The Forbidden Gospel

[Aupmanyav]

Aversion can certainly become a two-edged sword with unintended side effects. (One reason why tantra can be dangerous.)

a tantra practitioner is thinking about the answers to his/her questions. Sex, money, liquor, tasty food can distract, therefore, aversion is advocated. After the quest is completed there are no bindings. It is all about discipline, in ascetism or otherwise, so as not to loose focus. A guru is advocated for things that can be dangerous or mislead (if you can find a worthy one in this age).

 

[seattlegal]

a tantra practitioner is thinking about the answers to his/her questions. Sex, money, liquor, tasty food can distract, therefore, aversion is advocated. After the quest is completed there are no bindings. It is all about discipline, in ascetism or otherwise, so as not to loose focus. A guru is advocated for things that can be dangerous or mislead (if you can find a worthy one in this age).

I'm thinking that part of the misogyny I've seen is via the association of the female with the material--and with material desires. I've suspected that many of the outbreaks of rapes in India might be connected to this, from the remarks of one so-called guru saying that if a rape victim simply offered spiritual initiation to her attackers, she wouldn't have been harmed. Does this suspicion of mine have any possible footing, or is it just me seeing something that is not there?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not think tantra is involved in rapes. It is a social and political problem. Social because the old traditions are broken. Pornography, films, and television have devalued women. And when rapes happen, the corrupt police, which is protected by corrupt politicians, would ignore or destroy evidence. Politicians and police, the people in power, are many a times involved in rapes. Then people. young and older, come to big cities leaving their family in villages for jobs. Many such people are involved in rapes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

If it is the done thing, a duty, then it is wrong to say that “hindu culture treats sex like the West treats death.” You have studied in a school or college, and may have gone to gyms. What is that if not an attempt to improve? The problem is that you do not accept the “Vyavaharika satya” (Pragmatic Reality). I accept both, I do not deny “Absolute Truth” of “Eko Sad” (What exists is one). This realization also comes with effort.

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.

No, IMHO. It is not required in a society if people do not indulge in free sex. Sex outside marriage is not advocated in hinduism. I first heard Osho (when he was just Nemi Chand Jain) sometime in early sixties. What he advocates is not for me.

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.

I am not denying the absolute, but the observed also is a reality in its own right. You cannot live without food.

 

[seattlegal]

I do not think tantra is involved in rapes. It is a social and political problem. Social because the old traditions are broken. Pornography, films, and television have devalued women. And when rapes happen, the corrupt police, which is protected by corrupt politicians, would ignore or destroy evidence. Politicians and police, the people in power, are many a times involved in rapes. Then people. young and older, come to big cities leaving their family in villages for jobs. Many such people are involved in rapes.

OK, thanks.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

If it is the done thing, a duty, then it is wrong to say that “hindu culture treats sex like the West treats death.” You have studied in a school or college, and may have gone to gyms. What is that if not an attempt to improve? The problem is that you do not accept the “Vyavaharika satya” (Pragmatic Reality). I accept both, I do not deny “Absolute Truth” of “Eko Sad” (What exists is one).

The west also treats death as something that simply must happen - a necessary part of life. My meaning is that it is never enjoyed, it is a duty only.

Going to college or the gym does not improve what you are, they are ways to strengthen the vehicle, like taking the car to the mechanic, but the driver is untouched.

Without genuinely enjoying life, you are basically denying it.

This realization also comes with effort.

Do not think realization comes by effort, realization is effortless.

What requires effort is seeing that effort cannot do anything to help. The master will give you absurd tasks, will take you into the delusion of being a doer to such an extent that eventually it becomes clear that "I cannot do this".

Finally, the doer ceases, and in this surrender truth arises.

No, IMHO. It is not required in a society if people do not indulge in free sex. Sex outside marriage is not advocated in hinduism. I first heard Osho (when he was just Nemi Chand Jain) sometime in early sixties. What he advocates is not for me.

Monks and nuns engage in free sex, and many cases of AIDS and other STD's become rampant. Avoiding sex only creates repression, which will be handled in a very unsafe way usually. Rather than denying the sex impulse, Osho simply created a safe environment for when it is there. Of course, the many forms of contraception made this possible, and not a single child was born in his ashram. It is better to allow responsibly, denying causes all sorts of problems.

I am not denying the absolute, but the observed also is a reality in its own right. You cannot live without food.

The body requires sustenance, but you make the absolute something dependent on the body. A truly realized man does not concern himself whether he eats or not, if the body falls it is time.

The observed depends observer, neither are independent realities. What you are is aware of both, is both already. In confirming the observed as a distinct reality, you create duality, and this is delusion, maya.

Of course, by simply recognizing they cannot be two, it is only something mental, it is not yet realized in you. The actual realization cannot be your doing though, for this doer is also a duality. Hence why I said earlier that it cannot be done by effort, the one taking effort is confirming its own separateness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The west also treats death as something that simply must happen - a necessary part of life. My meaning is that it is never enjoyed, it is a duty only.

:wonder: Sex is never enjoyed in India! That is why its booming population. It is a tedious part of hindu 'dharma'! Given to themselves hindu men and women would never engage in sex? The enjoyment is only in free, multi-partner sex (of course, with proper safeguards). What else would you add to that to enhance enjoyment? Kinky sex? Sadism? No, Advaita Zen. That is not my way. That is not the hindu way.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

:wonder: Sex is never enjoyed in India! That is why its booming population. It is a tedious part of hindu 'dharma'! Given to themselves hindu men and women would never engage in sex? The enjoyment is only in free, multi-partner sex (of course, with proper safeguards). What else would you add to that to enhance enjoyment? Kinky sex? Sadism? No, Advaita Zen. That is not my way. That is not the hindu way.

Sex is Advaita in action.

It is bringing together the opposites.

It should be something taken far more sacred than any statue.

Albeit, precautions should be taken, overpopulation is a huge problem, yes.

It is more because sex is taken for reproduction only. It is taken as a gift from God if it results in children. No, it is something sacred without bringing in reproduction.

Denial of sex creates obsession, the only way to move through it is to embrace it.

If we look closely at sex, everything about existence is there.

 

[donnann]

Sex is Advaita in action.

It is bringing together the opposites.

It should be something taken far more sacred than any statue.

Albeit, precautions should be taken, overpopulation is a huge problem, yes.

It is more because sex is taken for reproduction only. It is taken as a gift from God if it results in children. No, it is something sacred without bringing in reproduction.

Denial of sex creates obsession, the only way to move through it is to embrace it.

If we look closely at sex, everything about existence is there.

I totally agree with you. Sex is the most sacred thing that exists. I believe that when two engage in that activity after the bodies are made one with body soul and spirit and are in the immortal state that sex is what keeps two opposites alives forever. I believe that energy of positive and negatives and the transfer of them keeps two one. I believe in the beginning that the male and female were literally one complete entire complex being consisting of the two halfs like you have a right and left brain. Do you have any references to this in your Indian studies? I know that Shakiti and Shiva are an example of this.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

I totally agree with you. Sex is the most sacred thing that exists. I believe that when two engage in that activity after the bodies are made one with body soul and spirit and are in the immortal state that sex is what keeps two opposites alives forever. I believe that energy of positive and negatives and the transfer of them keeps two one. I believe in the beginning that the male and female were literally one complete entire complex being consisting of the two halfs like you have a right and left brain. Do you have any references to this in your Indian studies? I know that Shakiti and Shiva are an example of this.

Shiva and Shakti represent what is called Prakriti and Purusha in Hinduism.

Prakriti is the creative aspect, represented by the feminine Shakti.
Purusha is the primordial aspect, represented by the masculine Shiva.

Their union is the point, and this is represented by their marriage, or through the statues that include both as one figure. Further, in their union, something more than both is created, this is the child. The energy of life itself is love, life is created through love, we live as long as the energy of love permits.

We see this many times in Hindu myth - for instance, Shiva and Shakti's child is Ganesha (although here the feminine is called Pavarti just to be confusing). This is something beautiful, despite being decapitated, the love of his father - Shiva - has enabled Ganesha to live on, albeit with an elephants head now. It is essentially saying that through love, all is possible.

Similar to this, we have Brahman and Atman, God and Jesus, it is the whole point of religion.

I call Prakriti consciousness, and Purusha awareness, for these are more accurate terms in English. The relative and absolute is another way of saying it, yet they are not two things in reality.

I cannot speak of your obsession with making all of religion about sex - sex is a physical manifestation or representation of this, but it is only a single aspect. It is something utterly beautiful, but to see it in everything is unhealthy, you place too much emphasis on something so pure, thus corrupt it.

Love is the real thing, the merging of opposites IS love, whether we engage in it through the physical form or understand it cosmically, it is all the expression of love.

Do not chase sex, understand love.

Sex is enhanced by love, but is possible without it, you only make yourself susceptible to being used.

The very purpose of religion is to bring us to a higher love.

This love ultimately transcends the physical and spiritual.

It is all.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

This type of love does not make us immortal.

In this love, we dissolve, we cease.

We must die anyway, that is unavoidable.

Life constantly invites us to die to love rather than in fear.

Do not tell yourself this needs a cause and thus make it something in the future.

Right this moment the invitation is there.

You only invent an avoidance.

Stop.

 

[donnann]

This type of love does not make us immortal.

In this love, we dissolve, we cease.

We must die anyway, that is unavoidable.

Life constantly invites us to die to love rather than in fear.

Do not tell yourself this needs a cause and thus make it something in the future.

Right this moment the invitation is there.

You only invent an avoidance.

Stop.

Not everyone dies. >Look at theology, some were raised up

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Not everyone dies. >Look at theology, some were raised up

Fairy tails.

Theology is an absurd thing, the key to knowing God is in moving beyond logic.

Bringing all opposites together is not a logical conclusion, no mind will accept that evil is as necessary as good yet the mind can only function in logic - albeit often quite flawed.

Theology is what is wrong with religion.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

The Zen Koan is a great example, its sole purpose is to get out of logical thinking, to create an environment in which the mind just gives in.

When mind - the thinking process - falls, God is.

Mind is the very apparatus creating the perceived separation.

 

[Thomas]

Theology is an absurd thing, the key to knowing God is in moving beyond logic.

You make the common error of judging others by your own standard.

Theology (when done properly, and not merely as an academic exercise) is the operation of the intellect in discerning, ultimately, between Atma and maya.

You fail to distinguish between the operation of the intellect, as understood within the traditions, and intellectualism, which is nothing more than the posturing of the ego.

Theology is what is wrong with religion.

I think the crucial distinction is that all the aphorisms you trot out were the product of 'faith seeking understanding' — whether that process be called theology or philosophy or metaphysics — and which has been a working definition of theology for the last millennia or so.

Think about it — without such a practice by saints and sages down through the ages, you'd have none of the pithy 'spiritual soundbites' to deploy.

 

[radarmark]

Aristotelian logic (really. Cartesian Logic) is what may where Modern and Hypermodern Theology went awry. But the metaphysical concern with "whys" not "hows" underlies a lot of Theology (from Process Theology to Aurobindo to Wilber to Takeda) which is on-going. Theology in this sense ("the study of the D!vine") is alive and well; and. probably, what is right about religion writ large.

 

[donnann]

Fairy tails.

Theology is an absurd thing, the key to knowing God is in moving beyond logic.

Bringing all opposites together is not a logical conclusion, no mind will accept that evil is as necessary as good yet the mind can only function in logic - albeit often quite flawed.

Theology is what is wrong with religion.

What about Jesus? He rose from the dead then ascended to heaven and that includes his body. His body became one with soul and spirit, needed for immortality. However, I believe that you can obtain eternal life but also that eternities are measured in time. I believe you must merge with your opposite to have infinite life. I believe this because of correct interpretation of the original hebrew to the english of Genesis 1. This is one reason I believe that as well as personal experience. I do not believe theology is what is wrong with organized religion but rather the straying away from the original beliefs.

 

[radarmark]

donnann,

Really? Your reply has little if anything to do with Theology ("what is the nature of the D!vine").

 

[Paladin]

You make the common error of judging others by your own standard.

Theology (when done properly, and not merely as an academic exercise) is the operation of the intellect in discerning, ultimately, between Atma and maya.

You fail to distinguish between the operation of the intellect, as understood within the traditions, and intellectualism, which is nothing more than the posturing of the ego.


I think the crucial distinction is that all the aphorisms you trot out were the product of 'faith seeking understanding' — whether that process be called theology or philosophy or metaphysics — and which has been a working definition of theology for the last millennia or so.

Think about it — without such a practice by saints and sages down through the ages, you'd have none of the pithy 'spiritual soundbites' to deploy.

Couldn't agree more. There is a temptation here to explore your ideas of ego defined as a "false self" and ego as an executive function, since there seems to be both occurring at the same time.
I've been reading Epstein's "Thoughts without a thinker" and "Psychotherapy without the self" along with works by Jack Engler ( the man who coined the phrase,"you have to be somebody before you are nobody") and these readings seem to support your ideas both here and in the SBNR thread.
As I recall, even Anthony DeMello wrote on the debt of gratitude owed to the Church.

On the issue of transcending logic, I tend to favor Wilber's pre/trans fallacy in that syllogistic thinking isn't eschewed in favor of an alternate "higher truth". Indeed, it seems that when one masters the fundamental process of logical reason, it is then clear that beyond just a linear form of thinking, there is also a more expansive progression of thought that enables one to see the "web" of causes and conditions surrounding phenomena. This is, of course, just my own understanding at this point in my studies.

 

[wil]

Think about it — without such a practice by saints and sages down through the ages, you'd have none of the pithy 'spiritual soundbites' to deploy.

tis unfortunate that that is often what we get.

and also that there are some pretty damn good pith spritual soundbites..