Celibacy

[xexon]

Religion puts great emphasis on this so called virtue. Seldom has anyone been able to make it work without creating a perversion somewhere else.

You can't just say no. Its not a matter of will power.

Celibacy is a result, not a technique.

True celibacy only occurs when the desire itself has been unplugged. When you truly indentify with your spiritual higher self, the idea of gender evaporates, as does the attraction to it.

The next best path is to transmute the energy into another channel, and this is what several religions attempt to do.

Discuss.



x

[tikoo]

i know some train kids vow celibacy . what happens when you get a baby ? no more hopping grainers . little pat , tho , went got a vasectomy . but then kiki kate who loved him most inherited 20,000 bucks and wanted some land and a baby .

[McLeodGanja]

I've tried it. 3 months is my record. It gets easier after the first few weeks, you really have to discipline your mind not to think about it. You need to get into a regular sleeping rhythm and eat properly. It just takes one restless night and next thing you are past the point of no return. It is good to eat lentils - monks have been known to eat lentils because it helps to lower your sexual drive. I practise it and smoke cannabis for exploring lucid dreams and astral projection, but I haven't for some time, my work schedule and stress and stuff means that I get a bit randy too often.

[Okiefreak]

And what's the point of celibacy?

[BlackBillBlake]

And what's the point of celibacy?
Freedom would be the real point. Freedom from entanglement.

But usually, its not something that comes to people from within, but because of external rules etc - as in the case of catholic clergy.

I don't think it's a 'virtue' - inplicit in that would be the idea that sex is somehow wrong or 'sinful'.

I am in agreement with xexon on this - the more you move out of the ego consciousness and into a spiritual consciousness, the less pull the sex impulse has, the less important it seems.

Probably age is a factor too - as one gets older there is a natural decline in sexual energy - and to be honest, it's a bit sad when you see men in their 60's who are still totally hooked on it and on the 'virility' game.

[japheth]

This is probably going to sound real stupid , but why do most religions preach celibacy when God himself commanded Adam and Eve to go forth and mulitply and replenish the Earth.....kinda goes against being celibate to have sex and make babies ?

[xexon]

Religious celibacy is based upon imitation, as are most things in religion.

They seek to become more godlike by imitating those who WERE godlike. And thats about as far as they'll get on the path. A cheap imitation.

Celibacy is admired because it is percieved to be an act of willpower. In reality, true celibacy requires no willpower, for the reasons I stated above.

I think its wrong to impose celibacy on a priest, a seeker, or anyone else. Its something that has to unfold naturally. Quit feeding the energy, it goes into remission on its own. You've undergone an inner transformation.

Force it by your will, its like a bull riding competition. It will be a constant struggle to maintain your balance.



x

[McLeodGanja]

Actually once you manage to go without jerking off (or fucking) for about 1 month, 6 weeks, you start to become remarkably balanced I assure you.

[radareyes]

Religious celibacy is based upon imitation, as are most things in religion.

They seek to become more godlike by imitating those who WERE godlike. And thats about as far as they'll get on the path. A cheap imitation.

Celibacy is admired because it is percieved to be an act of willpower. In reality, true celibacy requires no willpower, for the reasons I stated above.

I think its wrong to impose celibacy on a priest, a seeker, or anyone else. Its something that has to unfold naturally. Quit feeding the energy, it goes into remission on its own. You've undergone an inner transformation.

Force it by your will, its like a bull riding competition. It will be a constant struggle to maintain your balance.


These are excellent points, and they raise a fascinating question: to what degree can spiritual development be facilitated by acts of willpower, restraint, or adherence to a structural framework? Clearly, unless the spiritual aspirant in question has a very unique path (Eckhart Tolle for instance, who realized enlightenment without even having heard of it), there is always some element of conscious intent involved. For example, a Zen monk relies on a particular technique (e.g. hara awareness) in order to transcend ego identification. Ultimately however, as with any technique, it's a case of utilizing effort in order to transcend effort -- the classic spiritual paradox. In essence, how is this any different from relying upon willpower to remain celibate?

It seems to me that the only truly natural unfolding process occurs following self-realization. Everything else has an element of contrivance involved.

So, ultimately, I agree with you Xexon -- authentic celibacy unfolds naturally. However, the catalysts that precipitate this natural unfoldment would almost always involve the exertion of willpower.

Travis

[xexon]

I recall a story from somewhere...about young seekers being like young trees. The need a fence around them in the beginning. But as they grow, you can take the fence away and they will stand on their own.

The idea must evolve on a mental level before it breeches the surface into physical action. You must build a mental framework to navigate with until you can see on your own.

Its only an exercise of willpower if you force it. If you approach it as one gently correcting the rudder on a ship, the passengers won't even notice. :)



x

[radareyes]

I recall a story from somewhere...about young seekers being like young trees. The need a fence around them in the beginning. But as they grow, you can take the fence away and they will stand on their own.

The idea must evolve on a mental level before it breeches the surface into physical action. You must build a mental framework to navigate with until you can see on your own.

Its only an exercise of willpower if you force it. If you approach it as one gently correcting the rudder on a ship, the passengers won't even notice. :)


Your story is a good metaphor for the type of "structural dependency" I was referring to initially. However, it doesn't really address any of my points, because the fence around the young trees could easily be analagous to exercising restraint in order to remain celibate. After the "trees grow", the individual could begin to experience an authentic detachment from their sexual impulses, or like you said initially, they could discover that the energy is being transmuted naturally.

As far as your assertion that willpower implies an act of "forcing it", I would definitely have to disagree. How is gently correcting the rudder of our proverbial ship not consistent with an act of willpower? You're simply quantifying the magnitude of the willpower being exerted.

Think about it this way: let's say I'm a person who's just been introduced to the idea of celibacy as a way to supplement my spiritual path. What would you recommend that I do in order to become "truly celibate"? If your answer involves any type of technique, practice, or methodological approach, then willpower must be involved. Like I said earlier, this is ultimately the same phenomenon as can be found in any spiritual practice: in some way, shape or form, effort (willpower) is being used to transcend effort.

Actually, there's a great metaphor for this phenomenon that I recall. It's like launching a space shuttle into outer space. In order to overcome the influence of earth's gravity (ego-identification), a space shuttle (spiritual aspirant) requires booster rockets (effort) in the initial phases of its journey. Upon crossing the outer atmosphere and reaching outer space (spirit), however, these rockets are jettisoned. Just as the shuttle is no longer dependent upon booster rockets, the individual is no longer dependent upon effort in order to experience spiritual communion -- or in this case, authentic celibacy.

Travis

[xexon]

The mind is the sole obstacle in the realization of "God".

Whatever path you choose to move it out of the way will have to employ willpower, because in the beginning, the mind is all you have to see with. You have to speak it's language. So the fence implies protection rather than restraint. Protection from outside forces, rather than the restraint of inner ones.

Things that now require willpower will be automatic later. Its because as you progress down a path and your perceptions widen, you learn to navigate better. You avoid obstacles for the simple fact you can see better than you used to.

Sure, you have freewill to run off the road, but if you can see the dangers in doing so, would you not be more inclined to stay on the straight and narrow?

Most people don't see very well. Got the world in their eye.

As for celibacy to supplement a spiritual path, depends on the individual. Its not going to work for most for the simple reason they're not done with the world yet. The attractions are too strong.

You have to come to a point where they begin to fall away. Then an attempt at celibacy might work. Like flight, there might be a few crash and burns before you become comfortable in that place.



x

[radareyes]

The mind is the sole obstacle in the realization of "God".

Whatever path you choose to move it out of the way will have to employ willpower, because in the beginning, the mind is all you have to see with. You have to speak it's language. So the fence implies protection rather than restraint. Protection from outside forces, rather than the restraint of inner ones.

Things that now require willpower will be automatic later. Its because as you progress down a path and your perceptions widen, you learn to navigate better. You avoid obstacles for the simple fact you can see better than you used to.

This viewpoint only takes into account the vertical dimension of spiritual growth, when in actuality spiritual growth encompasses both a vertical and horizontal dimension (and I'm speaking of dimensions as they would be represented on a sheet of graph paper, not as in the 4th, 5th, and 114th dimensions). Yes, one's perceptions are enhanced by higher consciousness. However, unless ego-identification has been entirely transcended, those enhanced perceptions must now be applied to more subtle aspects of one's being, which requires a greater degree of impeccability and commitment then was required at earlier stages of the path. At lower levels of consciousness, a spiritual aspirant can get away with processing out only the fragmented aspect of their being that they happen to be identified with at the time. At later stages, they have inevitably undergone an intense process of integrating previously disparate elements of their psyche. As a result, they're required to devote greater and greater portions of their being to the process of purification, culminating ultimately with complete relinquishment of ego-identification. Therefore, there are elements of both greater and reduced difficulty inherent in spiritual development.


Sure, you have freewill to run off the road, but if you can see the dangers in doing so, would you not be more inclined to stay on the straight and narrow?

No, because awareness of "dangers" (which are all ultimately illusory) is fear-based, and fear ceases to be an effective motivating factor at higher levels of consciousness. All growth must ultimately be based on a consciously surrendering mentality (towards motivation) rather than a compulsion dictated by fear (away-from motivation). Not only is willpower important at later stages of the path, it's absolutely essential.


Most people don't see very well. Got the world in their eye.

As for celibacy to supplement a spiritual path, depends on the individual. Its not going to work for most for the simple reason they're not done with the world yet. The attractions are too strong.

You have to come to a point where they begin to fall away. Then an attempt at celibacy might work. Like flight, there might be a few crash and burns before you become comfortable in that place.


I agree on all of this. However, you must admit that these statements are somewhat less extreme then your initial ones. You are essentially conceding here that willpower and celibacy aren't mutually exclusive, which was all I was trying to point out.

Travis

[xexon]

I don't wish to get into deep waters over this. I strive to be simple as possible so that all can follow along.

When discussion turns into displays of mental horsepower, it creates a club of exclusivity that will only be attractive to scholars. I leave that to religion.

I want to be understood. The only way this is possible is through the simplicity that we all share on some level. Not many souls can have their mind in the clouds, but we all share the earth beneath our feet, so this is where I can be found.

A dirt farmer. Sowing a few ideas that might challenge your idea of things.



x

[McLeodGanja]

Fair comments, but if we all understood each other perfectly then what would be the point in talking about anything. I prefer to dress up what I am essentially saying in poetic expression, even if the way I say it then completely transcends the initial meaning altogether.

[radareyes]

I don't wish to get into deep waters over this. I strive to be simple as possible so that all can follow along.

As you yourself have pointed out on multiple occasions, by definition not everyone can follow along. As you put it most recently, they simply have too much "world in their eye".


When discussion turns into displays of mental horsepower, it creates a club of exclusivity that will only be attractive to scholars. I leave that to religion.

I'm no scholar, and I'm sorry if my post seemed pretentious or over-intellectualized. Honestly, I write almost exclusively stream of consciousness, and was only attempting to illustrate a very fundamental principle of spiritual growth. It's quite possible that my tendency towards verbosity undermined my intentions, and if that's the case, then I apologize. However, I can't help but notice that many of your responses to the issues I raise are subtly evasive. Perhaps you are avoiding an admission of your lack of understanding by accusing me of "displays of mental horsepower".


I want to be understood. The only way this is possible is through the simplicity that we all share on some level. Not many souls can have their mind in the clouds, but we all share the earth beneath our feet, so this is where I can be found.

A dirt farmer. Sowing a few ideas that might challenge your idea of things.

I'm always thrilled to have my ideas challenged. Can you say the same?


Travis

[xexon]

I often speak in generalizations. The reason being that much of what I talk about is individual to the observer. My experience with something is likely to be different than yours. Discussion helps us to compare notes.

I have no tongue for debate. Its an exercise of the mind and not the spirit.

Having ideas challenged is one thing, but there are spiritual truths which never change. Religions come and go as do their attempts at explanation of things. But in the end, they all discuss a handful of simple truths.

I try to keep it at that level where the waters run clear. When the mind toys with them, it becomes dirty and unclear.

I can reduce the teachings of Jesus to a 100 words. What future would Christianity have with people like me walking around?

None, I hope. :)


x

[radareyes]

I often speak in generalizations. The reason being that much of what I talk about is individual to the observer. My experience with something is likely to be different than yours. Discussion helps us to compare notes.

Then why dismiss my own experiences (which I shared in my earlier posts) with an assumption? It seems to me that such an act could only be indicative of an ego that's unwilling to be exposed to a viewpoint that's potentially threatening to its stability (and of course, an exposed ego can only be a good thing :)).


I have no tongue for debate. Its an exercise of the mind and not the spirit.

That all depends on the intentions of the debators. If ego-aggrandizement through "outwitting" their "opponent" is the objective, then yes, debates are bound by conceptualization. However, if the individuals engaged in the debate prioritize the broadening of their perceptual horizons over ego-gratification, then debates can certainly be an exercise of the spirit. Zen buddhism understands this phenomenon perfectly -- they call it "dharma dueling".


Having ideas challenged is one thing, but there are spiritual truths which never change. Religions come and go as do their attempts at explanation of things. But in the end, they all discuss a handful of simple truths.

I try to keep it at that level where the waters run clear. When the mind toys with them, it becomes dirty and unclear.

Based on your responses, I can only assume that you're unwilling to find out what my actual intentions are. That being the case, which one of us is the one who is clinging to ideas? Which one is truly interested in conveying universal truth?


I can reduce the teachings of Jesus to a 100 words. What future would Christianity have with people like me walking around?


I can reduce them to three: Love. Love. Love. :)

Travis

[Bl4ck3n3D]

I'd say I live a natural life of celibacy.

There's only 4 girls that I will have sex with during my life, already gone through 2, met my 3rd, waiting for my 4th.

I have no desire for physical pleasure out of sex, if I'm having sex, I want love to be involved, I want us to transcend during sex, use it for what it's meant for.

I am so glad I met this girl, we have a very strong spiritual connection. First time I've experienced it romantically. She's a virgin too, been waiting all her life for me. It's pretty sweet.

[radareyes]

It seems to me that the only entrapment inherent in sexuality is sexual compulsion -- being enslaved by the impulses of one's sex drive.

In this thread's initial post, Xexon talked about being "unplugged" from the sex drive following the realization of one's true spiritual identity.

Personally, I doubt it works this way. Actually, if anything, I think being "unplugged" from one's sex drive would be indicative of some form of sexual repression.

Self-realization and transcendence of gender identification doesn't mean that we aren't still embodied in a physiological form. Enlightenment doesn't "short circuit" our instincts, it simply changes our relationship to them.

In all likelihood, an enlightened relationship to sexuality is similar to an enlightened relationship to the mind. Both can be applied (and no doubt enjoyed) if an appropriate situation arises, but the individual no longer derives a sense of identity from them.

Travis

[xexon]

Spiritual identity comes from the ability to chisel the real from the unreal. And you WILL work for it. Make no mistake. The power of discrimination is a learning computer. That is the instrument you will use.

Let's compare the attractions in life to magazines. You can walk by, pick one up and sift through it, sit it back down and continue on your way.

Or, you like what you saw, and take out a subscription. So that it's in your life on a regular basis.

What do you subscribe to? How many subscriptions do you need in your life to feel complete?

Sexuality is a pretty glossy publication. Very attractive. But there comes a time in one's journey where the horizon opens up, and a grand vista presents itself.

All that you knew up to that point, becomes dust in the wind.



x

[radareyes]

Your pseudo-sage mode was more effective without the chocolate bunny cartoon. ;) (And I mean no offense by that. You're one of the best pseudo-sages I've ever encountered. Coming from me, that's a definite compliment :)).

On a more serious note, are you claiming to have attained "authentic celibacy"? Are you claiming to be enlightened?

Think about it this way -- are enlightened people capable of reproducing? Of course they are.

Do you think that during the act of copulation, an enlightened person is capable of feeling pleasure? Of course they are. If anything, sexual pleasure is enhanced by higher consciousness.

The only difference between a self-realized person and an ego-identified person with regard to sex is that in the midst of sexual feelings, there's an awareness of the aspect of their being that transcends all duality. Just as an enlightened person can inhabit a home without forming an attachment to it, so to can they engage in sex without forming an attachment.

Another way to approach this issue is to begin to understand what sexuality is at its essence. It is consciousness, bound by physiology, that knows instinctively that on some fundamental level, it's transcendent of duality. Due to the fact that this awareness is instinctive and not fully conscious, however, sexual energy seeks to transcend duality in the most concrete way possible -- by merging with it's opposing physical form.

So, yes, sexuality is a "glossy publication". But once you realize you're simply in the world but not of it (to use an old Buddhist expression), it doesn't matter how appealing a certain aspect of the world is. It can never supersede the awareness of your true spiritual nature.

Travis

[xexon]

Its the old long path short path thing.

You can certainly be a householder, even a celibate one. Or you wander around with a bowl and staff. Each person will choose as they come to that fork in the road. And they see that fork in the road every day of their lives. Freewill is never impeded in their decision to choose which one for what day.

Celibacy for me is the same. And with age, the years roll by.

Enlightenment is many things to many people.

I joke with folks that as I've aged, I'ved lost hair but gained perspective.

It was a good trade.



x

[radareyes]

Enlightenment is many things to many people.
x

True enough.

For me, enlightenment is very simple, although many people like to attribute convoluted explanations as to its true nature. Enlightenment is black and white -- you're either enlightened or you're not. I say this very deliberately, because there seems to be some sort of societal stigma associated with "all or nothing" mentalities, even within spiritually-oriented communities. The Buddha didn't sit down under the bodhi tree and say, "hmm, I think I'll hang out here for awhile and pay attention to my breath. If I'm lucky maybe I'll become a little more enlightened". The Buddha said "I will not move from under this tree until I have attained full enlightenment" -- not exactly an ambiguous statement. This type of devotion of one's entire being is reflected in all of the world's religions in some form.

That being said, I do believe that the the immediate experience of any given spiritual aspirant manifests in the form of a continuum. Consciousness is uplifted gradually and conforms to the constraints of a hierarchy. The nature of that hierarchy is defined by the unique characteristics of the vessel being moulded to accomodate enlightened consciousness. This explains the wide variety of paths and approaches to spiritual growth. However, even someone who is on the verge of complete ego-transcendence is subject to the inherent limitations of the ego in one form or another.

I like the Bhagavad Gita's approach to this phenomenon. It claims that all of the material world can be divided into three modes of energy: Tamasic energy, which is inert and ignorant, Rajasic energy, which is passionate and action-oriented, and Sattvic energy, which is wise and good. The interesting thing about this approach is that although Sattvas appears to be the optimal energetic mode, it's fundamentally still a manifestation of the material world. Enlightened consciousness is considered to be transcendent of even goodness and wisdom.

What is enlightenment to you?

Travis

[xexon]

The common idea is enlightenment is supposed to be like a bolt from the blue. Instant transformation.

Maybe for some, but I suspect for most its a slow process for those who experience it.

From my own experience, its been like climbing a mountain. Every morning you wake, you are able to see a little further than the day before. You shout down in the valley what you see, and the only response you hear back is "who's that fool?"

Small matter though. It only impedes the path if you allow it to.

Am I at the mountain top yet? No, and I make no claim of it.

Am I above the valley where most people live? Yes. I can claim that. I can see both the valley floor and the mountaintop equally from where I am. Million dollar view too. Despite it's attractiveness, the mountain calls me forward.

So every morning when I wake, I put one foot in front of the other and the journey continues. No hurry. No desire to hurry. Time does not matter so much above the valley floor.


x

[radareyes]

Having a somewhat mechanically-oriented mind, I like to describe the process of "climbing the mountain" using a graph. This may seem somewhat concrete when compared to the enigma that is enlightenment, but then again any spiritual metaphor is ultimately only a pale reflection of the actual experience.

It's been a while since I've studied any of these concepts formally so I'm not fully familiarized with the terminology, but it's the type of graph that begins ascending gradually but exponentially approaches the Y axis infinitely. Superimposed on the same graph is the same line, only inverted. In this graph, the Y-axis represents the degree of spiritual realization and the X-axis represents time. One line represents ego identification, while the other represents what you might call "soul" identification.

For a reason unknown to me, spiritual progression encapsulates a natural vacillation between what might crudely be called ego-consciousness and soul-consciousness. During periods of ego-consciousness, the spiritual aspirant is identified with the inverted line. They become acutely aware of the passage of time and at very advanced stages of the path they approach the X-axis infinitely. These periods can be very difficult for the individual, but they allow ego-identification to be processed out by embodiment. During periods of soul consciousness, temporal awareness is either pacified or completely transcended. They approach the Y-axis infinitely, which represents the experience of liberation and unbounded awareness. The configuration of the graph represents the fact that the spiritual path becomes simultaneously harder and easier as the individual progresses along it.

The slope of these lines is identical to Zeno's paradox (a classic mathematical paradox) -- if an archer fires an arrow at a tree, mathematically speaking it will never reach the tree because it is always traveling half the distance between the archer and the tree, and then half of that distance, etc, etc, on into infinity. But of course in reality, the arrow always hits the tree.

This is spiritually very profound because ultimately, spiritual progress is just as illusory as any other aspect of the world. How can we progress towards something that provides the foundation for our entire being and is omnipresent? This paradox is represented by the fact that both lines infinitely approach infinity -- mathematically speaking, they never reach it. But just as the arrow reaches the tree, so to can an individual realize their true nature.

Travis

[xexon]

The illusion is voluntary. :)

In simple terms, God hides parts of himself away from himself, for the purpose of discovery, and the thrill that comes from that.

Not unlike a child playing with dolls.



x

[radareyes]

The illusion is voluntary. :)

In simple terms, God hides parts of himself away from himself, for the purpose of discovery, and the thrill that comes from that.

Not unlike a child playing with dolls.


After attaining enlightenment, do you plan on volunteering again? :)

Travis

[scratcho]

So where does this leave us agnostics?Do we seek enlightenment for insurance purposes only.For fun?Because it feels good?Because it's right and proper for us/humanity to do?For the chance to perhaps lead by example?Does/can pure enlightenment exist without a modicum of ego remaining?I would certainly say that the vast majority of humans could use a dose of enlightenment,but for most it's a struggle merely to maintain a physical existence, what with the trials and tribulations of everyday life,let alone the luxury of seeking a higher plane of such.To deny any aspect of what we've been given (by?),may be a fool's errand and reaching a complete state of denial of our human qualities(weak,crass,dangerous as some may be))including celebacy ,is just that.A denial of the balance of our humanness.(For?)-----------I reached for the sublime from the ridiculous in a well known "past era" and left much of my ego by the wayside and gained much,probably my life it'self.Also gone was much of my personality,my humor,my friends and sex.It's not for me,this seeking of TOTAL enlightenment.SOME,however was very necessary-for me.

[radareyes]

The only thing obscuring your desire for TOTAL enlightenment is a belief that your well-being is dependent on some aspect of worldly existence. The eastern religions believe in reincarnation in part because it acknowledges the fact that a great deal of our souls' journey involves the pursuit of worldly pleasures, usually over the course of multiple lifetimes. Most souls require a great deal of suffering induced by gaining and then subsequently and inevitably losing their desired worldly object prior to developing a sincere desire to realize their true nature. Ultimately, it's simply a question of how much time you will spend with your awareness oriented towards that which is outside prior to having the inevitable realization that the source of that which is outside is always inside -- you.

Travis

[scratcho]

Agreed.I have chosen.

[rainbowedskylover]

the funny thing that we may post this forum full with ideas on what enlightenment is, but we only know what it truely is until we have reached it ourselves and i personally think that there are no words to even remotely describe that state of being

[scratcho]

Anyone that has attained "complete"(?) enlightenment would not be here on a computer.There would be ,I believe,varying degrees of attainment,depending on individual situations.My point was -why the search-why the quest?It seems to me that some/ many/any/ that seek that total enlightenment have a hope that some "reward" from an entity after passing from this form ,will be forthcoming.If,then ,there are some universal laws recognized and adhered to by seekers -and deists of any stripe are actually correct,a good and wondrous path will be opened to the seekers.If,on the other hand,the constructs are of human imagination born of fear and awe of the unknown--that we are mere husks of rotting meat upon giving up this form,what would be the point in seeking anything other than that which can be attained by us in our present biological form?Thus ,the quandry for the agnostic.

[scratcho]

Plus,it's difficult to be a Jack-ass the more enlightened you become!!Now that's a drawback.

[radareyes]

Anyone that has attained "complete"(?) enlightenment would not be here on a computer.

Enlightenment manifests in many forms. Do you really think that the internet is incapable of acting as an avenue of expression for the enlightened? Enlightened consciousness utilizes any medium of communication it has available.


There would be ,I believe,varying degrees of attainment,depending on individual situations.



Ever heard of the Sisyphus myth? To summarize, it's about a man who is attempting to roll a boulder up a hill. Enlightenment is much like this. Even if a person has made it 99% of the way up, if they slip and fall, the boulder rolls all the way back to the bottom. The realization is only fully embodied after the boulder crosses the hill's crest.


My point was -why the search-why the quest?It seems to me that some/ many/any/ that seek that total enlightenment have a hope that some "reward" from an entity after passing from this form ,will be forthcoming.


The only entity that enlightenment deals with is the individual searching for enlightenment. Enlightenment can never by "bestowed" by a divine being, nor do true seekers expect to be rewarded in some imagined afterlife. Enlightenment is intended to be realized in this lifetime.


If,then ,there are some universal laws recognized and adhered to by seekers -and deists of any stripe are actually correct,a good and wondrous path will be opened to the seekers.If,on the other hand,the constructs are of human imagination born of fear and awe of the unknown--that we are mere husks of rotting meat upon giving up this form,what would be the point in seeking anything other than that which can be attained by us in our present biological form?Thus ,the quandry for the agnostic.



All of your objections to the pursuit of enlightenment are based on beliefs imposed by dogmatic religious institutions. The true teacher of enlightenment doesn't require you to accept anything on faith. If you really want to know whether or not you are simply a "husk of meat", then find out for yourself. There are many practices capable of being employed while in our present biological form that will reveal the more incorporeal aspects of your being. It's simply a matter of your willingness to engage in them. Agnosticism has no bearing on the issue.

Travis

[scratcho]

I have no objections to the pursuit of enlightenment.I have no faith except that which has come to me through various phenomina, where upon I have seen there is something "out there" beyond which we are incapable of understanding in our present manifestations.I understand what you mean--I'm trying to maintain a true sense of objectivity with this.However,when I saw the wonder of the green jungle around me,the ocean,the moon behind a palm tree on a soft and fragrant evening--a seeming tableau that for a fleeting eve,I was priveliged to be a part of,with each and every molecule and atom of all I saw,including my own body,luminous,buzzing and swirling as one---when the waves stopped their motion somewhere between my conscious and un-conscious mind,I knew that I was exactly the same age as all else in existance.And I have chosen.

[radareyes]

I have no objections to the pursuit of enlightenment.I have no faith except that which has come to me through various phenomina, where upon I have seen there is something "out there" beyond which we are incapable of understanding in our present manifestations.I understand what you mean--I'm trying to maintain a true sense of objectivity with this.However,when I saw the wonder of the green jungle around me,the ocean,the moon behind a palm tree on a soft and fragrant evening--a seeming tableau that for a fleeting eve,I was priveliged to be a part of,with each and every molecule and atom of all I saw,including my own body,luminous,buzzing and swirling as one---when the waves stopped their motion somewhere between my conscious and un-conscious mind,I knew that I was exactly the same age as all else in existance.And I have chosen.

Sounds quite profound -- which raises the question: what exactly have you chosen? To remain in the "quandary" (as you put it) of the agnostic? And if that's the case, how is that choice consistent with the revelation you've described above?

Just curious. :)

Travis

[scratcho]

It just reaffirmed my decision when I was quite young to not worry about any of it.It's all taken care of and isn't worth my concern ,other than to live openly and honestly,letting the "chips",as it were,fall where they may.As concerns a "reason"for the seeking of enlightenment ,I was trying to figure out what you thought the reason for the seeking actually was--the reward,ego gratification or ???See what I mean?--------Anyway,I must rush off and bring my boys a nail gun to finish off a roof.Oh,reality--Why must thou intrude so?Enjoy the day--type ya' later.

[radareyes]

Well, assuming the spiritual aspirant's intentions are sincere, then the reason for seeking enlightenment is always to end suffering.

Travis

[Paul Shapiro]

Hi ,

I heard that enlightenment comes true by ones effort rather than through prayer or from God, there is only one way and that's love. Because I learned from the true enlightened master, I'll explain what he can see as much as I understand this matter.

"Enlightenment is the opening of one's eyes to reality."

My teacher explains that things in the world make results on the basis of a principle and you can find the answers for problems through what is in the principle.

Please see the website of my Master Tathagata at the link for the best explanation. He is also available for answering people's questions, so if there's anything you've been wondering maybe he can help you find that out... He doesn't sell anything or ask for any donations, so you can read his teachings for free on his website:

link: Enlightenment of Tathagata (http://www.tathagata.co.uk/)

Thanks,
Paul

[Bl4ck3n3D]

Why must one call him Master? :\

[BlackBillBlake]

I heard that enlightenment comes true by ones effort rather than through prayer or from God. Because I learned from the true enlightened master, I'll explain for you what he can see.

"Enlightenment is the opening of one's eyes to reality."

And when you attain enlightenment you realize what is in reality. As far as I understand it's not possible to get enlightenment from the god or from prayer, etc., only through one's hard efforts for a long time.


Others say, and I agree with them, that only through divine Grace can one attain enlightenment, or the true vision of reality.
One's own efforts are useful of course, and may help carry you nearer to that Grace.
Prayer if sincere, not the mechanical or rote kind, is always good.

[codeye]

"So a group of monks went down into some caverns to study and meditate on the Canonical scriptures. After weeks of study, they all came out crying and looked very upset after having learned that they had misread the word celibate: it actually read 'CELEBRATE'."

[radareyes]

Ultimately, enlightenment has nothing to do with either effort or "divine grace" (which is still based on a form of the belief that god is a separate entity that bestows blessings on those who "deserve" them -- outmoded thinking). It is only through an individual's willingness to relinquish all forms of ego-attachment in a spirit of surrender that enlightenment is realized. There is a subtle form of effort that precipitates this realization, but it is by no means the same effort that one would exert while climbing a mountain, or the corporate ladder. :)

We as ego-bound beings (minus Blackened, of course, our resident avatar ;)) have a tendency to forget that enlightenment is our natural state of being. It is the state of ego-identification that is the abnormality.

Oh that reminds me, Blackened I have a question for you. How does your consciousness as a being who (from what I could gather from your explanation) essentially made the voluntary choice to incarnate in human form in order to facilitate the evolution of humanity differ from individuals who were born into suffering and illusion and through their own willpower realized their true nature? You said, for example, that you contain more love than perhaps any being in the universe. Isn't the realization that we are in essence infinite love just an aspect of self-realization? What is it (if anything) that distinguishes you from an individual who ascended into their present state of consciousness, rather than descended, as you apparently did?

Travis

[BlackBillBlake]

Ultimately, enlightenment has nothing to do with either effort or "divine grace" (which is still based on a form of the belief that god is a separate entity that bestows blessings on those who "deserve" them -- outmoded thinking). It is only through an individual's willingness to relinquish all forms of ego-attachment in a spirit of surrender that enlightenment is realized. There is a subtle form of effort that precipitates this realization, but it is by no means the same effort that one would exert while climbing a mountain, or the corporate ladder. :)


That's only one limited idea of what Divine Grace might be. Frankly, I think it is an absurdity to imagine God 'thinks' as humans do. It's an example of how humans project onto their image of the Divine their own limitations. It's a common error which affects many - eg Hawking with his 'mind of God' -

Also God is without limitations so it is meaningless to say God is separate or God is just us or whatever. God is everything. And more than everything.

If you want to get the Grace, then you certainly have to relinquish attachments and ego-consciousness. But actually, it is precisely the Grace that can help in doing so. Simply by personal effort, it is extremely difficult to get rid of ego. Or make much progress towards anything resembling enlighenment.
Effort is very necessary though - aspiration and what is termed in yoga philosophy sadhana.

That's my experience and my view, and I'm not trying to 'prove' that what I say is true. People should follow what they feel to be right and see how it works out in the longer term.

[radareyes]

I'm simply trying to avoid speaking in abstractions. As you have implied, divine grace could have a variety of meanings. The connotation that it has developed, however, is no doubt associated with the type of "old testament" thinking that I was alluding to.

Why do you make a distinction between grace and relinquishment? They are simply two sides of the same coin. Personal effort becomes transmuted at higher levels of consciousness. One realizes, to greater and greater degrees, that they are not the driving force behind the process of evolution in which they are immersed. The "effort" eventually becomes a simple willingness to allow oneself to be remoulded in the image of Spirit. The image of course has an infinite amount of manifestations. It reflects the unique characteristics of the vessel that's acting as a conduit for it.

I'm not trying to prove that my perspective is accurate either. I already know it is.

Travis

[BlackBillBlake]

I'm simply trying to avoid speaking in abstractions. As you have implied, divine grace could have a variety of meanings. The connotation that it has developed, however, is no doubt associated with the type of "old testament" thinking that I was alluding to.

Why do you make a distinction between grace and relinquishment? They are simply two sides of the same coin. Personal effort becomes transmuted at higher levels of consciousness. One realizes, to greater and greater degrees, that they are not the driving force behind the process of evolution in which they are immersed. The "effort" eventually becomes a simple willingness to allow oneself to be remoulded in the image of Spirit. The image of course has an infinite amount of manifestations. It reflects the unique characteristics of the vessel that's acting as a conduit for it.

I'm not trying to prove that my perspective is accurate either. I already know it is.

Travis
I'm speaking more of Grace from the perspective of Yoga and Hindu conceptions.
You're right to say that Grace and the relinquishment of ego etc are two sides to the same coin. What I'd say is that it is only the Grace that makes it possible.
Obviously, at a certain stage, the idea of personal effort has to go, because the idea of the separate individual has to go.
It's an interesting question this matter of personal effort. In the end perhaps we could say that all the energies of our being as humans are manifestations on different levels on One underlying energy. That again is ultimately the underlying energy of all that exists.
So the effort we seem to make as individuals is in fact only one manifestation of That.

[radareyes]

I'm speaking more of Grace from the perspective of Yoga and Hindu conceptions.

Yes, that much I gathered, but Yoga and Hinduism aren't immune to the corrupting influences of religious fundamentalism.


You're right to say that Grace and the relinquishment of ego etc are two sides to the same coin. What I'd say is that it is only the Grace that makes it possible.

But how do we attract grace? By making the conscious choice to relinquish ego. :)

Travis

[BlackBillBlake]

Yes, that much I gathered, but Yoga and Hinduism aren't immune to the corrupting influences of religious fundamentalism.




TravisSo does that invalidate all yoga philosophy? Because some fail to understand?

It's like saying that because some science is misused for negative purposes, all science must be bad.

As to how we become open to the Grace, there are different paths. Getting rid of the ego is not at all easy though. Some think they've done so whilst they very clearly haven't.

[radareyes]

So does that invalidate all yoga philosophy? Because some fail to understand?

It's like saying that because some science is misused for negative purposes, all science must be bad.
Why are you jumping to the conclusion that I'm trying to invalidate all yogic philosophy? I was simply pointing out that Christianity isn't the only religion guilty of misinterpreting the nature of divine grace.


As to how we become open to the Grace, there are different paths. Getting rid of the ego is not at all easy though. Some think they've done so whilst they very clearly haven't.Yes, but we were discussing the apparent distinction between ego-relinquishment and divine grace. You agreed with me that they are in fact two sides of the same coin, but then proceeded to contradict yourself by saying that ego-relinquishment is dependent upon grace. I was only saying that in terms of the immediate experience of the spiritual aspirant, either could be perceived as the catalyst for the other.

Travis

[BlackBillBlake]

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that I'm trying to invalidate all yogic philosophy? I was simply pointing out that Christianity isn't the only religion guilty of misinterpreting the nature of divine grace.

Yes, but we were discussing the apparent distinction between ego-relinquishment and divine grace. You agreed with me that they are in fact two sides of the same coin, but then proceeded to contradict yourself by saying that ego-relinquishment is dependent upon grace. I was only saying that in terms of the immediate experience of the spiritual aspirant, either could be perceived as the catalyst for the other.

Travis
Sorry if I misinterpreted what you had said. The thing is that all religions are guilty of the same thing, because mostly they have been taken over by people with no actual realization, or those with a limited realization at best.
Yoga as such has virtually no connection with fundamentalist type beliefs. It isn't about beliefs, but practical experience. It can be practiced by believers in many religions, such as Christianity, as it is by Benedictine monks here in the uk.
Where it has been ursurped for negative purposes is in the phoney guru phenomenon, and the general misunderstanding of what it actually is which is prevalent in western countries.

I don't think I contradicted myself - At least I see no contradiction. It is all the action of One underlying energy. The Grace helps in getting beyond the ego consciousness - One can then become aware of it and it's action.
It isn't that we have to attract it to ourselves - it is already everywhere - we have to become open to it in a conscious way. Thats an experience one can have at various levels.

[xexon]

As there are no deities for me, my explanation is more tuned to physics, which most people can understand better than holy mumbo jumbo.

It is a matter of polarity.

The ego identity is one of taking in. The senses feed this beast. This represents the masses.

The divine identity is one of outflow. The heart radiates energy. These people are rare, but you always remember an encounter with one. They can have great minds or be simple minded. But love radiates from every pore.

Might be someone close to you. Like a grandmother or a person from your childhood. Someone who honestly cared for you.

Celibacy of self, in exchange for a wider sphere of awareness..


x

[BlackBillBlake]

As there are no deities for me, my explanation is more tuned to physics, which most people can understand better than holy mumbo jumbo.

It is a matter of polarity.

The ego identity is one of taking in. The senses feed this beast. This represents the masses.

The divine identity is one of outflow. The heart radiates energy. These people are rare, but you always remember an encounter with one. They can have great minds or be simple minded. But love radiates from every pore.

Might be someone close to you. Like a grandmother or a person from your childhood. Someone who honestly cared for you.

Celibacy of self, in exchange for a wider sphere of awareness..


x
Personally I'd say that the ego means the sense of a separative existence.

I also think that unfortunately, you overestimate the intelligence of the average person if you think they comprehend physics. The fact that so many are engrossed in precisely the 'holy mumbo jumbo' you mention should be an indicator that they're not capable of understanding very much at all.

[radareyes]

As there are no deities for me, my explanation is more tuned to physics, which most people can understand better than holy mumbo jumbo.

It is a matter of polarity.

The ego identity is one of taking in. The senses feed this beast. This represents the masses.

The divine identity is one of outflow. The heart radiates energy. These people are rare, but you always remember an encounter with one. They can have great minds or be simple minded. But love radiates from every pore.

Might be someone close to you. Like a grandmother or a person from your childhood. Someone who honestly cared for you.

Celibacy of self, in exchange for a wider sphere of awareness..


x

Interestingly, like most spiritually-oriented explanations, this analogy can be reversed to accomodate other spiritual phenomena. For example, the ego could be considered an "outflow", because ego-identification always encompasses a degree of fixation on external conditions. Divine identity, however, is always internally oriented, because it transcends all conditionality. The greater the emphasis on the ego, the more the individual requires their life circumstances to conform to a narrow set of parameters in order to experience well-being. Conversely, the greater the realization of inherent divinity, the more the individual realizes that all well-being is internally sourced.

Travis

[radareyes]

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you had said.

No problem, I just didn't want you to be offended unnecessarily. :)


The thing is that all religions are guilty of the same thing, because mostly they have been taken over by people with no actual realization, or those with a limited realization at best.



Yes, agreed, which is why I found your initial comment about making a distinction between an "old testament" mentality and Hinduism strange.


Yoga as such has virtually no connection with fundamentalist type beliefs.


Maybe you forget that there are many branches of yoga. Don't you think that there are practitioners of Bhakti yoga, for instance, that have a belief structure that is in essence nearly identical to that of a fundamentalist Christian?


It isn't about beliefs, but practical experience.


Agreed, but this is only representative of Yoga in its purified form.


I don't think I contradicted myself - At least I see no contradiction.


I could quote it for you it you'd like... :)

Travis

[xexon]

Interestingly, like most spiritually-oriented explanations, this analogy can be reversed to accomodate other spiritual phenomena. For example, the ego could be considered an "outflow", because ego-identification always encompasses a degree of fixation on external conditions. Divine identity, however, is always internally oriented, because it transcends all conditionality. The greater the emphasis on the ego, the more the individual requires their life circumstances to conform to a narrow set of parameters in order to experience well-being. Conversely, the greater the realization of inherent divinity, the more the individual realizes that all well-being is internally sourced.

Travis


Because we have a dual nature as humans, we must encompass both as long as the human nature is unaware of it's true identity. Telling something it doesn't actually exist except as a extension of a higher awareness is not an easy task. The mind must have a good argument with evidence. The end result of this processing is permission. Permission to entertain the possiblity of something more. Now you can start to deploy those long range antennas you were born with. The mind says its okay.

Once this connection is made, the input/output valve functions according to need in the world. You can be ego for a few seconds, as needed, but the higher self is quick to wrestle the wheel away from the ego. It is understood that a higher calling permeates your being now. You can see wider and farther than you ever thought possible.

Your life eventually becomes an extension of what you see. And it may seem a bit odd to those who don't see as well.

You've become a true socialist. Everybody matters.



x

[liquidlight]

I think grace is mutch to do with setting aside differences, seeing past the ego and meeting on common ground. When you realise, for instance that ones behaviour comes from ego, you can then negate judjement ... a bit like forgiveness but it's compassion and grace and giving it is recieving it. Something like that.

[BlackBillBlake]

Maybe you forget that there are many branches of yoga. Don't you think that there are practitioners of Bhakti yoga, for instance, that have a belief structure that is in essence nearly identical to that of a fundamentalist Christian?




No - those Bhaktas are not yogis, but religous followers for all they like to label themselves.

Either way, I don't think there's much point in going on with this.
As I said before, people should follow what they feel is right and see where it leads over time.

[radareyes]

No - those Bhaktas are not yogis, but religous followers for all they like to label themselves.


Bhakti simply means devotion, and Yoga means union with the divine. Do you not think it's possible to align oneself with the divine using devotional practices?

Bhakti Yoga is just as legitimate as any other Yogic branch if practiced sincerely. Actually, any authentic Christian is also a practitioner of Bhakti yoga. Distinctions between different paths become more and more nebulous as one ascends towards higher levels of consciousness.

Travis

[BlackBillBlake]

I was reffering to those so called 'bhaktas' who are basically fundamentalists.

I myself practice Bhakti.

[Passionate1]

And what's the point of celibacy?

well the point is to gain will power and for people to vow to love someone for who they are..................................

But to me it's a cop-out if you you can't sperate love and sex than thats your problem not mine and don't try to force my children into that BS with trems lik "chastity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity)." and pure that's just BS I was pure and having sex and now they are saying well you can do other things like dry humping WTF man I hate that word and all it sit for...... you can deal with your own issues with sex and love than hey here's a new flash wait until your mental ready thats all I have to say:)

[neodude1212]

Religion puts great emphasis on this so called virtue. Seldom has anyone been able to make it work without creating a perversion somewhere else.

You can't just say no. Its not a matter of will power.

Celibacy is a result, not a technique.

True celibacy only occurs when the desire itself has been unplugged. When you truly indentify with your spiritual higher self, the idea of gender evaporates, as does the attraction to it.

The next best path is to transmute the energy into another channel, and this is what several religions attempt to do.

Discuss.



x


thank you

[xexon]

No problemo.


x

[liquidlight]

When you truly indentify with your spiritual higher self, the idea of gender evaporates, as does the attraction to it. Agreed :D ... upto a point, ... men will always be men and women always women ... even after enlightenment, and our bodies ( the misperception of our being as separate from eachother) will still have the instincts that bodies (beings) have ... to eat sleep and procreate ect, and a part of enlightenment is to see the natural purity of this. Identifying with spirit is the cleansing of thought and realisation of oneness ... realising the being so there is less focus on the object ... and the illusion of the object falls away and becomes transparent. We 'die before we die' so we can really live ... so we can get our prioritys right; being primary, doing secondary... so we can still love and enjoy sexual union but not NEED it.

[Hoatzin]

Speaking as a man in a serious drypatch right about now, celibacy is dumb and no-one should even think about trying it ever. Not having sex when the opportunity presents itself may not be a crime against God, but it's a bit of a kick in the teeth to me.

[Hoatzin]

Agreed :D ... upto a point, ... men will always be men and women always women ... even after enlightenment, and our bodies ( the misperception of our being as separate from eachother) will still have the instincts that bodies (beings) have ... to eat sleep and procreate ect, and a part of enlightenment is to see the natural purity of this. Identifying with spirit is the cleansing of thought and realisation of oneness ... realising the being so there is less focus on the object ... and the illusion of the object falls away and becomes transparent. We 'die before we die' so we can really live ... so we can get our prioritys right; being primary, doing secondary... so we can still love and enjoy sexual union but not NEED it.

So what you're saying is, you're all about enlightenment, right up until the point where it might make you gay?

[liquidlight]

No that's not what i'm saying, though i guess that's your interpretation of what i'm saying. Enlightenment never made me gay in the common usage of the word but did allow me too feel and express love towards my male friends.

Really i'm just saying that it doesn't do away with sexuality but rather enriches it. This is in my experience anyway although it seems that some people go off and be ascetic or renunciates but i personally don't see the point. I guess it's just a choice, or whatever you feel is right for you.

[Hoatzin]

No that's not what i'm saying, though i guess that's your interpretation of what i'm saying. Enlightenment never made me gay in the common usage of the word but did allow me too feel and express love towards my male friends.

It was a dig more than anything, but hey, science has more or less proved that provocation keeps people's synapses from clogging up with chewing gum, so...

I'm always interested in the enlightened attitude towards sexuality. So many people seem capable of telling us all how x y z things shouldn't matter because we might eventually mean we can do without our bodies. But suggest manlove and all they can worry about is maintaining the integrity of their pooper :)

But nah, wasn't accusing you of anything. I just don't get how you'd get sexy without a body, so I don't see the point of celibacy. We may not have bodies in the next world, but we have them now, and they're pretty good at fucking each other, and with any luck genetic engineering will make them even better at it.

[neodude1212]

I think the point of celibacy is to retain the sexual energy that is expulsed as a result of climax, so that it can be transmuted to higher energetic centers.

[Hoatzin]

well the point is to gain will power and for people to vow to love someone for who they are..................................

But to me it's a cop-out if you you can't sperate love and sex than thats your problem not mine and don't try to force my children into that BS with trems lik "chastity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity)." and pure that's just BS I was pure and having sex and now they are saying well you can do other things like dry humping WTF man I hate that word and all it sit for...... you can deal with your own issues with sex and love than hey here's a new flash wait until your mental ready thats all I have to say:)



Well yeah, it's like swearing off drink and thinking that means you don't have an alcohol problem, isn't it. The way you know you've overcome alcoholism is when you can have a drink. seems like it's the same with sex; just avoiding any form of sexual contact to avoid lust makes about as much sense as making sure you don't covet your neighbour's ass by moving to a ranch in Wyoming where your nearest neighbour is several miles away. And still thinking about banging him.

[liquidlight]

It was a dig more than anything, but hey, science has more or less proved that provocation keeps people's synapses from clogging up with chewing gum, so...

Yeah i knew that .. i was just being a silly bugger :)

But to me it's a cop-out if you you can't sperate love and sex

Sure one can separate love and sex, but one can also combine them ... like it's not what you do but the conciousness with which you do it, OR 'It ain't what you do but the way that you do it'.

[Hoatzin]

Oh, I know. I just think that the tradition of demonising sex that isn't about love is bad. It's implies that man only has any capacity for love in the absence of temptation, that monogamy is the only right choice, etc. Sex with someone you love deeply is immensely rewarding and wonderful. But, weirdly, if you can't get that, sex with someone you hate/who hates you is probably the next best thing!

[bluesafire]

Religion puts great emphasis on this so called virtue. Seldom has anyone been able to make it work without creating a perversion somewhere else.

You can't just say no. Its not a matter of will power.

Celibacy is a result, not a technique.

True celibacy only occurs when the desire itself has been unplugged. When you truly indentify with your spiritual higher self, the idea of gender evaporates, as does the attraction to it.

The next best path is to transmute the energy into another channel, and this is what several religions attempt to do.

Discuss.



x

The desire for celibacy is just an ego scheme in playing out its game of "I'm getting enlightened". The whole point is not control but surrender to what is.

[BlackBillBlake]

The whole point is not control but surrender to what is.


But surrender implies control. You have to control that which doesn't want to surrender. Change it so it does want to surrender.

But actually, what do you think it is we have to surrender to?

[bluesafire]

But surrender implies control. You have to control that which doesn't want to surrender. Change it so it does want to surrender.

Surrender means to let go the illusion of a control that we don't really have and never did have, and never can have.


But actually, what do you think it is we have to surrender to?

To the natural flow of Life. You can also call it God, or Spirit, or Higher Wisdom, or whatever. I don't care what word you use.

[Hoatzin]

The desire for celibacy is just an ego scheme in playing out its game of "I'm getting enlightened". The whole point is not control but surrender to what is.

It's kind of like buying a Fedora to prove that you can act, isn't it.

[BlackBillBlake]

Surrender means to let go the illusion of a control that we don't really have and never did have, and never can have.



But if control is an illusion then how could we actualize any process of letting go, or even decide to surrender?

To the natural flow of Life. You can also call it God, or Spirit, or Higher Wisdom, or whatever. I don't care what word you use.

But many would say that surrender to God is in a sense counter to the natural flow of life.

[bluesafire]

But if control is an illusion then how could we actualize any process of letting go, or even decide to surrender?

It is true that control is an illusion. It is not true that we already know this. So in order to surrender we must LOOK WITHIN AND SEE all the attempts at control that we engage in. We must recognize all the futile and pointless things we do to play out our attempt at control. In truly seeing it, in recognizing the futility and falseness of it, then the letting go happens naturally. There's no trying to let go. There's no trying to surrender. You could say it happens on its own when we stop giving energy to the control-seeking preoccupation.

But many would say that surrender to God is in a sense counter to the natural flow of life. God is life. God is just a name we give it. There's no separation there.

[BlackBillBlake]

It is true that control is an illusion. It is not true that we already know this. So in order to surrender we must LOOK WITHIN AND SEE all the attempts at control that we engage in. We must recognize all the futile and pointless things we do to play out our attempt at control. In truly seeing it, in recognizing the futility and falseness of it, then the letting go happens naturally. There's no trying to let go. There's no trying to surrender. You could say it happens on its own when we stop giving energy to the control-seeking preoccupation.

God is life. God is just a name we give it. There's no separation there.

I think maybe there's some language problem here. How could we decide to look within if we have no control? We couldn't decide anything because it would all be an illusion.

I think God is somewhat grerater then life which is only one partial and imperfect manifestation.

[bluesafire]

I think maybe there's some language problem here. How could we decide to look within if we have no control? We couldn't decide anything because it would all be an illusion.

It's only a perception that we have a choice. But if we assume we don't have a choice that's a perception too. What's real is what is actually happening. So, for example, if it occurs to you (whether from an insight or from some 'stimulus' in your environment) to look within and you find you're able to do that, then that's the path that's available to you (and this we call choice). It's not available to everyone (and this we call no choice). If you notice, what happens in reality is that some people are able to do things that others aren't. If we assume anything, meaning if we think we know, then we're most likely wrong. We don't know. Life is fluid and changeable. We may suddenly develop an ability that we didn't have moments ago. Something may click, some gear shifts into place, and voila.. now we can.

I have a friend that becomes a maniac when she's driving. Everything pisses her off. Why? Because at this point she has no ability to be different. That can change in an instant. I'm typically extremely peaceful and laid back when I'm driving. Why? Because I can be. Because I find myself able to be.

It's that little way of being called "not knowing" and not assuming anything. It's the constant looking to see what is possible now.... what is possible now... what is possible now. And then not making oneself and others wrong for how it winds up being in reality. Because the way it happens is the only way it could be in that moment.

Byron Katie wrote a book called Loving What Is. Not what should be. What Is.

good advice.

I think God is somewhat grerater then life which is only one partial and imperfect manifestation. Whatever. Makes no difference to me what you call what. That's entirely up to you. I'm not stuck on any particular term or definition.

[BlackBillBlake]

Byron Katie wrote a book called Loving What Is. Not what should be. What Is.

good advice.

Whatever. Makes no difference to me what you call what. That's entirely up to you. I'm not stuck on any particular term or definition.


OK.

It's good to love what is if what is is loveable.:)
Trouble is, a lot of very non-loving stuff goes down in this world - that is, according to my awareness.

Anyway, it may be that our awareness can expand to become aware of more of what is. On the essential as well as the manifest level. Inner and outer.
Infinities? Infinity.

[bluesafire]

OK.

It's good to love what is if what is is loveable.:)

hehe. Well things happen as they happen don't they? Then we choose what stories we tell about it. (there's that word again: choose :D). If we get a flat tire we can rant & rave but it won't change the fact that we have a flat tire. And ranting about it will just make it that much harder, wear out our energy, etc.

We may rant anyway, often do. But it's kinda funny to observe yourself doing it. Like... there I go again, getting pissed off at what I can't change.

The other day my daughter was trying to change the channel on the TV and the remote wasn't working well (low battery or something). So she got mad and was mouthing off about it. And I handed her the remote and told her to yell at it. She just looked at me and stopped in her tracks. It seemed funny. Then I went & stood by a chair and started yelling at it to move. She got a kick out of that. I told her that's what we do a lot. We have our little tantrums about what is. If it already is that, we might as well save our energy, no? But... not everyone is able to access that "choice" as yet.

Trouble is, a lot of very non-loving stuff goes down in this world - that is, according to my awareness. Yep, and if we can do something, great. But it's much more empowering and effective when our actions arise out of peace and harmony within. When first we're centered, not resisting the way it is, and then we take whatever action we can, from a place of strength. Fighting and resistance (internally) is debilitating.

Anyway, it may be that our awareness can expand to become aware of more of what is. On the essential as well as the manifest level. Inner and outer.
Infinities? Infinity. Yes, it seems to be happening. :)

[BlackBillBlake]

hehe. Well things happen as they happen don't they? Then we choose what stories we tell about it. (there's that word again: choose :D). If we get a flat tire we can rant & rave but it won't change the fact that we have a flat tire. And ranting about it will just make it that much harder, wear out our energy, etc.

We may rant anyway, often do. But it's kinda funny to observe yourself doing it. Like... there I go again, getting pissed off at what I can't change.

The other day my daughter was trying to change the channel on the TV and the remote wasn't working well (low battery or something). So she got mad and was mouthing off about it. And I handed her the remote and told her to yell at it. She just looked at me and stopped in her tracks. It seemed funny. Then I went & stood by a chair and started yelling at it to move. She got a kick out of that. I told her that's what we do a lot. We have our little tantrums about what is. If it already is that, we might as well save our energy, no? But... not everyone is able to access that "choice" as yet.

Yep, and if we can do something, great. But it's much more empowering and effective when our actions arise out of peace and harmony within. When first we're centered, not resisting the way it is, and then we take whatever action we can, from a place of strength. Fighting and resistance (internally) is debilitating.

Yes, it seems to be happening. :)

I agree with much of what you're saying.

The thing is in my view anyway that a lot of the little tantrums and so on are something we can get away from if we can actually become peaceful inside.
If I see some outrage on the tv news, I know it won't help if that puts me into a negative state of anger, depression or even ill will towards the perpetrators (assuming there are any).

I know that one thing which has helped me a huge amount is trying to satand back from my own feelings, thoughts and reactions when I obsereve they're getting control. Sometimes I get angry, but its only ever a momentary thing these days which generally lasts only a few seconds.

I don't think imbalances ,which in effect account for most of our problems, can ever really be solved by further imbalanced action. I entirely agree that actions which arise from harmony within are always the best actions.

On the topic of this thread, celibacy, I'd say that to fight with oneself over this would be ridiculous, and an energy drain. It would inevitably affect the whole being.
On the other hand, if there is a real inner feeling that one can just let go of sex without a big fight, then I think that would be ok.
I suppose it would depend a lot on what kind of lifestyle one wants to live.
For myself, it becomes less important as I get older. I think companionship, mutual care, support and affection are the things of most value in a relationship.

[bluesafire]

The thing is in my view anyway that a lot of the little tantrums and so on are something we can get away from if we can actually become peaceful inside.

Yes, if we have the level of awareness whereby we can access that peace. Not everyone can, as yet. Sometimes, though, knowing something intellectually isn't enough to generate the experience. From what I've seen, I think the knowing starts out on the level of mind or intellect, but then works itself down into our emotions and into the body, where we then know it on the gut level. That's when we live this knowing continuously.


I know that one thing which has helped me a huge amount is trying to satand back from my own feelings, thoughts and reactions when I obsereve they're getting control. Sometimes I get angry, but its only ever a momentary thing these days which generally lasts only a few seconds.

Yeah, this is really cool. Objectivity is the key. I think of it as a camera shutter, the wider we open it (to encompass the whole) the more peace we experience. If we close the shutter so much so as to only view a tiny specific aspect of experience then it's easy to lose perspective and react.

I don't think imbalances ,which in effect account for most of our problems, can ever really be solved by further imbalanced action. I entirely agree that actions which arise from harmony within are always the best actions.

As Albert Einstein said (paraphrasing)... we can't solve a problem at the same level of awareness that created it.

On the topic of this thread, celibacy, I'd say that to fight with oneself over this would be ridiculous, and an energy drain. It would inevitably affect the whole being.
On the other hand, if there is a real inner feeling that one can just let go of sex without a big fight, then I think that would be ok.

I see it as nonjudgment. There is no "right" way to be, just be natural. Resisting something doesn't free us from it, it only drives it deeper into the unconscious.

I suppose it would depend a lot on what kind of lifestyle one wants to live.
For myself, it becomes less important as I get older. I think companionship, mutual care, support and affection are the things of most value in a relationship.

Yes I value that greatly. Of course I still find sex to be highly desirable, as my drive often reminds me. :D

[BlackBillBlake]

I see it as nonjudgment. There is no "right" way to be, just be natural. Resisting something doesn't free us from it, it only drives it deeper into the unconscious.



Yes I value that greatly. Of course I still find sex to be highly desirable, as my drive often reminds me. :D

I agree that there is no one 'right' way to be. Different strokes for different folks.
If someone is happy being celibate, I see no problem provided the descision has come from inside themself.
Likewise, if someone is happy having a relationship, again, all well and good.
I don't think it's streching it too far to say that even a promiscuous person could be following what's right for them.

Of course, things change with time and development.

I tend to the view that we are all unique individuals if we could but realize it. Probably, there is a right way for each one to be - but that can't be applied to all.

To quote my fave english poet, Blake: "One law for the lion and the ox is oppression'.

[bthizle1]

Just last night a friend of mine was trying to get me to promise that neither of us would have sex again, until it was to reproduce. We got into that, because we were discussing the state of the universe (existence as we know it) and how fucked up humans really are in comparison to everything that we know exists...(Ie. the rate at which we kill each other and other species, our strict reliance on fucked up social norms etc...) Well, I didn't make the promise...not because I don't have respect for the act of sex, but because I bring that human element of "love" (many forms) in to the realm of the act of reproduction...I won't have sex with just anyone, it's has to be a girl I can see myself being with, doesn't mean that I HAVE to be with her, just that I could see it. It is the act of affection that puts my love in to motion.

So, while I have respect for those who are celibate for intelligent reasons, those that simply do it (or lack there of...) because their religion tells them to seem a bit ridiculous.

[lunarverse]

no comment

[Tsurugi_Oni]

Sexual energy is one of the strongest energies that humans readily feel. Everyone can attest to the power of being super duper unbelievably turned on.

That's why most masters recommend initiates to be celibate, because it can become such a distraction that it disharmonizes them. True masters just have sex at a whole different level of consciousness and mind/body connection. It's like quickie -> sex -> foreplay -> The Next Level!

[darkforest]

I've never been celibate on purpose.