sean

I can imagine how that could be possible ... I think I've tasted states like that, where I am so open and full of bliss that sex / stimulation is just another part of my field of circulating energy ... a desire to expel just doesn't arise at all. Still, setting aside compulsive desire for sex/orgasm, don't you think that consistent, external, erotic stimulation moves your internal energy around and makes the dynamic different than say a celibate monk who only touches his dick to piss? Basically the distinction between cool and hot alchemy, really. Sean

Craig, thanks for all the info, I will check that out for sure. Freeform, yeah, not into the consumption either. But I can get down with sigils, the intentions of which are mostly aimed right back at my practice ... IME, the power of having a (at least close to) full body orgasm that is just torn from your body spontaneously from a melting sexual encounter, when the energy of this is consciously directed in a sense as a sacrifice to your Ishta, your highest ideal, at the very least my Bhakti for the path raises a lot. Whereas trying to grind out weeks and weeks of retention get's kind of counterproductive for me. If I had more time to meditate my 70% Pietro safety range would likely increase. I agree with Smile though, retention is worse than pointless IME without a solid daily practice. And then there are other factors too, like the frequency / intensity / duration / type of sexual stimulation you encounter during any given time period. Masturbating or having sex every day changes the dynamic quite a bit obviously, and IMO 30 days of sexually active retention is a different puppy altogether than 30 days of keeping your underwear on. Not better or worse, just different ... Sean

Hey Craig, what brand / doses could you suggest? Sounds interesting. thaddeus, I tend to agree with you. And the way I have gotten around the whole "ejaculation is a tragic accident that wastes life force" in my own practice, is, first to structure it in (currently about once a month), and second to create a ritual out of it that uses the whole process for exernal alchemy of various sorts ... the latter is detailed more in the Western traditions. Sean

Do you recall the story of Jonathon Livingston Seagull? He was a "special" bird. He was not interested in screeching or squabbling with the other seagulls. He wanted no part of their fighting for a piece of rotten fish. He was above that. Where the other birds were content to remain within the limits of ordinary seagull life, Jonathon was obsessed with the idea of transcending those limits. So he went off on his own to become a pure spirit, interested only in pure love. No sex. Does that choice make sense? Actually, as children, narcissists didn't have a choice. They were seduced into giving up their sexuality and offered, in its place, the image of being special. It was a poor bargain, but they had no choice. They may have even thought that one day they would experience a special sexuality, transcending ordinary love. As adults, they may realize that that is only possible in their imagination. Yet having made the initial deal, they are reluctant to renounce it. After all, aren't they special? Why should they give that up? But if they don't give up the image of being special, they have no chance of recovering the sexuality that is common to all people. In saying this, I'm not denying that people do have special gifts. We are each unique, with our own abilities and talent, which are different from those of other persons. But that does not make us "special", for we recognize that others also have special gifts and talents, which we may not possess. If we are wise, we don't base our identity on our special ability. Our special gifts are like the furnishings in our home. Without a house to contain them, to give them meaning, they are just pieces of furniture. In a house, they take on character and distinction reflecting the quality of life. Our body is our house. It is the foundation of our identity. Writing a book doesn't make me a man. Being a man, which is the essence of my nature, I can also be a writer. If one can identify with one's body as one's being, if one can say simply, "I am a man" or "I am a woman", one will discover that one's true identity derives from one's common heritage, not from one's specialness. What do I mean by one's common heritage? How is one not special? What is common to all people is the body and its functioning. On a basic level, all bodies function similarly. To be special, one must deny one's identification with one's body, for that identification would mean that one is like everyone else. A patient described her narcissistic mother in these words: "She thinks her shit doesn't stink". And to be special one must also deny one's feelings, for they, too, are common. Everyone loves, hates, and gets angry, sad, frightened, etc. The special person has to be above the body and its feelings. Being special sets one apart. We refer to ordinary people as the common people. The common people have each other. They belong to the human race; they share the common struggle. But they are not tied to each other. The special person is bound initially to the individual who makes him or her feel special and later to those who regard him or her as special. The special person is not free -- that is an illusion. Where the special person lives in the clouds, in images, the common people are grounded in the reality of life. They laugh and cry, have pleasure and pain, know sorrow and joy. They live their lives and so are fulfilled. The special person imagines a life. And in this way the special person does create a special destiny -- to see his or her image crumble, as Dorian Gray did when reality confronted him. As I have emphasized repeatedly, the true needs of a person are never satisfied through an image. A male is not fulfilled in his manhood by seducing women with a macho facade. No matter how effective his facade is, he will remain insecure inwardly as long as he is dependent on his facade. Because he cannot let go of it and give in to his feelings, his sexual responsiveness will suffer. Unfortunately, this lack of sexual fulfillment seems to confirm his inadequacy, leading him to invest more energy in the facade. His real need is to accept himself as he is, which means to accept all his feelings -- his fears, anger, sadness, and even despair. In accepting himself, he will find his true maleness. The same considerations apply to the woman who tries to project an image of alluring femininity. The image does nothing to increase her sexual feelings and actually diminishes them, because energy or libido is withdrawn from body feeling and invested in the ego. True beauty, for both men and women, lies in an inner aliveness, not an external show of looks. I have often heard women exclaim at the end of a session in whcih they had released their sadness by deep crying, "I must look like a mess". In truth, their eyes were shining and their faces radiant. They looked beautiful. --- Excerpt from Narcissism : Denial of the True Self by Alexander Lowen. Your line there made me think of that. Sean

She is coming and coming, Light flows through two red threads, Shining empty, open, clear. Now! Falling in Now, Here, Undressing this flesh and bone, Nude, See I Am Nothing! Sensuous sliding, Blood moves, Astral horns, Astral hooves, She is coming and coming.

Yeah, I was just checking that pranamaya.com site yesterday. I will probably get into some of those teachers in time. Right now I am going to see how much I can settle into Zink's Taoist Yoga. Hey, ever check out Andrey Lappa over there though? That guy is wild! I guess he's Russian and some of his Yoga reminds me of the CST joint mobility drills. Really intricate system, looks like you'd have to really immerse yourself in his work for awhile to get what he is talking about. Cam, that'd be cool as shit if you could come out to Santa Monica with us. My brother lives down around there now and I've been tinkering with the thought of heading there myself in the next year or so. Sean

I think we are just using the term narcissism differently. IMO narcissism isn't merely self-absorbtion, it's a compulsive retreat from the body (it's sensations, vulnerability and inevitable death) into an ego image. It's not the innocent self-centeredness of children and animals. It's a corruption of a healthy, embodied sense of self ... it's thought to be a reaction to childhood trauma ... a coping mechanism is formed that splits ego from body, ego being "higher" and "body" being repressed to various extremes and considered "lower". Think "American Psycho", not Michael Jordan. Sean

LOL! You caught that. Yeah, I did that last night and then this morning I started to think it looked a little narcissistic. OMG, yes, you hit the nail on the head! Narcissism is a complete rejection of vulnerability! The body, feelings, sexuality ... these are vulnerable. So the mind makes a God of the ego, detaches from the body, and projects an image of complete reliability ... the body is just a well-oiled machine that responds how the ego dictates. No accidental farting. No spontaneous erections. No sudden tears. No possibility for real, melting, love. It's funny, you just made me realize how this detachment from vulnerability is often what I intuitively challenge in others when I'm attempting to open them to the possibility of a deeper spiritual experience. The integrity of my logic is almost secondary to calling upon this heart-broken-open humility in the face of this Mystery we are all moving through and a part of. Or perhaps in simpler terms, I'm just overdramatic. Sean

Also Cam, the book discusses how American culture in particular actually encourages narcissism, so it's no shock that many people have some degree of narcissistic characteristics. Actually, Cam, from the perspective of wholeness we are all pretty much narcissistic until we reach a point that we can consistently act with deep authenticity to the truth of how our bodies feel. I was thinking about this the other day in Yoga class. Strange story perhaps, but I was helping this girl into a bridge and I found her very attractive and started to sense a warmness in my genitals and that I could easily get an erection from remaining open and present to this woman. I didn't know what to do and I felt fear so I ended up having to cut myself off from her (nice spontaneous Freudian language choice here btw, heh) and sort of closing down energetically with her out of anxiety that I would get like a massive erection in a room full of people. Not sure if this is really narcissism, but perhaps it's kind of related to the same mechanism. Shutting down spontaneous, genuine full-body responses in favor of ego-controlled, marionette-style relationship of mind to body, and mind to world (never body to world). Sean

Again, just a psychoanalytic map and I'm not a psychoanalyst which adds another layer of conjecture but the description is that narcissists are almost completely cut off from their true, spontaneous feelings and act to convince themselves and others that an image they hold in their mind (often an image of efficiency, power, success) is true. Underneath though, yeah, there's gotta be a deep reservoir of suffering being held at bay, and likely an original trauma that made set the whole process in motion, first as a coping mechanism and then as an unconsious habit of being. If you are interested in the subject, check out Narcissim by Alexander Lowen, it's really pretty good. Sean

cloud_recluse, I'd dig that link if you can dig it up ... did you check the archival library in the antique west wing. yoda, cam, freeform ... "narcissism" is a specific label mapping a dysfunctional process of ego formation. (Yes, just a map, not a absolutely real freeform. I know you have to get that in. ) It's like saying "obsessive compulsive" or "borderline personality". Of course healthy psychology isn't about shunning people or kicking them out of parties, ideally it's about understanding them and helping them move through their limitations into a more pleasurabe, more whole, truer expression of themselves. Narcissism is not a strong, healthy ego that helps us "go for the gold", free of worrying about external judgement. It's absolutely not a higher transcendence of self that is described in spiritual literature. It's quite close to the opposite. Everything the narcissist does is a compulsive attempt to project an image, often of competence and success, that is severely severely cut off from genuine body sensation / feelings ... this is accompanied by deep deep almost entirely unconscious sadness and rage at being imprisoned by this pathology, and a belief that they are nothing and worthless without their image. Narcissists can appear very successful, the business world thrives on people who can present a consistent, reliable image detached from authentic body content, but seriously, it's not a pretty thing ... So, compassion yes, pre/trans fallacy glorification, no! freeform, re: BigMind, now that you mention it reminds me somewhat of the Core Transformation Process. Ian, probably a beta version, I think he's been developing it for awhile. Sean

Nice post Cloud. It's ironic, all this last week I've been thinking a lot about these very issues ... I love Wilber's pre/trans, and I think it's an essential piece to really grok. And then I also have a deep affinity for phenomenon that seem to challenge it's logic, at least the way Wilber formulates it. If you are interested, I just finished reading this fairly dense piece touching on some of these issues ... where pre/trans starts to breakdown when confronted with, for example, the possibility that children can access genuine transpersonal states before moving up to a rational stage of development, and perhaps more importantly the controversy over wether transpersonal states can be accessed "through the back door" by digging back to prerational content, such as occurs in the rebirthing work of Stanislav Grof, and also in some pagan rites, shamanism, magick, and even Taoist alchemy. Also, while we're on the subject, Alexander Lowen's book Narcissism presents a unique theory on child narcissism, basically that it's not inherent but an unnatural reaction to seductive/manipulative parenting and would not develop otherwise. Not sure I agree with his whole line of reasoning, but the book is very interesting and I appreciate Lowen's work. Anyway, sorry for the tease, Big Mind is pretty cool. Check it out. It's like a cross between parts work, gestalt therapy, Dzogchen, Advaita and Zen. Genpo Roshi asks to speak to various parts of you, starting with parts that are typically unconscious and/or rejected and that get in the way of moving into samadhi. So, "can I speak with the controller?" .... and then he will basically give the controller a pat on the back for the great job it's doing. Affirming each part. Letting it go. Then maybe "the fixer", "the judge", etc. Then he starts just directly calling forward big parts that most meditators assume take years to even taste, the reality being more like we can get a taste very simply at any time, it just takes years of meditation to stabilize them. So, "can I speak to the nongrasping nonseeking mind?" ... *bam* If you have even a small degree of subtle consciousness I think by this point you are sinking into a taste of a nice samadhi buzz. From there he might go on to various other layers, folding this "big mind" into "big heart" and then often ending in calling up a whole, functional self that embodies all of these parts successfully. So I only have a little bit of experience working with this process, and the idea of working with samadhi awareness as if it were an instantly accessible part that can be called up at any time is pretty unique and interesting, but IMVHO I see Big Mind as being more useful to beginning meditators who need these tastes of formless bliss to find the deeper motivation for a more disciplined zazen practice. I don't know enough about Genpo Roshi or the full Big Mind process on the DVD to know how this is addressed. It's possible at an advanced level Big Mind is used more as a preparatory mental cleansing before a longer zazen (or any) practice .... I think this could be a very powerful use for it. Hope this helps, Sean [edit] Another way of checking out Big Mind is through the Integral Life Practice Starter Kit ... this brainchild of Ken Wilber and teachers from various traditions he has drawn under his AQAL umbrella. I haven't personally looked into this yet as it's a little pricey ($200) but comes with a lot of content.

Come on dude! Only $19.95!! Limited time.

"Dear Sean,I am very happy to hear you will be coming to my santa monica workshop and bringing some friends.The dvd set will be a good primer for it.I will be sending them out tomorrow by priority mail.The workshop will cover alot of things not in the dvds.I hope you enjoy them.Looking forward to meeting you.paulie" ... Can't wait! And irkk, thank you for your continued detail in overviewing this work for us.

Ouch. Yeah, I find serious flaws in this kind of new-age metaphysics. And it leads to outrageous beliefs like the Jews manifested the holocaust as way of teaching themselves a lesson. I touched on this in Lozen's journal here: Also, I think idealizing children falls on the elevationist side of the pre/trans fallacy: Enlightenment, or "One in the Tao" to me is not a state of prerational "ignorance as bliss", but a postrational state of awareness in which we can function rationally and also remain aware of the undivided ground of being. Children totally need guidance. And IMO it's not parental/social guidance that causes a "fall from Tao", it's birth, or more accurately conception. A child cannot raise itself and would, in all probability die within hours of being left alone in a forest. Likewise a child needs to be taught a human language which, by an even more absolute idealization of child-as-Sage, would be seen as a restrictive imposition since language has more of the top-down "jamming" of rules, and inherent dichotomies of subject and object than a simple suggestion to a child that it's not conducive to long-term happiness to bear cruelty to others. Children looks up to adults for examples and help on how to behave and, personally, I think it's letting them down to fantasize that they are mystically born in touch with all the answers and can figure everything out themselves. Heh, this strikes me as like the quintessential detached guy way of raising kids though ... cool in doses but it probably leaves Mom more work as I doubt women share this view much. Ahhh, what do I know? *shrug* Sean

Me.

Great post Yoda. Agreed 100%. Yes, I believe that we are born with a deep, powerful impulse toward higher and more inclusive stages of bliss, absolutely. And I also think that there are people who are completely lost and causing enormous suffering for themselves, others, the environment and ultimately back to ourselves again (in the sense that we are all interconnected). This is why teachers arise. To guide us to our higher potential for Eros safely, for the highest good of everyone. I went to 12 years of Catholic school and was raised by fairly strict, practicing Catholic parents, so I know firsthand how seriously crappy ethical training can be. I guess I would say that just because some food sucks doesn't mean we should stop eating. A lot of what typically gets dubbed ethical is just boring, repressive, often fundamentalist, top-down rules. Maybe in extreme cases this was helpful, like 2000 years ago when the great sages were trying to raise up warring tribes to a higher stage of consciousness. But humans are typically more subtle now and IMO respond much better to the kind of ethical training that I imagine you engage in with your children ... like "how do you think that joey felt when you kicked him in the knee?" ... that sort of thing. And personally, I consider a great deal of what we do here to be a highly evolved form of experiential ethical training. I think we agree here, you just don't like the phrasing which is understandable. I'm actually deliberately using the term in an effort to steal it back from the fundamentalists and use it properly because I like doing shit like that. Sean

Yeah, Adyashanti totally has a California vibe about the whole thing. He shows up to satsang in short sleeve Hawaiian shirts and sandals. It kind of goes with the whole Advaitic theme of emphasizing everpresent perfection. Personally, I can groove with it and I also get along fine with the greater sense of urgency promoted in other schools (with the exclusion of paranoid fundamentalist impending apocalypse cults ). Gangaji has a background as a political activist and will often speak with more urgency about the situation, speaking of how the world we are creating from our positions of delusion continues to escalate war and environmental destruction. Sean

Cameron, "Jim and His Karma" over on AYP just posted a practice based very much on what you are talking about (I think) ... Via A self-inquiry to try As long as "feeling good" is understood postconventionally, for instance, as an Istha for Eros, yes, absolutely. So, "feeling good" as the actual whole state of being perceived by a wide open field of spacious awareness that is free of aversion to "what is", even if this includes pain. Preconventionally, a psychopath might think that deliberately hurting another human being against their will feels really good. This isn't a postconventional "feel good" hedonist ethic though because the psychopath's awareness is pathologically repressing how deeply he is hurting his own body-mind-soul when he deliberately hurts others. Moreover, the psychopath isn't even aware that his primary drive is not to feel good at all, but for self-destruction, Thanatos. Deal? Sean

Oops, yes, I typed unconsciously here. I'm familar with memetics. Glad I slipped though because that does sound like an interesting paper. Profound point. I'll have to carry this around with me and chew on it a bit. I guess intuitively I would say that our intrinsic more "base" desires (root, sacral, navel) are strongly strongly shaped by the society we live in, but the impulse itself originated in our own bodies. Pathology, including rivalistic power clashes, arises from blockages in the ascension and circulation of our "primordial desire energy". These can be self-imposed and socially (even physically) imposed. Hmmm ... so now I am questioning the deeper possibility of how much of what we call desire actually does not originate as a true biological impulse at all, but is actually taken on, as you say, mimetically. A taking on of false desire, detached from the actual needs and impulses of the body. It's another type of blockage really, no? Reminds me of Alexander Lowen's concept of narcissism. A primary concern for maintaining and projecting an image detached from feeling or staying true to one's actual body sensations. By this definition, American memes strongly encourage the development of narcissism. I apologize if I am coming into this from a strange angle that may or not be very related to mimetics, or is covered in it's basics. Sean

My very limited understanding is that Taoism doesn't address top down social ethics much, it's more of a sense that a natural virtue and harmony arise when we are aligned with The Tao. This kind of training was it's speciality. I listened to a talk recently by Alan Wallace, where he talked about ancient China's relationship with Buddhism, Taoism and Confucism. My interpretation of what he said is basically that the Chinese drew on Buddhism for deeper spiritual development and a specific personal ethic, developed Taoism for subtle and gross body cultivation and an almost Advaitic bottom-up sense of reality and virtue, and Confucism for more top-down interpersonal and societal ethics. All three were held without contradiction for, as a whole, the Chinese civilization lacked an exclusivist notion that you have to be one thing and then repudiate or dismiss everything else. Sean

I installed some software to let us create reviews of products, practices, teachers, classes and more. The URL is http://www.thetaobums.com/reviews/ Check it. I'm still tweaking the cookie settings so you may have to login again. Your forum and username password are your login. Please please give me any feedback you can think of. New categories. Remove some categories. Whatever. And of course feel free to upload products, and add reviews to products!! Have fun. I think this could be a really cool addition to The Tao Bums and, if we all use it and fill it with intelligent reviews, could make TTB a really useful for resource for other contemplatives online. Sean

Cool! I liked that bit on being an amateur.

My respect.