The Forbidden Gospel

donnann said:
Do you believe that pedofilia only exists in the straight community? The answer to this question will let me know your position on the subject.
Click to expand...
No. I don't see gendered sexual orientation as having much to do with it, as the victims are immature--asexual.
 
seattlegal said:
No. I don't see gendered sexual orientation as having much to do with it, as the victims are immature--asexual.
Click to expand...
Gendered sexual orientation as a lot to do with it. Pedophiles were always abused by adults leading to their pedophilia. My whole point was simply that it exetends to the gay and bisexual communities as well as straights.
 
seattlegal said:
No. I don't see gendered sexual orientation as having much to do with it, as the victims are immature--asexual.
Click to expand...
Asexual? Girls are girls and boys are boys. Nothing asexual about that. I do however believe gays are asexual beings. Female or male.
 
seattlegal said:
Asexual as in having no sex drive.
Gay means having a sex drive which attracts to the same gender, therefore it is not asexual (lacking a sex drive.)
Click to expand...
Asexual is an anatomy. It is very complex. It is upwards on the sexual ladder. The only way I can describe it is by using a movie. Cocoon the movie where the beings are asexual when they remove their skin suits but yet are still either a male or a female.
 
seattlegal said:
Asexual as in having no sex drive.
Gay means having a sex drive which attracts to the same gender, therefore it is not asexual (lacking a sex drive.)
Click to expand...
There are 4 anatomies: sexual which is basic male and female.
Bisexual which is like shakiti and shiva. Asexual which is basically gender free but having gender Like the beings in cocoon. Then there is all as one which is how god is.
 
donnann said:
Pedophiles were always abused by adults leading to their pedophilia.
Click to expand...
Common sense again?

donnann said:
Asexual is an anatomy. It is very complex. It is upwards on the sexual ladder. The only way I can describe it is by using a movie. Cocoon the movie where the beings are asexual when they remove their skin suits but yet are still either a male or a female.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in your spiritual beliefs, but not to the scientific community. When they speak of asexual they could be talking about asexual reproduction where an single organism produce it's offspring. Or they could be talking about, what SG is saying, the lack of a sexual drive.
 
AdvaitaZen said:
If you'd looked at Thomas Huebl for a single moment, you'd realize it wasn't about indulgence.

It is essentially Buddhist enquiry, just more immediately focused on intimacy... what exactly is it which is causing distance between yourself and other. It is a very direct way of looking at ego...
Click to expand...
Thomas Huebl perhaps wrote about Tibetan buddhist tantra. Hindu tantra (not what is sold by charlatans) is for aversion (not intimacy) to sex (and other four things) in quest of spiritual advancement.
donnann said:
If Shiva is beyond sex how then why in hindu studies to they show them as having sexual organs?
Click to expand...
That is simple. An idol, linga, sexual depiction as male or female is for the unenlightened. Do you know the sex of Brahman or energy?
 
this education regarding sexuality and gender and pedophelia....

I cringe when the latest science is ignored and ancient texts are taken lieterally
 
Aupmanyav said:
Thomas Huebl perhaps wrote about Tibetan buddhist tantra. Hindu tantra (not what is sold by charlatans) is for aversion (not intimacy) to sex (and other four things) in quest of spiritual advancement.
Click to expand...

Yes, Hindu culture treats sex like the West treats death, it is quite strange.

You cannot advance "spiritually" by cutting off your life energy, but by condemning the sex energy, this is exactly what you do.

I place "spirituality" in quotes because it isn't really the thing.

Integrating the whole is the purpose of religion.

That whole cannot exclude anything.

I suppose this is why, though, that Hindu sanyas is traditionally taken late in life, except by that time the body is almost impotent, how can energies grow now?

That is one of the most promising things about the current atmosphere, young people are beginning to enter sanyas and so there are more enlightened beings today perhaps than any time in history - certainly there are more working towards it.

Sanyas is renunciation, but today what is renounced is the ego alone, to claim the activities of life is the problem, life happens as it will - there is no individual doer.

This is proving to be a very successful approach.

Of course, it is is also why the traditionalists despised Osho.

You know what is unique about the many thousands of his sanyasins I have encountered? None are fanatical, all are loving from a very young age. You cannot imagine an Osho sanyasin fighting with Muslims and causing a riot, he loves the Muslim too because they have given the world Sufis.

The problem with the traditions is it feeds the ego for so long that even if you intend to take sanyas seriously later in life, there are so many hard-grained beliefs to move past it is almost impossible and time is so much shorter now.

Far better to drop them earlier, although better still is to never pick them up.
 
This is truly the miracle of Osho...

Nothing is denied in him, no part of existence is a problem.

The only problem is the delusion that you are separate from existence.

This liver of life, this hearer of sounds, this seer of sights, it is simply imagined.

Try to stop hearing or seeing, it is impossible because you aren't doing it in the first place.

What you are is already the silence pervading all that appears.

Rejecting any part of existence is simply more ego.

Existence includes all.

This is oneness.
 
Do not misunderstand though, it is neither about indulgence.

What the Hindu says about this is perfectly right, a mind obsessed with sex is basically sick.

A mind obsessed with anything is sick.

The trick is to simply be here, now, to be so total in this moment that there is no possibility of mind coming in and taking us into some obsession, and past and future are as much an obsession as anything else.

Without striving for sex, for money, for whatever, if they come it is ok, you see they will both leave soon enough.

Gradually, even in these, you simply stay as what is constant.

The basic problem is that we believe the mind, in our own thoughts.

We take ourselves to be the abstracted personification of the totality of thoughts appearing for us.

We only need see for whom they appear.

This is ever content, satisfied, fulfilled.

It is the origin and destination.

It is home.

Just that I AM presence.

We come to see that all that appears simply goes on confirming this.

We are thankful to all that appears, for it is all evidence that life is.

We cease to judge what is there, we cease to avoid anything, because it is all confirming amness.

Nothing was ever wrong for this, it was all just in our minds.

Yet even the mind is only appearing before this, it is just yet another object in consciousness confirming I AM.

We simply are.

Ahem Brahmasmi.

Brahman is all, how can anything be other?

How can anything in the world be against this truth?

Brahman is the world.

Our delusion of separation is exactly leela - Brahmans play.

Nothing else is maya.
 
Of course, I use these words for it only because I know I am talking to an Advaitin.

It is beyond words, yet we seek it in words.

Not realizing they describe the reader.

This is the joke.
 
donnann said:
I think common sense stands on its own. Anything contradictory is simply a lie. Data is compiled by using common sense.
Click to expand...

In psychological terms, "common sense" is really little more than heuristically based thinking, far from being fact. Clearly, your credibility is lacking.
 
AdvaitaZen said:
Yes, Hindu culture treats sex like the West treats death, it is quite strange. You cannot advance "spiritually" by cutting off your life energy, but by condemning the sex energy, this is exactly what you do.

young people are beginning to enter sanyas and so there are more enlightened beings today perhaps than any time in history - certainly there are more working towards it. Sanyas is renunciation, but today what is renounced is the ego alone, to claim the activities of life is the problem, life happens as it will - there is no individual doer.
Click to expand...
For the first time, what you have written here is absolute shit. Kama (sex) is one of the 'purusharthas' in hinduism, the done thing. But there is a time to engage in it. Not in the student days (Brahmacharya ashram) when the focus should be on studies and personal improvement, and not in old age (Sannyasa ashram, when even viagra would not work and only lust may remain), or for one who has voluntarily chosen (no one has forced the person to do that) to engage in spiritual quest (the quest to understand life), where again it is a matter of focus.

Osho is absolute shit. And pray, tell me what is 'sex energy'? I have not come across anything like that in my studies. Young people take sannyasa and seek enlightenment - you mean those who have to get a 'no-AIDS' certificate to join an Osho Ashram. How is that any different from a brothel? Why should young people take Sannyasa? Who would then produce food for these Sannyasis? In hinduism, every thing comes at its proper time. Sannyasa in hinduism is renunciation of desires. Yes, life should go on as long as it will without any demands from the Sannyasi.

I am an advaitin, I am a hindu, and reality exists at two levels.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Thomas Huebl perhaps wrote about Tibetan buddhist tantra. Hindu tantra (not what is sold by charlatans) is for aversion (not intimacy) to sex (and other four things) in quest of spiritual advancement.
Click to expand...
This might explain the misogyny I sometimes see in connection to tantra. Aversion can certainly become a two-edged sword with unintended side effects. (One reason why tantra can be dangerous.)
 
Aupmanyav said:
For the first time, what you have written here is absolute shit. Kama (sex) is one of the 'purusharthas' in hinduism, the done thing. But there is a time to engage in it. Not in the student days (Brahmacharya ashram) when the focus should be on studies and personal improvement, and not in old age (Sannyasa ashram, when even viagra would not work and only lust may remain), or for one who has voluntarily chosen (no one has forced the person to do that) to engage in spiritual quest (the quest to understand life), where again it is a matter of focus.
Click to expand...

It is the done thing, sure, a duty.

The improvement of the person is delusional, there is no person, it is just ego.

Please see, this is the final statement of Advaita, that atman is not, only Brahman is - or stated often as Atman and Brahman are not two.

There should not be a time for this and a time for that, you divide life.

Brahman already does all.

Aupmanyav said:
Osho is absolute shit. And pray, tell me what is 'sex energy'? I have not come across anything like that in my studies. Young people take sannyasa and seek enlightenment - you mean those who have to get a 'no-AIDS' certificate to join an Osho Ashram. How is that any different from a brothel? Why should young people take Sannyasa? Who would then produce food for these Sannyasis? In hinduism, every thing comes at its proper time. Sannyasa in hinduism is renunciation of desires. Yes, life should go on as long as it will without any demands from the Sannyasi.
Click to expand...

You do not think an AIDS test is a good measure in any tight community?

You can speak as much as you like about Osho, it only shows you have not looked at him.

Aupmanyav said:
I am an advaitin, I am a hindu, and reality exists at two levels.
Click to expand...

Ego creates the relative.

Without ego there is only absolute.

There is no problem for the absolute to act in the relative world, in fact without the energy taken creating the delusion of ego, you will act far more efficiently.

Whenever I have said ego, I mean atman.

For me, anatta is more true, for this presence without ego is pure, truth.

I have no problem calling it Self either, still is intended just the presence without modification.

This is already Brahman, you study yourself in a book, absurd.

Just dissolve into the heart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top