The penalty for man is woman's tyrannous emotionality.
...
Man in his selfishness taught woman to be selfish.
...
A woman who has not yet seen herself being the fiendess has not yet
connected with her love.

I was saying I have significant reservations about this kind of stuff,  including on the bits that seem to have rubbed off on Eckhart Tolle.  Maybe it's harmless,  but I'm not so sure.  But I feel very certain it's inaccurate.

Barry Long is full of ideas.  I'm not so sure about the quality-control,  that's all.  Did he,  maybe like Krishnamurti and others,  confuse the business of having some position beyond the mind,  with the accuracy of his mind?

[Manipura]

Yes, I have to say that this woman's basic unhappiness, when it appears, has nothing to do with the failures of any man.  And my unfortunate selfishness is likewise my own doing, not a byproduct of some man's failure to serve me.  The arrogance!  I disagree, David - this stuff is not harmless.  Barry Long seems to create the very rift that he then offers to heal.

[emc]

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.

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. Terms and words contain different associations for all persons. That is why communication is among the most difficult things.

I try to look at the general pattern of information I get and combine it with my own experiences. In the end nothing is logic, everything is paradox and I realize that there is actually nothing to understand, really. When Being, every one is smoked salmon anyway. =)

I have decided to... WAIT! And let my inner voice tell my body what is right when I meat my partner on Saturday. If my legs starts walking the other direction I won't argue. Lately I have found out that that is the easiest way to find my way around unknown areas in town. I just let my legs walk and they always lead me right to the spot I had in mind! =)

Trust. That everything will be okey. That life will take care of me. That whatever happens I will just continue to float...

LOVE to you all!

[david_obsidian]

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!  

[emc]

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]

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.  

[emc]

Thank you for your thoughts, David. They help me sort things out.

Any one else that understands what Yogani means by "dirt"?