Desire, Sex, Tantra

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[cloud recluse]

Hi Cloud.

 

I just read your post and it seems you think that those of us who find that these practises ~to some extent or other ~ allow us a breather from feeling like a puppet , exhaustingly jerked around at the whim of endless forces that are pretty meaningless (after the novelty wears off) are scared.

 

scared of what?!

 

Do you mean to imply that the people who do these practises are unfamiliar with grief, heartbreak, passion, depression, illness, trauma?

Or do you mean, that having experienced these things, it would be better to follow a naievely heroic model and simply brace oneself for the next wave, with no skills in place for riding them in a smoother way?

 

No,not at all,Cat.Youve misread me in my enthusiasm I want to make this clear,I AM ALL FOR PRACTICE,its ABSOLUTELY necessary!!! Im all for equanimity & deep meditaive repose,UTTERLY! Thats a cruciial part of the whole thing.But these practices are not just for taking a breather.

 

Now,im all for taking a breather as well,it would be a weird contrivance to refuse oneself that natural cycle.But where practice really takes of is in transcending the sense of a self that has to be "protected" from experience.Im NOT talking about being a reckless twit & squandering your life either though,that also reeks of a compusive avoidance of lifes depths.

 

Riding the waves more smoothly is necesary too.But ultimately its an intermediary practice before diving right in ,WHEN YOU FEEL READY and not before!Riding the Wave is an excellent challenge to the seperative ego,as well as a soother,It can be both.And most people will initially pursue such skills to sooth their overwrought sense of self.COOL.DO IT! But then the practice spontaneously deepens of its own accord,not from some moral imperative,and the whole question of being a seperate rider from the wave comes up.

 

What I was going off about is a lot of talk recently that smelt of ascetisism,of seeing a "detached" state as a goal ,an endpoint,a solution to suffering.This crap turns useful Absorption states into the refuges of cowards. You will see in my post that I actually ADVOCATE yoga ( in the broadest sense of the word).Read it again,ITS NOT AN ANTI-PRACTICE POST!!! Absorption states are great,but ultimately they are best used to challenge the ego,NOT sooth it!!

 

Cat,I dont really know the motives of anyone here until I meet them face to face,nor do i know their life experiences.But i really felt like stirring up the anthill on all this "unattached sex" & the evils of desire business.I want to clarify what people are on about,& rant & rant & rant.

 

Cat,please reply as soon as you can,I want to hear your opinion as soon as possible.Paws or claws,I dint mind either,coz I think your response will be sincere & heartfelt,given what Ive read of your other posts.And anyhow,who else but a cat can burn AND be cool at the same time,& that what Im on about

 

Regards,with perhaps a bit too much verbose enthusiasm for his own good,Cloud

[cloud recluse]

 

BTW, I guess you know that working on what stance you take in relation to life, doesnt make you immune from life, or exempt. There's no guest list and ligging for this gig.

 

I couldnt agree more

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[cloud recluse]

.... life will trip them up and push their heads under the water somehow.

 

Hell yes,Life,the Dao,breaks through ALL our stances & positions sooner or later.But this doesnt mean Im dismissive of others pain & fear either,or my own for that matter ( despite being a 2000 year old mist shrouded adept,even I still get the odd twinge ).

 

Full blooded compassion & connection is also part of my yoga.As far as I can figure,the ego is a refusal of contact & connection.This include external contact with others,& internal contact with my own silent depths.The ego wants to avoid the full impact of both of them.A shame really,coz theres no where else to go,and full contact is an inspiration,NOT a"energy drain" or threat or sin or whatever.

 

Thanks for the prompt response,I dig your feline swiftness

 

Regards,Cloud.

[neimad]

The great Tibetan teacher Marpa lived on a farm with his family a thousand years ago. On this farm there also lived many monks who came to study with this great teacher. One day Marpa's oldest son was killed. Marpa was grieving deeply when one of the monks came to him and said, "I don't understand. You teach us that all is illusion.Yet you are crying. If all is illusion, then why do you grieve so deeply?" Marpa replied, 'Indeed, everything is illusion. And the death of a child is the greatest of these illusions.'

 

this is what don juan termed "controlled folly".

 

this is to know that every action is entirely useless and yet involve oneself in them to the fullest aware that there is no point to it.

 

 

 

this is how i see that "new relationship with desire" is formed. by knowing that all things, like desire, attachment, etc are utterly useless and yet to live it out because there is nothing else.

 

 

so in terms of sex it is to, when sex presents itself (because if you are actively thinking about it and seeking it out... well it's no longer controlled folly), to involve oneself in it to the fullest enjoying every single moment of it..... to act within with utter abandon yet at the same time aware that it means absolutely nothing (and everything).

 

then it becomes an act of power.

 

 

------------------------

 

cloud,

i totally dig what you are saying. there is no retreat from the moment, from the sensations..... that's presence, to fully engage in absolute totality and with spontenaity and abandon every single moment as the moment right before one dies (cos i guess every moment one does die and become reborn again!?).

 

 

 

 

i think presence and controlled folly go hand in hand. to embrace fully the moment, with purpose yet knowing that it's meaningless and what we are ultimately heading to is dissolution of the universe (the end of god) - cos that's the only place to go.

 

 

of course i am only speculating and talking nonsense.

[Trunk]

My observation is that people are generally not really competent to discern the difference between tangling and untangling, much less the skill to accomplish fluently - to actually do it.

 

And, for me, this has to do with what goes on with the winds and thoughts and reaching/defending and centers' and the central-channel's relation to Openness. "Keeping one's center", and finding that one's center coincides with the Big Nameless.

 

There aren't many places of an intimate relationship where that Return to Suchness is actually regularly co-cultivated. .. or, at least, relationships tend to lose that occasionally and usually the relationship had very little to do with Nothing .. awwww, you know what I'm trying to say.

 

Occasional co-still-standing is has interesting possibilities.

[neimad]

until i have cultivated the skills in myself to approach everything as an immpecable warrior i personally am steering well clear of romantic relationships.

 

if you can't even handle the fire properly how can you possibly steam the water?

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[Ian]

Too bloody right !!

 

The thing I really dig about Odiers little book is that it trounces this morbid "detachment ' thing! Fuck,what are people so FUCKING SCARED OF!!!! I think if you edited all the Eastern texts & replaced the word "Attachment" with the term "Compulsion",all the obedient little seekers wouldnt spend so much time being terrified of involvement with life!!! Compulsion is a stupid spasm that sends you on a futile quest to get what you allready have by looking somewhere else.STUPID! And very,very embarrising.

But life itself IS NOT the problem!! And the only time you wont be attached to that is when your dead!! Can you stop breathing,"watch" the desire to breath."spiritually' deny that dirty involvement,& calmly die! If you did,all it proves is that youve misused yoga to be a suicidal dimwit!!

 

For ALL of your life,you will be a living,pulsing ball of need & passion,NO EXCEPTIONS,and that is the whole point,TO MANIFEST,to honour the Dao.Its only when you smear all this glory with neurotic compulsion,turn the whole gorgeous display into a fear trip,that it fucks up,twists it.

 

So could everbody stop crapping on about detachment,and fantasising about becoming a super-seperate ultra-independent unit & just admit theyre SCARED !!ENLIGHTENMENT IS NOT ISOLATION OR IMMUNITY FROM FEELING,no matter how attractive & reassuring that goal is to the Ego!!!This fantasised independence is just COWARDICE,not "warriorship" or "transcendance"!!

 

 

 

I could hardly disagree more.

 

Point one: Detachment has nothing to do with separation. In fact the more detached you are the more you experience yourself as part of everything.

 

Two: in order to practice detachment properly you have to face and overcome a great deal of fear.

 

Three: the only difference between attachment and compulsion, as you define them above, is that compulsion is the attachment you've already noticed.

 

Four: you don't know that the whole point is to manifest and honour the tao. You don't know that. You don't even know if there is a"whole point". How could you? Admit it, it's an opinion.

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[minimoke]

 

The thing I really dig about Odiers little book is that it trounces this morbid "detachment ' thing!

 

Regards,Cloud.

 

I assume you talking about, "DESIRE:THE TANTRIC PATH TO AWAKENING" ?

 

I recently ordered my first book by Odier and it's the one about meditation. Oh my, I ordered the wrong one!

 

Bruce

[cloud recluse]

I assume you talking about, "DESIRE:THE TANTRIC PATH TO AWAKENING" ?

 

I recently ordered my first book by Odier and it's the one about meditation. Oh my, I ordered the wrong one!

 

Bruce

 

I assume youve ordered MEDITATION TECHNIQUES OF THE BUDDHIST AND TAOIST MASTERS then.No worry.Its still a good choice with a nifty section on Daoism.Its just that DESIRE is a great intro to Odiers work,& illuminates the connections between Tantra & Zen,paths that are often seen as contrasting.When you look at things from the perspective in DESIRE,a lot of it really comes together.Having said that,I dont know that I necesarily agree with everything Odier says,but thats just me being finicky.I like being finicky.

[cloud recluse]

I could hardly disagree more.

 

Point one: Detachment has nothing to do with separation. In fact the more detached you are the more you experience yourself as part of everything.

 

Two: in order to practice detachment properly you have to face and overcome a great deal of fear.

 

Three: the only difference between attachment and compulsion, as you define them above, is that compulsion is the attachment you've already noticed.

 

Four: you don't know that the whole point is to manifest and honour the tao. You don't know that. You don't even know if there is a"whole point". How could you? Admit it, it's an opinion.

 

Im not sure,but we may well be using different language to talk about the same thing,& my last posts on this were shameless ranting (I was feeling quite expansive).I will have to ponder your first 3 points a bit & try & come back with something concise & not too wordy.Be patient with me Ian

 

As for point 4,OF COURSE ITS MY OPINION,how could it be anything else I cant "prove' it in any empirical sense,its a metaphysical statement (which doesnt mean it cant be tested for internal consistency though).

But its not an opinion borne of a blind faith in someone elses words.all this is drawn from my experience & tested as best I can.The metaphysics Im proposing is an extrapolation from my experince so far.Still a leap of Faith,so to speak,but not a blind one.

 

For me,phenomena are not "just" a dream,or a sinful error.My models of them may be limited,but they are an outpouring of the Limitless in & of themselves,worthy of honour & respect.I luv Blakes "Eternity is in Love with the Productions of Time",this really says it for me,& thats what leads me to Daoism as distinct from other paths.It promises insights from far more experienced critters than me into the experience we seem to be sharing.

Of course I think my opinion is "True",otherwise I wouldnt hold it as an opinion.But I also realize it comes from "subjective" experience,with all the qualification that entails.

 

Iwill get back to you soon

Regards,Cloud

[cloud recluse]

cloud... I admire your stance. I heard it, after a while, in what you were saying and I went to sleep since I last posted and I woke up with a revived sense of 'once more into the fray, dear friend'... a happiness to be in the game.

So thanks for that.

 

I so agree that 'full contact is an inspiration'. It's Eros - it's what gets the juices of life flowing.Without it we are poor dry things.

 

And once you know - I mean REALLY know, like a trickled - through your whole self knowing, not a cerebral knowing - about transience and samsara, that full contact has a different quality. Is it 'detachment' or something else more poignant, that I dont know the word for. Acceptance of Mortality, maybe is all it is.

 

or something. sort of thing.

 

Thak you for your patience Cat.I really was using strong language in my initial posts & perhaps that was a bit counterproductive

but I am actually starting to think that a lot of the conventional terminology used in western spiritual circles could be a bit outworn.I really would like to reinstate Desire as a spiritual virtue,and clean out a lot of the "life is sin" language that haunts our attempts to come to grips with Yogic traditions.

 

So,in case anybody hasnt guessed,the term "Detachment" is a bit of a bugbear for me.But going off about it seems to be triggering the right kind of debate,so Im sticking to my guns for now

 

Regards,Cloud.

Edited June 19, 2006 by cloud recluse

[freeform]

This whole attachment/detachment business works a little differently in my mind.

 

I think of it in terms of stimulus->response... detachment, free will, True Will, your centre, your core channel, effortless action lies right in between stimulus->response.

 

Most people work in terms of stimulus->response, some of them achieve great things... just as a spider weaves a beautiful web... But as humans we have the ability to be the stimulus and to be the response and to be neither at the same time. Rather than re-acting, the wise-person just acts! It's spontaneous, has no mental 'logic' to it... you just know.

 

What's the difference between the wise-person and an automaton... An automaton sees an attractive person (stimulus) and responds by either getting shy and coy, or checking them out, or getting jelous, or chatting them up, or falling into deep lust... it all depends on how hir wiring allows hir to respond.

 

The wise-person does not have a stimulus and does not respond... The wise person just 'lets things happen' (sounds pretty rediculous to us automatons!) - but s/he is not guided by hir instinct, by hir judgement, by logic... the wise person is out of 'control' - whatever happens happens - it's like s/he is a spinning-top spinning uncontrolably from hir central channel... which leads hir to the space and time that is required for hir and sucks towards hir the people and resources that are appropriate (no idea what this really means ). The wise person feels desire when appropriate, feels anger when appropriate, feels everything and anything that is appropriate and feels it to the full. And that is scary...

 

To relinquish all control is beyond frightning... it feels like dying, for you're relinquishing control over your life and death... you can't seek comfort and safety, you cant seek love and relationships and you cant seek non-seeking... you just have to let go of all the reigns you've establised over your life and let the horses of your central channel, true will, free will etc run wild. Ofcourse they say that once you do, you realise you never had control in the first place... feeling safe and comfortable is just a feeling and not reality... feeling love and lust is just a response. But it's fucking hard! all those painfull wounds are gonna be uncovered, all that fear and trapped emotion is gonna burst out and your ego will try to find any way it can to get its control back... even if it means making the 'act of losing control' an act of ego.

 

Sometimes it seems that there are two ways of gaining this freedom... one way is embracing all of everything - all your desires, all your illusions, all your fixations and all your fear. And the other way is to deny all of this. Which is the right way of going about it? who knows? Which way am I going? I have no idea - I'm completely confused... and I hope you are too... because that's a good sign!

[Callan]

Too bloody right !! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

 

The thing I really dig about Odiers little book is that it trounces this morbid "detachment ' thing! Fuck,what are people so FUCKING SCARED OF!!!! I think if you edited all the Eastern texts & replaced the word "Attachment" with the term "Compulsion",all the obedient little seekers wouldnt spend so much time being terrified of involvement with life!!! Compulsion is a stupid spasm that sends you on a futile quest to get what you allready have by looking somewhere else.STUPID! And very,very embarrising.

But life itself IS NOT the problem!! And the only time you wont be attached to that is when your dead!! Can you stop breathing,"watch" the desire to breath."spiritually' deny that dirty involvement,& calmly die! If you did,all it proves is that youve misused yoga to be a suicidal dimwit!!

 

For ALL of your life,you will be a living,pulsing ball of need & passion,NO EXCEPTIONS,and that is the whole point,TO MANIFEST,to honour the Dao.Its only when you smear all this glory with neurotic compulsion,turn the whole gorgeous display into a fear trip,that it fucks up,twists it.

 

So could everbody stop crapping on about detachment,and fantasising about becoming a super-seperate ultra-independent unit & just admit theyre SCARED !!ENLIGHTENMENT IS NOT ISOLATION OR IMMUNITY FROM FEELING,no matter how attractive & reassuring that goal is to the Ego!!!This fantasised independence is just COWARDICE,not "warriorship" or "transcendance"!!

 

 

 

 

I could hardly disagree more.

 

Point one: Detachment has nothing to do with separation. In fact the more detached you are the more you experience yourself as part of everything.

 

Two: in order to practice detachment properly you have to face and overcome a great deal of fear.

 

Three: the only difference between attachment and compulsion, as you define them above, is that compulsion is the attachment you've already noticed.

 

Four: you don't know that the whole point is to manifest and honour the tao. You don't know that. You don't even know if there is a"whole point". How could you? Admit it, it's an opinion.

 

 

Seems to me this is more of a terminology thing. The trick for me is to connect deeper and deeper internally. This involves detaching from things that prop me up in the external world but it certainly doesn't mean being detached in the emotional sense. Maybe this is where the confusion comes in.

I agree with cloud that this involves living as much as we can without our protections and really experiencing everything intensely : just not getting stuck in it - whatever it might be.

 

As for desire - I know if I desire something outside of myself then I'm splitting myself in two and it hurts. The only way I know at the moment to counteract this is to be grateful for whatever is happening to me at the time - no matter what it is. I still want things and ask for things just don't get caught up too much on whether I get them or not, or how I get them.

 

I loved that rant. There is a lot of bullshit around that has been misquoted or misinterpreted or was just plain crap to start with. Maybe we need some new ways to describe some of this stuff.

[Ian]

Ian, how about explaining Point One a bit. Pleez.

 

Only for you.

 

 

What really stops us from experiencing ourselves as part of the big picture, aligned with big mind, a cell in the body of life?

 

The belief that stuff we think is experienced within our skin bag is different, separate or more important than stuff outside it. The idea that there's a boundary there.

 

Even in my very limited experience detachment requires an open, expansive, presence which takes in more, not less of what is actually happening, just doesn't call it me.

 

So to be truly detached from something you gotta be right up in its face. But not savouring your passion, emotion, reactions, and thinking OOH, it's so real it must be valid. That's just an excuse for not even bothering to try and do the job. That's the tricky mind saying it's ok, you don't even need to start, the premise is invalid.

 

Spiritual practice is DIFFICULT. You have to die to yourself. Lots of other things get lumped in and filed under general weirdness, and people assume they are a kind of spiritual practice. But they ain't. Spiritual practice is a form of suicide. You get it all back, if you succeed, but by then you don't care. But you gotta gotta gotta be prepared to give it all up.

 

Cloud - will you give up the joy of argument?

Sean - will you give up the joy or research and analysis?

Ian - will you give up trying to be right?

 

Will you give up being yourself? Will you go right out on a limb and have no idea what to do next because you don't know who you are? Will you endure that uncertainty for decades if necessary, years of apparent pointlessness, because you love God/tao/love, whatever you call it, so much?

 

Maybe neimad will.

 

How's that, Cat? Can I go now?

[karen]

Hi Ian,

 

If you haven't gone yet.. this might just be OH so much fun ...

 

Re. spiritual practice being difficult. I wonder.. how do you know that spiritual practice is difficult? I don't mean that rhetorically, but I think it's a really interesting question. Also with anything I think is difficult, I always find it interesting to explore what my actual experience is, that I've labelled "difficult."

 

Not to analyze why I think it's difficult, but to explore the experience and see what it really is. Exactly how is it difficult, and what do I experience, not why.

 

Not to describe it to me or anyone else (unless you feel like it), but just to see how the question takes you out of the trance of the word difficult and into pure experience.

 

Hope you're having fun

 

Karen

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[karen]

Opposite script, if you like. Reframe it as easy if you like. OR.. just be aware of experience and you may find yourself pleasantly, and maybe surprisingly, not interested in thoughts of easy or difficult. Or you might find those thoughts interesting in a whole different way.

 

I've done this while engaged in what I call "extreme sports" of life so I think it's well field tested for rigorous conditions.

 

At least you could substitute the word "hard" for difficult, and see if that's any more interesting!

 

Karen

[三江源]

.

Edited July 25, 2014 by cat

[karen]

Trying substituting the word 'difficult' for 'hard', in a sexual context, would be quite interesting, too.

 

I knew I didn't need to spell things out, especially for the highly creative minds here

 

But it's fun to spell out. How about associating "hard" with a sexual context, and then use that in another context when something is (unpleasantly) hard or difficult. How about associating having your mouth open with a sexual context, then take that context to the dentist when you're experiencing something unpleasant. Whoa. Then of course vice-versa. Those anchors are fun to mess around with.

 

You start noticing how fluid experience is, underneath the anchors, and then you notice that you have an anchor for swimming

 

Karen

[sean]

Ian, it sounds like you are going down a very very specific style of path ... reminds me of the Catholicism in which I was raised, particularly St. John of the Cross who I admire. I sincerely hope it's working for you.

 

And also from my vantage point I can't help but suggest that you seem a bit entranced by what appear to be almost morbid and anti-natural aspects of your perceptions of the path. The perceptions themselves are accurate as a perspective, but is this perspective held with other equally valid perspectives?

 

IMHO enlightenment can be seen to be a very natural process. Like the unfolding of a flower. There is pain. There is loss. And there is also great pleasure and great beauty. We do the best we can to cultivate, watering and giving nutrient to our soil, pulling out weeds, transplating ourselves to more appropriate environments. We learn from teachers wiser than us, but ultimately it's all a very ordinary, very natural process we would eventually discover without exposure to formal, human dharma. The teaching is reflected in and through all of nature. It's not a club we can join if we are austere enough, it's a club we already intimately are and can't get out of.

 

My question is, are you entangling a personal tendency toward melancholy into a projection of what you objectively believe an enlightened path must be for yourself and everyone else?

 

What happened to just be happy? Is that only your animal nature speaking? Arf! ArfArfArf!

 

Sincerely,

Sean