Share1 on sunny autumnal day Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness... Not my line but too hurried to look up reference.
________________________________ From: Robin Carlsen <maskedze...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:34 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: Good morning again, RC Share:It could be that we are expressing the very wide difference between masculine and feminine in these matters. Indeed the practice Marnia Robinson suggests seems as if it would be quite challenging for males. Thus the Taoist practices seem more realistic, compassionate and healthy for both masculine and feminine. Robin: I agree with this, Share. I believe I am naturally ignorant about the matter of sexuality as experienced by a woman. What it is like, from the point of view of her subjectivity qua woman. So, perhaps, Marnia knows something I don't know. She's a woman after all. :-) I only know that I have not met or seen any man--in my lifetime, that is--who could 'spiritualize' the sexual act. Not that some have not believed they could, maybe even experienced they could; but the very notion of there being any counteractive force to male sexuality, so as to bring it under control and into submission, well that is just a dream. I still don't believe I have met someone who I thought had complete and intelligent mastery over their sexuality--either man or woman. Although, again, seeing the reality of sexuality in a woman not perfectly integrated into her personality and self-will does not mean that I know what a woman's experience of sexuality is, or could be. I would say this: most woman are not aware of the extent to which their sexuality dominates the attention of a man. Share1: Sigh... What a lila the whole thing is! Men not understanding women. Women not understanding men. Hope God is having fun! I don't think it's necessary to bring sexuality under control in order to render it more spiritual. I think that happens with the deepening and maturation of love between the two. But as always, I could be wrong (-: Share:The other difference I sense we are expressing is that between East and West, the latter having been much more imbued with the spirit matter split I've written about in other posts. I have turned from the epitome of that resulting ignorance, the Catholic Church. Whereas you seem to be at least intrigued by the ideas on the Church both professes and attempts to enforce. Robin: All this about the Catholic Church is the result of the absence of supernatural grace from the Personal God (the Holy Trinity), Mary, the Eucharist, and the Sacraments. I am not "intrigued" by the idea of sexuality as understood inside Catholicism: once it could produce Saints, as that story of Aquinas proves. Nothing like that can happen now: that grace is gone. And that grace is necessary to make the Thomistic truths of that essay in our previous conversation live and prove themselves. Share1: Nonetheless Mary intervened with the GMH poem (-: R: With regard to East versus West, the West bears the burden of the personal approach to reality, and even sexuality. No Eastern tract on sexuality is likely, if it posits the supreme reality of the Self, to give sufficient regard to the realm of personal intimacy and tenderness that is part of the Wester tradition of romanic love. I find Eastern spirituality does not have a literature which represents even fractionally the profound notion of man-woman love that is the centre of meaning for much of Western literature. The only form of spirituality which for me would, in the abstract at least, be relevant here--to our experience of sexuality in the West--would be a spirituality which was imbued with the understanding of the mystique and significance of Man-Woman relationships. I doubt Taoism (in its teachings about human sexuality) addresses the intimacy--in a personal sense--of the sexual act. Share1: This brings to my mind the whole courtly love tradition which also contributes to the spirit matter split. Hmmm, this just came to mind: that neither East nor West is expressing highest about all this. Highest is yet to unfold. So not all personal as in the West. But not all detached as in the East. But something new, maybe both embodied and universal. Just thinking out loud here. Share: I readily admit that I could be wrong and deluded about all this. However, I'm willing to take that chance in order to again experience that sex can indeed lead one to God. If only momentarily. Robin: Well, I can't speak for you of course. But I think the sexual experience can be--obviously--experientially wonderful; but that something that powerful and overwhelming could actually bring one closer to ultimate reality, that seems dubious to me. For instance, in the presence of the reality of death, the sexuality act is rendered not just meaningless; it--the idea of sexuality--appears to be intrinsically irrelevant. A person who is dying senses something --their own death--to have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual experience. Which signifies to me that sexuality can't possess any power that serves the human soul in its final and most decisive encounter with reality. One's personal death. Share1: As he has no reason to lie to me, I believe Rob Robb who says, based on his experience working in hospice, that when people die, they often have orgasm. Share:PS We have switched places Ghazali and I am cheering for you as you walk that high wire across Niagara Falls. Being the Gemini I am I had already integrated many divergent points of view of you into my awareness. So, no surprises. Robin: Well, the falls turned out to be less than Niagara, since my opponent did not want to get up there with me. I was expecting a lot more. Still, it was exhilarating in just the right way for awhile there. I like being challenged utterly in all that I believe in. Even to the point of having to deal with the consequences of my enlightenment (and you will have read the excerpt from my book describing the experience of going into Unity Consciousness). That's interesting, your having "already integrated many divergent points of view of you into my awareness"--evidently my critic was concerned about *you*, that you might labour under the illusion that there was, after all, *anything* real or interesting about those ten years. I think whatever FFL readers and posters make of my attempts to clarify my past, especially to do with my enlightenment, the only valid perspective would come from an extremely critical, but honest scrutiny of all that I say--but I hardly thing much will come from an approach that makes zero demands on that person's own belief system--both conscious and unconscious. I am pretty sure of my own honesty and good faith in all this--explaining my past--so when someone is highly critical or dismissive of me, they in some sense have to possess as much honesty and good faith as I do. I doubt if I will ever influence you away from anything you believe in, Share, but I certainly sense your generosity and sympathy in trying to understand what I am about--this is enough for me. It is a matter of whether my critics in being hostile or dismissive of what I have to say knowingly or otherwise have more reality inside their judgment of me than those who express some interest in and even appreciation for what I have to say. Share1: Would not the felt sense help immensely with such discernment? Share: It's tricky when someone is so brilliant especially with words. Others can come to distrust the sincerity of the words. And to state the obvious, here on FFL we are limited to words. None of us know you now as you are in 3D day to day life. I rely on my own felt sense to grok the truth of what your words express. Willing to take a chance on that too (-: Robin: Yes, it would be nice to be able to appear in 3D in one's posts. While "we are limited by words" I don't think that in the expression of ourselves in words we do not reveal something significant about who we are, and the kind of person we are. I think a lot of the human being Share Long gets into your words, so I find you in your words. All of our acts, but especially when we express our beliefs in words inside the context of passionate argument and disputation, reveal our identity in a first-person ontological sense. [I think I need a bubble diagram for this first-person ontology thing.:-)] An actor is always giving an underlying motivation for each word he or she speaks (just as what is there when we speak to someone in life). I think when we write this is not so obvious, but I sense in most people's writing the signature of their soul. You certainly have added something very real to this forum, and you can be grateful that your well-being is guarded by persons who would have you not deceived by the writing of an apostate Hindu, someone who would have the temerity even to make judgments about the Western and Eastern spiritual traditions. Look, Share, let's face it: You are as likeable a person who has ever come onto FFL. And the fact that you are intelligent, well, this makes for a most felicitous experience for all of us who have a tropism for sunlight and blue sky. Share1: Thank you, RC, you're often so encouraging to me. Hope you are recuping comfortably from recent onslaught. Oy, what a rampage! ________________________________ > From: Robin Carlsen <maskedzebra@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 12:27 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too > (-: > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > Share1: Marnia Robinson writes: "Take, for example, the ancient Tibetan > Buddhist myth, The Great Stupa. It confirms that passion is indeed the > reason for mankind's fallen state, and says there are three paths to > liberation: > > ~the overcoming of passion through renunciation > ~the neutralization of passion by pouring all one's energy into selfless > service > ~the conquering of passion through controlled indulgence. That is, using sex > itself in such a way as to transcend passion's treacherous downward suction. > > It says that the third path is the fastest and most powerful path, although > also the easiest one to fall from...until one masters it. > > Robin1: I think this just BS, Share. There is no spiritual path that entails > sex or abstinence from sex: celibacy. "Controlled indulgence"--any being with > the intelligence to know how susceptible we all are to the power of this > reality inside our bodies, knows this is just plain ridiculous. 'Mastering' > "controlled indulgence"--this is the most absurd and ludicrous idea I think I > may have heard when it comes to traditional idea of spirituality, Share. > Beautifully sincere, but hopelessly naive. > > Look: here is where I come out on all this. I believe that only the grace of > the Personal God can make of celibacy something real, creative, strong, holy. > Without that grace, all you have is will power and some religious idea of how > good and necessary it is to be abstain from sexual activity. > > The sexual drive in human beings, Share--unless it has simply just attenuated > because of age, or just doesn't assert itself for some unknown reason--always > conquers the individual person. One can only do one's best to act with > integrity in this matter. But turning sex into some kind of path of truth, > that is just a hoot. > > Don't you see, Share, for this to be true would mean that encountering the > methodology and teaching of Marnia Robinson *would be to encounter something > more powerful, or potentially more powerful, than sexual desire*. That can't > happen. The reality and power of sexuality is something *no human being in my > lifetime* has ever mastered--mastered here means, having more control over > and intelligence about than what the sensation of sexuality presents to us. > *We cannot truly command this aspect of ourselves as human beings without the > grace given to us by the author of sexuality* (before the Fall). > > I have never seen a single human being, Share, who I intuitively knew: *This > person knows more about his or her sexuality, what it is, how it acts within > him or her, how it can be put it inside a context such as to make it submit > itself to that person's will--than the power of this reality to determine > that person's experience*. > > Marnia Robinson: The myth, which is very old, predicted there would come a > time when the unstable energies produced by increased indulgence in passion > would create chaos at both seen and unseen levels across the globe. The > first two paths, celibacy and compassionate service to others, would no > longer open the door to enlightenment, though they would remain useful > spiritual disciplines. Why? Because general unrest would render impossible > the necessary degree of inner stillness. > > Robin1: Nice talk, Share--but sex will defeat the person every time. It's one > of those either or things: either there is the grace to transcend this desire > and be protected from its furious vehemence and insistence, or there is not > the grace to do this. For me, I have never seen that grace sufficient to > insure the physical integrity of a human being. Although I don't therefore, > discount the tremendous intention to conquer or control this aspect of > ourselves. Obviously a Catholic priest is living with this intention > (presumably). But Marnia Robinson, she has as much insight into her sexuality > as Eve did: None. *It just is a given that concupiscence takes our measure, > Share*--although, again, I say: there are obviously persons in the world > heroically fighting against this reality within themselves. It is just that > the grace (from the author of sexuality) is being withheld.--This was > decidedly not the case before I was born; before World War II. Then those > nuns and religious, they, some of them anyway--like Saint Therese of > Lisieux, like Saint Francis of Assisi, like Saint Teresa of Avila, like Saint > Ignatius of Loyola, like Thomas Aquinas (to take examples of persons who > refer to this very topic (their own sexuality) and how they somehow were > recipients of the supernatural grace which is a sine qua non in being > innocently and intelligently celibate)--*lived the life that none of us can > now*. > > Marnia Robinson: Instead, only the third path, balance with a partner, would > serve. Apparently a loving relationship, devoted entirely to the goal of > transcendence, can create enduring inner peace and stability. In this way, > we can reconnect the broken circuit of gender and permanently rise about our > built-in sense of lack. By contrast, > celibacy still allows gender polarity to create severe longings in many of > us, if only for simple loving touch. And I suspect this trait is less a > product of moral weakness than a result of the easily inflamed body chemistry > that we have bred into ourselves for millennia. These bothersome longings > may also mask intense yearnings for reunion with our Source. The silver > lining? Many of us are apparently now primed for shared enlightenment should > we care to use our urges for a higher end." > > Robin1: Marnia is an earnest and intelligent and dreamy lady. Sex is sex. I > don't think it can be sublimated--in the act itself--into something which > yields spiritual integrity. I am not saying that sexuality is not something > that is beautiful, even extraordinary to experience; but its very power to > take hold of us is so overwhelming, that the idea of taming, controlling, > making it serve some purpose we devise for it, this just sets up for utter > defeat, Share. > > Sex--these days at least--is something each person works out for himself or > herself. But no one ever has the experience of knowing what sexuality is in > relationship to their own sense of who they are such as to acquire any kind > of objectivity, perspective, insight into it. I certainly have never seen a > human being whom I could say to myself: There is someone who has a sense of > their sexuality identity which is more intelligent than their sexuality has > power over them--or could, in any moment, have power over them. > > Share: from Marnia Robinson's Peace Between the Sheets, pg 137-8 > > Robin1: Once "Between the Sheets", Share, there can be no peace--not such, > anyway, so as to make sex something that can lead one to 'God'. Maharishi > himself is the paradigmatic example of a man, so brilliant, so powerful, so > masterfulâ€"seeming undoubtedly with the integrity to take it or leave > it--and yet, even though he knew it would cause unspeakable and untellable > agony in so many of those who loved him and devoted their lives to him, he > surrendered himself to the desires intrinsic to his manhood. > > Sexuality will always be more potent than the square root of 1% effect. > > Share1:Balinese medicine man Ketut from Eat Pray Love: To lose balance > sometimes for love is part of living a balanced life. > > Robin1:I suppose there is a psychological truth in this--as even Dr Spock or > Sigmund would attest--but that there is some *metaphysical* truth in this, I > reject this, Share. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8csr68LjUM&feature=relmfu > > >
