Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:48 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Most westerners have little understanding or appreciation of Paganism, period. Simon Magus and all that. Let's face it, if you're in the US you're in Jesusland. Worse, you're in Paul-land. Or in Luther-land or Calvin-land. Way different set of rides than Disneyland. :-) And no one even gives you a barf bag!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:12 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: I've been at a safe distance for many years now, so little of it affects me personally. But IMO one of the biggest instances of bad behavior was the Recert thang. That's a way of saying to the people who paid your bills for many years, We don't *care* what you may have done for us in the past. We don't *care* if you have family or business responsibilities. We only care whether you are on the bus or off the bus. If you are not willing to flush your life down the toilet and work full time for us and trust us to pay you every month, we don't want you around. All that's true, Barry, but seeing as how the Recert thing happened pretty recently, don't those who fell for the same old tired lines, again, bear some if not most of the responsibility? Is that being too harsh? Since you can't chalk it up to youthful idealism anymore, I don't know what else to think. I remember around that time sitting at Revelations (a cafe in town) and listening to one guy who was boasting (my take on it) how he and his family were going to go to New Jersey and set up whatever they were supposed to set up there, and it struck me: this is really the purpose of this whole thing, to give some people who are still seeking a goal, if only for a few months. Of course, it's deception and it's totally dishonest, but if they haven't already learned, maybe it's time to go back to the schoolhouse. Or something. Anyway, I couldn't believe that some actually fell for it. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 24, 2008, at 3:03 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: That's true. Look, I don't want to get into a long, Judy-like defense of things here. All I'm sayin' is that my experience has led me to believe that there are two basic approaches to the performances of and the teaching of siddhis and other paranormal phenomena. The first is to believe that they are produced as the result of the performance of techniques. You chant a mantra, focus on a yantra, dive into a mandala, etc., and the expected result happens. The second is to achieve a state of attention *from which* all that is necessary to achieve the same expected result is to intend it. I have seen both types of siddhis performed, and have been taught some of the latter. As a result, here's what I've come up with as the way I suspect these things work. The siddhis themselves have diddley-squat to do with the techniques that some perform to cause them. The techniques are not the cause. What the techniques are are ritualized methods of attempting to move the student into the state of attention *from which* the siddhi in question just happens, as a result of intention. In other words, the technique does not cause the siddhi; the technique shifts the state of attention, and the state of attention causes (or enables) the siddhi. If one could, say, transmit the state of attention directly to the student, without the need for the performance of any rituals or techniques, then IMO the siddhi would still happen. I've seen it happen. I've experienced it happening as a result of my state of attention being shifted to a place where certain siddhis were then not only possible but no big deal. They are just the attributes of that state of attention. So that's my take on things. Personally I am not of the disposition to learn a bunch of tech- niques any more. Been there, done that, no longer interested. I tend more these days to seek out (not actively...seek more like be open to running into along the Way) individuals who have inter- esting states of attention that they are able to transmit. Then I sit with them for a while and find out what that state of attention is like, and then I thank them and keep wandering. It's just what I am, and I'm content with that. I don't really seek anything high-falutin' like enlightenment any more. I am content with seeking interesting experiences. I do not seek to get outa this world or off the wheel. I kinda *like* this world, and I *like* rolling. So when I pointed out to Bhairitu that shaktipat (in particular the variety that opens chakras) does *not necessarily* involve the laying on of hands, it was from the point of view of not necessarily. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, and all that... There are all sorts of siddhis, riddhis and yogic siddhis, some are causal, some are acausal, most are best ignored unless you're leveraging them for some other evolutionary end, i.e. levitators using it to generate nondual compassion, Tummo yogis using it to burn away their obscurations very, very rapidly; rasayana yogis using it to generate healing, long life and independence from food. Others are downright practical, like using a yantra or mantra to protect from certain events in life or trying to attract ones you need towards you-- in other words modifying or transforming your own mandala or environment. Or subjugation and pacification of negative and poisonous emotions. Many are likely different modes of functioning of the nervous system. Disreputable teachers will resort to mass hypnosis and magick to woo students with suggested siddhis. I see any such attachment to siddhis and riddhis as antithetical to evolution, when witnessed or rumored or displayed, I have little interest in such teachers. A lot of this has to do with the subtle level of attachment and how deep of an impression it can create which becomes an obscuration in my own experience. Since I'm no longer in 'seeking mode', I generally do not seek out techniques, but find instead techniques just present themselves for use in transformation (or for helping others). For example, years ago, I was having a lot of experiences with UFO's which while at first interesting, later got to be somewhat annoying, esp. for a new college graduate trying to get established. Enter the dream world and there is my teacher, teaching groups of people. Apparently all are having similar issues. Then he divides himself into a couple hundred separate beings and teaches us all individually why our nervous systems are producing these anomalies. And so I gain a technique, personally taught, which definitely works on myself and others. In similar ways one can constantly experience open dimensional reality and wherever you go, real life is a sambhogakaya dimension ready to teach through the symbols that are already there, just as they are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 22, 2008, at 7:21 PM, Bhairitu wrote: The sexual urge is a very primal animalistic drive to reproduce that all creatures have. The sex drive has nothing at all to do with reproducing, Bhair, it has to do with having sex. There is no reproducing drive or baby drive that *anyone* feels because of hormones. If they do, it's primarily because of social conditioning. Enlightened people will recognize it as such and have a great chuckle as they will not be as swayed by it as the typical man on the street. :) I'm assuming this is a joke. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Really? Maybe men don't have a baby drive, but I know lots of women who want to get pregnant so bad they can taste it. Me included when I was getting into my late twenties. And for men, don't you think the sex drive was engineered by mother nature to get ladies pregnant? --- Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 22, 2008, at 7:21 PM, Bhairitu wrote: The sexual urge is a very primal animalistic drive to reproduce that all creatures have. The sex drive has nothing at all to do with reproducing, Bhair, it has to do with having sex. There is no reproducing drive or baby drive that *anyone* feels because of hormones. If they do, it's primarily because of social conditioning. Enlightened people will recognize it as such and have a great chuckle as they will not be as swayed by it as the typical man on the street. :) I'm assuming this is a joke. Sal Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
radha30327 wrote: People do odd stuff when under the sway of a guru. That's a factor to be reckoned with here. They are parts of social organizations to which they have dedicated their lives, and without which they would feel empty and purposeless. And so when they are told to do things that cut against the grain, often they do them *anyway*, because the prospect of selling out your principles is less daunting than the prospect of being cut off from the thing you crave the most -- the path you think will take you to realization. And *that* is the issue with regard to sex between a spiritual teacher and his or her students. There is no way to pretty it up. If there is an implicit power differential between the teacher and the student, then the threat of being declared anathema and being thrown out is always present. It isn't really a consensual sex situation. Dear all, This is what I was refering to yesterday. Sex in the Forbbiden Zone speaks very well to this point. So do many Tantirc texts. Not only does the guru have this inequality completely in his favor. I don't know about you guys. But I lived in the ashram for 8 years with MUK. We were required every day to chant(brainwashedLOL) The Guru Gita, 188 verses on how the guru is god and how you obey the what the guru says, blah blah. It was torture to boot, took 2 hours every morning from start to finish. Every other day the sanskit was english, so we got the message loud and clear! Everyone men and women ,did things for the guru they never would have done in another situation. In the book Tantra,the path of ecstasy by Georg Feuerstein who is a contempary writer collecting information on Tantra.Feuerstein makes many points clear using yogis scripture about just what Tantra is trying to accomplish. Muktananda used the practices for his advantage only, he preached celibacy all the while using Tanric sex. quote from George Feuerstein's book : If the Tantic path of realization can be described as white magic,there is a whole other side to Tantra,which corresponds to our notion of black magic. Certainly Tantra as a whole does not exclude the deliberate cultivation and use ofartificial powers,and at times the texts describe practices that can only be of interest to someone pursuing egotistical and even morally reprehensible ends. In fact,there are entire Tantras specializing in black magic. The Damara-Tantra is an example of this unfortunate trend within Tantra. Even such a highly respected Tantra as the Vamaka-Ishvari- Mata mentions a number of questionable practices. For instance,it reccomends (2.iff.) a magical practice that excites and subjugates young women everywhere .Like krishna's flute play,the prescribed mantra draws young women to the practitioner, and when he touches them they become completely compliant. They behave,as the text states,as if(iva) they were deluded,confused, unconcious, agitated, or intoxicated. end of quote pg.265 It goes on to list the powers one can gain on page 266 ,and then says quote:It was presumably for financial gain that some tantric practitioners adopted destructive practices in their works,even though the very exercise of black magic not only precules the practitioner from transcending his or her karmic baggage but adds to it End of quote. Thanks again, Radha One queston: what tantric tradition is George Feuerstein from?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Allen deSomer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Speaking of common sense, since this thread was started by someone who writes about being a victim of sexual abuse, I strongly advise against describing sexual moral issues as illusions. This is clearly not the time or place to bring up this concept. But they are. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. Not fair. Did you ever, as a TM teacher, tell less than the truth about TM and its origins and its nature, because you had been told to? Did you ever do something you knew to be wrong (and possibly even against the law) because you had been told to by the TMO, or even by MMY personally? Now you half read what I wrote. People do odd stuff when under the sway of a guru. That's a factor to be reckoned with here. They are parts of social organizations to which they have dedicated their lives, and without which they would feel empty and purposeless. And so when they are told to do things that cut against the grain, often they do them *anyway*, because the prospect of selling out your principles is less daunting than the prospect of being cut off from the thing you crave the most -- the path you think will take you to realization. And *that* is the issue with regard to sex between a spiritual teacher and his or her students. There is no way to pretty it up. If there is an implicit power differential between the teacher and the student, then the threat of being declared anathema and being thrown out is always present. It isn't really a consensual sex situation. And in another reply later down the thread you validated what I said that you apparently missed. A lot of sexual morality was programming as a birth control method to keep the population down during times of famine. The sexual urge is a very primal animalistic drive to reproduce that all creatures have. Enlightened people will recognize it as such and have a great chuckle as they will not be as swayed by it as the typical man on the street. :) Bullshit. History proves you wrong. The enlightened have no more clue than you or I do. It doesn't *matter* what you think about sex intellectually; the intellect is not the thing that causes guys to stick their dicks into things, or women to allow them to do so. The enlightened, as far as I can tell, are Just Like Us. They have intellectualisms that they have come up with about sex and sexuality, and about what is proper and what is not. And not one of those intellectualisms has anything whatsoever to do with what they do in real life. Never have, never will. I guess this proves you didn't read what I said earlier. But I forgive you because I often don't have the time to parse all your long rants here so why should you parse mine? :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Sal Sunshine wrote: On Apr 22, 2008, at 7:21 PM, Bhairitu wrote: The sexual urge is a very primal animalistic drive to reproduce that all creatures have. The sex drive has nothing at all to do with reproducing, Bhair, it has to do with having sex. There is no reproducing drive or baby drive that *anyone* feels because of hormones. If they do, it's primarily because of social conditioning. Not according to science. There was an excellent documentary on PBS, probably Nova, a few years back. Think about what you're saying, if some had no social conditioning they wouldn't have any sex drive? It is chemical, Sal. Maybe you slept through those science classes? :) Enlightened people will recognize it as such and have a great chuckle as they will not be as swayed by it as the typical man on the street. :) I'm assuming this is a joke. Sal No.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Angela Mailander wrote: Really? Maybe men don't have a baby drive, but I know lots of women who want to get pregnant so bad they can taste it. Me included when I was getting into my late twenties. Social conditioning, Ang. Why do you think in every single culture in which people are given the option of having kids or not, or having them in whatever amounts *they* choose, the average # of kids per woman goes down, and drastically so, from the 10-12 that each woman could theoretically have, to 1-2 as well as, increasingly, 0? Because there's no inherent baby drive. And for men, don't you think the sex drive was engineered by mother nature to get ladies pregnant? Well, of course, that's why there's no baby drive (duh)--there doesn't need to be. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Bhairitu wrote: The sex drive has nothing at all to do with reproducing, Bhair, it has to do with having sex. There is no reproducing drive or baby drive that *anyone* feels because of hormones. If they do, it's primarily because of social conditioning. Not according to science. There was an excellent documentary on PBS, probably Nova, a few years back. Think about what you're saying, if some had no social conditioning they wouldn't have any sex drive? Where exactly did I say that, Bhair? I said the so-called baby drive was a product of social conditioning. The sex drive is obviously inherent. Better watch that doc again. It is chemical, Sal. The sex drive is, yeah. The baby drive is a product of wishful thinking, a lot of it men's wishful thinking that all women do is sit around and think about having babies. Better think again. Maybe you slept through those science classes? :) Maybe you slept through reading classes. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:22 AM, radha30327 wrote: Georg(yes it is Georg no e) Feuerstein,Ph.D is a yoga researcher, he compiles for all of us. . Holds degrees i n Indology and the history of Religion. Author of 30 books on yoga. Director of the Yoga research Center. Isn't he a follower of Da Free / Adi Da / Bubba / Da Free John / Kalki Avatar / Beloved (probably some others I'm missing :-) )?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: The sex drive is, yeah. The baby drive is a product of wishful thinking, a lot of it men's wishful thinking that all women do is sit around and think about having babies. Better think again. Dunno 'bout that. I know quite a few women who when they fall in love they want to have their man's baby as if it's some obsession--in some cases multiple babies to multiple men over time. Some I also know hoard food instinctively when going thru all this. Some women do not feel complete without this--at least that's what they've told me. Haven't you ever heard the female saying I want to have your baby?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
shempmcgurk wrote: Here's what I have a problem with: You were in his ashram for 8 years during which time, if I've understood correctly from what you've written here and in other posts, the abuse happened to you and others time and time and time again. It then took almost another 15 or 20 years AFTER you left the Ashram for you to realize that it was sexual abuse that took place. That's got to be pretty powerful brainwashing. Do you not feel any responsibility at all for what happened? You were NOT under age 21 or age 18 when it first started (although, yes, I do realize that many girls were under age 18). And you entered into the original guru-disciple relationship willingly and without coersion. I have alot of problem not only with people giving themselves over - - lock, stock, and barrel -- to gurus in other spiritual movements such as Muktananda's but, particularly in the TM Movement in which it is quite obvious that the instrucitons are that THERE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE ANY GURUS! As I've said before in this forum: there's no crying in baseball and there's no gurus in TM. Yet that is precisely the relationship that many TMers morph into when they got around Maharishi...despite the disclaimer that TM isn't a religion or a philosophy (which implicitly excludes any sort of guru-disciple relationship) in the first 5 minutes of their contact with the TMO (i.e., the intro lecture). In Radha's case in which completely giving yourself over to the guru 100% completely IS the EXPLICIT instruction and YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT GOING IN AND YET YOU STILL GO INTO IT, hey, what do you think is going to happen to you? Aren't you setting yourself up for the kind of thing that happened to you? And to let it happen again and again and again over years? And to then deny to yourself that it happened for years after...even years after the alleged perpetrator dies? This is not a support for Muktananda or Maharishi for the alleged actions that took place and shouldn't be construed as such (indeed, my feeling is that anyone that even touches a person under the age of consent in a sexual way should spend decades in prison). But, for God's sake, he put his penis inside your vagina. What the hell did you think was going on? Good points, Shemp and exactly what I was thinking. Unfortunately they only half read what I wrote and misconstrued things. I even asked my guru yesterday if Muktananda was a monk and he said probably not. If so he was not bound by any vows of celibacy. Keep in mind that India is a culture when grown men have for centuries married young girls as despicable as we westerners find it. Cultural differences come very much into play and must be understood here. I'm also not sure why he would have preached celibacy in a householder tradition other than there are some good ayurvedic correlations where excessive sex can derange vata. As I suggested to someone who contacted me offline he probably just went nuts. Just as Rajneesh went nuts. Which is funny because Rajneesh even said that a lot of yogis go nuts on the spiritual path. :) Hanging out at spiritual events one will notice very often that western women will proudly have relationships Swamis who are not from renunciate traditions. Of course when things go awry or the Swami tires of them they denounce him. There are also very common instances where tantrics will attempt to open a chakra, particularly the root chakra by shaktipat and not thinking that this is the west and not India where Indian women (or even men) would understand what he is doing think he is attempting to sexually grope them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Vaj wrote: Dunno 'bout that. I know quite a few women who when they fall in love they want to have their man's baby as if it's some obsession-- in some cases multiple babies to multiple men over time. Some I also know hoard food instinctively when going thru all this. Some women do not feel complete without this--at least that's what they've told me. Vaj, why do you think the birth-control industry is a multi-billion dollar one, and that in most Western cultures (or any culture that doesn't force women to have an endless number of kids) women often put off child-bearing as long as they can? All of those women using birth-control are women who don't want to have kids at that time. Doesn't mean they *never* will, but they will when they choose to, and it will be a much smaller # the longer they wait...because there's no inherant baby drive. I would have thought this was pretty obvious, not controversial, but maybe it is. That's news to me. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Vaj wrote: Haven't you ever heard the female saying I want to have your baby? Sure, but what they're really saying is, I want *you* to stick around, and if having your baby will get you to, then that's what I'll do, by golly. Manipulation, IOW. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
In my case, the social conditioning was against having a baby. I notice, too, among some animals that the females will fight against having sex, but they sure like having babies and will grieve if they can't have them. --- Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: The sex drive is, yeah. The baby drive is a product of wishful thinking, a lot of it men's wishful thinking that all women do is sit around and think about having babies. Better think again. Dunno 'bout that. I know quite a few women who when they fall in love they want to have their man's baby as if it's some obsession--in some cases multiple babies to multiple men over time. Some I also know hoard food instinctively when going thru all this. Some women do not feel complete without this--at least that's what they've told me. Haven't you ever heard the female saying I want to have your baby? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Apr 23, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Vaj wrote: Dunno 'bout that. I know quite a few women who when they fall in love they want to have their man's baby as if it's some obsession-- in some cases multiple babies to multiple men over time. Some I also know hoard food instinctively when going thru all this. Some women do not feel complete without this--at least that's what they've told me. Vaj, why do you think the birth-control industry is a multi-billion dollar one, and that in most Western cultures (or any culture that doesn't force women to have an endless number of kids) women often put off child-bearing as long as they can? I always saw that as either the desire to have recreational sex (as opposed to procreational sex) and the desire to work to acquire material wealth over children. For some women--I can't say I know if it's the majority or the minority--they feel fulfillment in pregnancy. It's almost as if it's a way to bring a part of their mate inside of them and to join with them in a nurturing way. I wonder if it's a type of pre-pregnancy nesting instinct? In tantra, we would probably class this type of woman as a padma dakini or a woman whose style of relating is via seduction and possessing. I know one woman who had to have a baby with every new man she became obsessed with, unfortunately she ending up aborting most of them (over 12 abortions).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Bhairitu wrote: Good points, Shemp and exactly what I was thinking. Unfortunately they only half read what I wrote and misconstrued things. I even asked my guru yesterday if Muktananda was a monk and he said probably not. If so he was not bound by any vows of celibacy. Keep in mind that India is a culture when grown men have for centuries married young girls as despicable as we westerners find it. Cultural differences come very much into play and must be understood here. I'm also not sure why he would have preached celibacy in a householder tradition other than there are some good ayurvedic correlations where excessive sex can derange vata. Well also the gurus in their alleged omniscient wisdom should also have at least some awareness of the laws of the country they're in! In the case of Muktananda, when the NY state officials investigated his death they found the gynecological stirrups Mukti used for women. From the accounts I've read it does appear, if I'm objective, that he was practicing a form of tantra that is supposedly best performed on 16 year olds (according to the Hindu tantras). It sounds like he was trying to perfect urdharetas. The reason this makes sense is that he would then be able to give almost unlimited shaktipat. It is said that Muktananda relied heavily on alchemical mercury provided by various alchemists to be able to give so much shaktipat. If he had perfected urdharetas, he would no longer needed to rely on such practices. People should be aware that such practices do exist and, in fact, some tantras in the early stages rely on celibacy but in the completion stages rely on coitus (although not conventional sexual pleasure) to work. The actual yogas to do so are quite strenuous and not necessarily the same as reproductive or recreational sex. And just because the practices involve sex does not make them 'black magic'. Puritanical westerners have a real hard time getting this, but at the same time, such practices are also some of the most dangerous. Robbie Svoboda's paper on sexual tantra should be a first read for anyone interested in such practices, as he's very clear on the level of mastery required.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:55 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru In the case of Muktananda, when the NY state officials investigated his death they found the gynecological stirrups Mukti used for women. From the accounts I've read it does appear, if I'm objective, that he was practicing a form of tantra that is supposedly best performed on 16 year olds (according to the Hindu tantras). It sounds like he was trying to perfect urdharetas. The reason this makes sense is that he would then be able to give almost unlimited shaktipat. It is said that Muktananda relied heavily on alchemical mercury provided by various alchemists to be able to give so much shaktipat. If he had perfected urdharetas, he would no longer needed to rely on such practices. People should be aware that such practices do exist and, in fact, some tantras in the early stages rely on celibacy but in the completion stages rely on coitus (although not conventional sexual pleasure) to work. The actual yogas to do so are quite strenuous and not necessarily the same as reproductive or recreational sex. And just because the practices involve sex does not make them 'black magic'. Puritanical westerners have a real hard time getting this, but at the same time, such practices are also some of the most dangerous. Robbie Svoboda's paper on sexual tantra should be a first read for anyone interested in such practices, as he's very clear on the level of mastery required. So do you think any of this may legitimize what MMY allegedly was doing? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1393 - Release Date: 4/23/2008 8:12 AM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: In the case of Muktananda, when the NY state officials investigated his death they found the gynecological stirrups Mukti used for women. From the accounts I've read it does appear, if I'm objective, that he was practicing a form of tantra that is supposedly best performed on 16 year olds (according to the Hindu tantras). It sounds like he was trying to perfect urdharetas. The reason this makes sense is that he would then be able to give almost unlimited shaktipat. It is said that Muktananda relied heavily on alchemical mercury provided by various alchemists to be able to give so much shaktipat. If he had perfected urdharetas, he would no longer needed to rely on such practices. People should be aware that such practices do exist and, in fact, some tantras in the early stages rely on celibacy but in the completion stages rely on coitus (although not conventional sexual pleasure) to work. The actual yogas to do so are quite strenuous and not necessarily the same as reproductive or recreational sex. And just because the practices involve sex does not make them 'black magic'. Puritanical westerners have a real hard time getting this, but at the same time, such practices are also some of the most dangerous. Robbie Svoboda's paper on sexual tantra should be a first read for anyone interested in such practices, as he's very clear on the level of mastery required. So do you think any of this may legitimize what MMY allegedly was doing? Not from what we know. It's my understanding, rather than having any sort of yogic control over his body, he was a 'Johnny cum quickly' kinda guy (at least that's what I remember hearing). However in Mahesh's favor is the fact that most practicing tantrics, at that level, will still not admit in public to anything and still put on the ruse that they're are celibate. Of course, if they've perfected urdharetas, they are technically celibate in a manner. Mahesh seems to have known very little about yoga and tantra, in fact his former secretaries point to his being coached and a tendency to 'make it up as he went a long'. Two masters who were involved in sex scandals, Muktananda and Swami Rama, both had knowledge of urdharetas. Kalu Rinpoche also was a celibate practitioner at that level who took an English woman as his mudra. It was only after his death when the women wrote an expose that it was revealed. For Buddhist tantric yogis it is an important practice, as there are only two places that the Clear Light can be clearly experienced: the moment of death and in sexual yoga.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:47 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru So do you think any of this may legitimize what MMY allegedly was doing? Not from what we know. It's my understanding, rather than having any sort of yogic control over his body, he was a 'Johnny cum quickly' kinda guy (at least that's what I remember hearing). However in Mahesh's favor is the fact that most practicing tantrics, at that level, will still not admit in public to anything and still put on the ruse that they're are celibate. Of course, if they've perfected urdharetas, they are technically celibate in a manner. Mahesh seems to have known very little about yoga and tantra, in fact his former secretaries point to his being coached and a tendency to 'make it up as he went a long'. Two masters who were involved in sex scandals, Muktananda and Swami Rama, both had knowledge of urdharetas. Kalu Rinpoche also was a celibate practitioner at that level who took an English woman as his mudra. It was only after his death when the women wrote an expose that it was revealed. For Buddhist tantric yogis it is an important practice, as there are only two places that the Clear Light can be clearly experienced: the moment of death and in sexual yoga. MMY talked about urdharetas in his commentary on the Gita, but of course that doesn’t mean he had mastered it. __._,_.__ No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1393 - Release Date: 4/23/2008 8:12 AM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:20 PM, radha30327 wrote: The actual yogas to do so are quite strenuous and not necessarily the same as reproductive or recreational sex. And just because the practices involve sex does not make them 'black magic'. Puritanical westerners have a real hard time getting this, but at the same time, such practices are also some of the most dangerous. -- I have read several of Svoboda's book ,I understand the aghori. Sex does not make it black,using another human being for your own gain makes it black. One can practice making the semen or ohas rise upwards with a willing participant, not one of unequal position. And all the books I have read on uredveda, are talking about an erect penis, and mastering suction.While spending a long time inside the vagina and not ejaculating Muk did non of these. no egual partner no erection no nothing, but an old man taking advantage of his position of power anks, Rad While it's ideal to have an equally trained partner, it is not a necessity. And actually loss of erection is a common side effect of that style of practice, one might even say it's a sign of success (assuming they're not suffering from erectile dysfunction). It's especially well known in Taoist sexual practice. What it is you are mastering is a kind of 'reverse peristalsis' after all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Sal Sunshine wrote: On Apr 23, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Bhairitu wrote: The sex drive has nothing at all to do with reproducing, Bhair, it has to do with having sex. There is no reproducing drive or baby drive that *anyone* feels because of hormones. If they do, it's primarily because of social conditioning. Not according to science. There was an excellent documentary on PBS, probably Nova, a few years back. Think about what you're saying, if some had no social conditioning they wouldn't have any sex drive? Where exactly did I say that, Bhair? I said the so-called baby drive was a product of social conditioning. The sex drive is obviously inherent. Better watch that doc again. And then the inverse would be true. You must have slept through logic classes. If there is an online version of the documentary I'll post a link to it and you can decide for yourself.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
And (as I knew already) a spectator. Tantra is not a spectator sport. I have read some of his books and he is a bit of a blind man describing an elephant. radha30327 wrote: Georg(yes it is Georg no e) Feuerstein,Ph.D is a yoga researcher, he compiles for all of us. . Holds degrees i n Indology and the history of Religion. Author of 30 books on yoga. Director of the Yoga research Center. Rad
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hanging out at spiritual events one will notice very often that western women will proudly have relationships Swamis who are not from renunciate traditions. Of course when things go awry or the Swami tires of them they denounce him. Then the swami should have been smart enough to never hook up with them. There are also very common instances where tantrics will attempt to open a chakra, particularly the root chakra by shaktipat and not thinking that this is the west and not India where Indian women (or even men) would understand what he is doing think he is attempting to sexually grope them. Opening chakras in another person does not require touching them. It doesn't even require being within twenty feet of them. Those who claim that they need to touch the person to open their chakras don't know all the tricks of the trade yet, or they probably *are* trying to grope the other person. :-) They have to hold their hand about 2 inches above the area for the best effect. I'm very dubious about remote chakra activation. It think you swallowed some kool-aid there, Turq.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
radha30327 wrote: Good points, Shemp and exactly what I was thinking. Unfortunately they only half read what I wrote and misconstrued things. I even asked my guru yesterday if Muktananda was a monk and he said probably not. If so he was not bound by any vows of celibacy. Muk was a monk from the Sawaswati order, he had the Mahamandelswar to oversee his inducting of his own Swamis into the same order several times ,which is a joke his books are full off his pronouncements of his own celibacy to preserve semen and his telling yes een the housholders to be celibate. He was told by Nityanada of Ganeshpuri that he claims is his Guru to stop practicing black tantra magic. Your guru doesn't know what he is taking about unfortunately Radha Oh but he does but when I asked he deducted it from the fact that Muktananda had sex and why he said probably not. That's why I think he may have gone nuts (which is what your group seems to think).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
TurquoiseB wrote: Bullshit. History proves you wrong. The enlightened have no more clue than you or I do. Uh that's my experience, Turq. You're mileage may vary which is too bad. There is a stark contrast between the way I experience the world now and 10 years ago. I'm sure there are others here who could say the same. All attributable to techniques you have obviously not experienced though I think other techniques could produce it too. I'm not that vain. :) I mean after all why would you meditate for 40 years if it is not going to do anything? Enlightenment as even Earl Kaplan pointed out is not so out of reach way up on the tree and MMY made it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
radha30327 wrote: The actual yogas to do so are quite strenuous and not necessarily the same as reproductive or recreational sex. And just because the practices involve sex does not make them 'black magic'. Puritanical westerners have a real hard time getting this, but at the same time, such practices are also some of the most dangerous. -- I have read several of Svoboda's book ,I understand the aghori. Sex does not make it black,using another human being for your own gain makes it black. One can practice making the semen or ohas rise upwards with a willing participant, not one of unequal position. And all the books I have read on uredveda, are talking about an erect penis, and mastering suction.While spending a long time inside the vagina and not ejaculating Muk did non of these. no egual partner no erection no nothing, but an old man taking advantage of his position of power anks, Rad I know Robert and in fact introduced him to my guru and they chatted away in Hindi. :) Thanks to Robert's books, seminars and meeting other gurus I was able to discern over several months whether my current guru was for real or not by testing (as well as he did me). There are Indians out there who are high level tantrics. They don't often advertise themselves as so because Indians are afraid of tantrics and westerns think it is about sex. Many have professional careers in other fields.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Vaj wrote: Not from what we know. It's my understanding, rather than having any sort of yogic control over his body, he was a 'Johnny cum quickly' kinda guy (at least that's what I remember hearing). However in Mahesh's favor is the fact that most practicing tantrics, at that level, will still not admit in public to anything and still put on the ruse that they're are celibate. Of course, if they've perfected urdharetas, they are technically celibate in a manner. Mahesh seems to have known very little about yoga and tantra, in fact his former secretaries point to his being coached and a tendency to 'make it up as he went a long'. Two masters who were involved in sex scandals, Muktananda and Swami Rama, both had knowledge of urdharetas. Kalu Rinpoche also was a celibate practitioner at that level who took an English woman as his mudra. It was only after his death when the women wrote an expose that it was revealed. For Buddhist tantric yogis it is an important practice, as there are only two places that the Clear Light can be clearly experienced: the moment of death and in sexual yoga. Vaj, I don't know what part of cultural difference people don't understand? I think lots of Indiaphiles who have never been there think it is a pious land of yogis. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are millions there whose descendants were oppressed for centuries and many still that way. That produces a different culture. One that is even more materially focused than our own. There is quite a degree of difference between the two cultures. Sometimes it sounds like a number of Indiaphiles are applying Christian morals to Hindu philosophy. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
You can't learn tantra from a book, Rad. I already said I've read some of his works. We can quote tantric texts around here until the cows come home and you won't learn tantra. BTW, do you read Devanagari? A good example is my guru recommended L. W. Chawdhri's Practicals of Mantra and Tantra which is written in dreadful English but none the less contains so valid information on tantra. I owned and read the book long before I met my guru but it has only made much sense in recent years with more experience in my sadhana. radha30327 wrote: He is listing the great texts on the subject word for word.. why don't you read it before you make such blanket statements Rad --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And (as I knew already) a spectator. Tantra is not a spectator sport. I have read some of his books and he is a bit of a blind man describing an elephant. radha30327 wrote: Georg(yes it is Georg no e) Feuerstein,Ph.D is a yoga researcher, he compiles for all of us. . Holds degrees i n Indology and the history of Religion. Author of 30 books on yoga. Director of the Yoga research Center. Rad
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: Opening chakras in another person does not require touching them. It doesn't even require being within twenty feet of them. Those who claim that they need to touch the person to open their chakras don't know all the tricks of the trade yet, or they probably *are* trying to grope the other person. :-) They have to hold their hand about 2 inches above the area for the best effect. No, they really don't. Turq, there are many schools of tantra. That is how I was taught to do it. Don't be a foolish know it all. You're smarter than that. I'm very dubious about remote chakra activation. I think you swallowed some kool-aid there, Turq. And I think you haven't been around the spiritual block nearly as much as you think you have. How would you know?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Vaj wrote: Not from what we know. It's my understanding, rather than having any sort of yogic control over his body, he was a 'Johnny cum quickly' kinda guy (at least that's what I remember hearing). However in Mahesh's favor is the fact that most practicing tantrics, at that level, will still not admit in public to anything and still put on the ruse that they're are celibate. Of course, if they've perfected urdharetas, they are technically celibate in a manner. Mahesh seems to have known very little about yoga and tantra, in fact his former secretaries point to his being coached and a tendency to 'make it up as he went a long'. Two masters who were involved in sex scandals, Muktananda and Swami Rama, both had knowledge of urdharetas. Kalu Rinpoche also was a celibate practitioner at that level who took an English woman as his mudra. It was only after his death when the women wrote an expose that it was revealed. For Buddhist tantric yogis it is an important practice, as there are only two places that the Clear Light can be clearly experienced: the moment of death and in sexual yoga. Vaj, I don't know what part of cultural difference people don't understand? I think lots of Indiaphiles who have never been there think it is a pious land of yogis. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are millions there whose descendants were oppressed for centuries and many still that way. That produces a different culture. One that is even more materially focused than our own. There is quite a degree of difference between the two cultures. Sometimes it sounds like a number of Indiaphiles are applying Christian morals to Hindu philosophy. :) Well for both Muktananda and Swami Rama, I see it as their willful ignorance of western mores or outright superiority complexes in regards to how others live. They most likely DID get away with their exploits in India easily. In the US is another thing entirely. There is a disconnect with the western image of the Indian holyman and reality. Most westerners have little understanding or appreciation of Paganism, period. Simon Magus and all that. Let's face it, if you're in the US you're in Jesusland. Although I know you can in the US and experience some of the most bizarre sects.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 3:27 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: Opening chakras in another person does not require touching them. It doesn't even require being within twenty feet of them. Those who claim that they need to touch the person to open their chakras don't know all the tricks of the trade yet, or they probably *are* trying to grope the other person. :-) They have to hold their hand about 2 inches above the area for the best effect. No, they really don't. I'm very dubious about remote chakra activation. I think you swallowed some kool-aid there, Turq. And I think you haven't been around the spiritual block nearly as much as you think you have. I believe the texts are clear shaktipat can be given with a look, a touch, award, etc. Some higher forms the teacher may even place a hand on the students genitalia.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
On Apr 23, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Bhairitu wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: Opening chakras in another person does not require touching them. It doesn't even require being within twenty feet of them. Those who claim that they need to touch the person to open their chakras don't know all the tricks of the trade yet, or they probably *are* trying to grope the other person. :-) They have to hold their hand about 2 inches above the area for the best effect. No, they really don't. Turq, there are many schools of tantra. That is how I was taught to do it. Don't be a foolish know it all. You're smarter than that. I'm very dubious about remote chakra activation. I think you swallowed some kool-aid there, Turq. And I think you haven't been around the spiritual block nearly as much as you think you have. How would you know? Maybe you were both just around a lot of different blocks. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: Opening chakras in another person does not require touching them. It doesn't even require being within twenty feet of them. Those who claim that they need to touch the person to open their chakras don't know all the tricks of the trade yet, or they probably *are* trying to grope the other person. :-) They have to hold their hand about 2 inches above the area for the best effect. No, they really don't. Turq, there are many schools of tantra. And there are many people who can do this who have never heard of Tantra. And there are quite a few I've run into who can do exactly what I said they can do. So? That is how I was taught to do it. Don't be a foolish know it all. I'm saying that *you* are acting like a know it all. You limit the possibilities in the world around you to what you have exper- ienced. I'm trying to tell you that you haven't experienced all that much. Neither have I, but I have experienced the things I'm talking about. You clearly haven't, or you wouldn't see any problem with being able to do at twenty feet what some can only do at two inches. I never claim to be a know it all. I know what I've been taught. No human being can know it all. This is something in my tradition we even teach. I only said I had doubts about remote shaktipat not that it couldn't be done. You're smarter than that. And, I'm sorry, but you appear not to be. Your teacher doesn't know everything, nor do you. You occasionally lose sight of that. Bullshit. Now you're acting emotional and not thinking. And more importantly you are behaving just the way you have criticized Judy's behavior in the past. Bad day in Stiges? Mabye you need a good breaf from that 140 hour week. :) I'm very dubious about remote chakra activation. I think you swallowed some kool-aid there, Turq. And I think you haven't been around the spiritual block nearly as much as you think you have. How would you know? By the thing you claim aren't possible. That only means that you haven't exper- ienced them, not that they're not possible. Ho hum, ditto what I said above.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Vaj wrote: On Apr 23, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Bhairitu wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: Opening chakras in another person does not require touching them. It doesn't even require being within twenty feet of them. Those who claim that they need to touch the person to open their chakras don't know all the tricks of the trade yet, or they probably *are* trying to grope the other person. :-) They have to hold their hand about 2 inches above the area for the best effect. No, they really don't. Turq, there are many schools of tantra. That is how I was taught to do it. Don't be a foolish know it all. You're smarter than that. I'm very dubious about remote chakra activation. I think you swallowed some kool-aid there, Turq. And I think you haven't been around the spiritual block nearly as much as you think you have. How would you know? Maybe you were both just around a lot of different blocks. :-) I will give Turq credit for being around a lot of different blocks. Ones I haven't and he's probably not been around the blocks I've been nor your blocks too. :) For some reason he's acting emotionally now. Maybe that 140 hour week is catching up with him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
radha30327 wrote: -Thanks so much, yes in this film we will explain why men of power like Muktananda, are ruled not by divinity but by their individual selves. I have always said the truth is the truth no matter who said it. Men like MUk are not beyond the ego, yet were able to channel the truth, while they misused their power harming others for their own gain. I am going to post something I reposted on the ex siddha yoga site that I think speaks to this. The fact is it sounds like you have found your own path w/o the need of the guru .I believe there are true and false gurus in every path. But this time on the planet so much is availble in the subtle realm all you need is yourself. I am producing and working on this with several people. Our editor/film guy is the magic It will be available on the internet so far,coming soon:) Back in 1978 a lot of TM teachers and meditators in my area including myself began reading Muktananda's books. I had some friends who also learned the meditation SYDA was teaching. I left TM behind many years ago and 8 years ago became initiated into tantra by an Indian tantric who lives in the Bay Area. He taught me to teach a form of meditation that similar to what SYDA taught including giving shaktipat to jump start the student for their meditation. Many of the TM folks who read Muktananda's books said they did so because he answered questions that Maharishi wouldn't. In my association with various jyotish groups I have met many fine people who were associated with Muktananda.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Was Muktananda actually a monk? Though there are renunciate tantrics in general it is a householder tradition and celibacy is not part of it (especially if you're going to practice the later stage rituals in a cremation ground). My teacher is a householder and doesn't preach celibacy. He is of the Kali tradition not Shaivite though. It is rare to find someone who actually knows this stuff in the US (let alone India these days). What I find as my consciousness expands through practice of the guru mantra and the tantric siddhis is that all these moral issues are illusions. They are just head games. As one realizes this one just chuckles. So I would say a God realized person could do things that society might find disconcerting. We do things based on our samskaras and if those are completely gone then your physical body is usually dead as those samskaras are what bind you to this physical plain. Maharishi went a little overboard on what enlightenment does too many followers think that enlightened people are perfect. They can't be or they'd be dead. :) radha30327 wrote: Hello, I was involved in SY for 26 years. I met many fine people myself. Your inner experience is your experience. But Muk was a hypocrite that preached celibacy while engaging in sexual practices. If you read my story and the whole leavingsiddhayoga.net website you will see a lot of fine people that have left SY and been harmed by their close involvement with siddha yoga. Muktananda had a lot of power, that doesn't make someone God realized. You still have ego in the realm of power. You can still give shaktipat and not be God realized. Many people write profound books that are helpful in understanding many things , but they are not Masters. Thanks for commenting, Radha --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: radha30327 wrote: -Thanks so much, yes in this film we will explain why men of power like Muktananda, are ruled not by divinity but by their individual selves. I have always said the truth is the truth no matter who said it. Men like MUk are not beyond the ego, yet were able to channel the truth, while they misused their power harming others for their own gain. I am going to post something I reposted on the ex siddha yoga site that I think speaks to this. The fact is it sounds like you have found your own path w/o the need of the guru .I believe there are true and false gurus in every path. But this time on the planet so much is availble in the subtle realm all you need is yourself. I am producing and working on this with several people. Our editor/film guy is the magic It will be available on the internet so far,coming soon:) Back in 1978 a lot of TM teachers and meditators in my area including myself began reading Muktananda's books. I had some friends who also learned the meditation SYDA was teaching. I left TM behind many years ago and 8 years ago became initiated into tantra by an Indian tantric who lives in the Bay Area. He taught me to teach a form of meditation that similar to what SYDA taught including giving shaktipat to jump start the student for their meditation. Many of the TM folks who read Muktananda's books said they did so because he answered questions that Maharishi wouldn't. In my association with various jyotish groups I have met many fine people who were associated with Muktananda.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Richard J. Williams wrote: Actually there at least three major tantric centers in your neighborhood. One of the most popular tantric sects in India is the Sri Vidya, a tradition that is very widespread in parts of Kerala and Karnataka - also in Bengal and in Kashmere. But since these tantric sects are secret you would not be knowing anything about their kaula practices, that is, unless you met a pilot baba somwhere in downtown Oakland. Oh bullshit! You don't know what you're talking about. Yes, it is secret but I'm an initiate so I was given the teachings as well as what I can say and can't say about them which the latter is mainly just what the mantras are and some specifics on how they are practiced. Who do you get this stuff from? Some writer who treated tantra as a spectator sport? The landscape is littered with folks like that running centers. A friend is taking a course next week and gave me a link to the website and the instructor claims it is based on ancient tantric teachings but nowhere do I find this guy's tradition which to me means he has none and is a spectator not a participant. So I asked my friend to ask him what tantric tradition he is from to see what he does or says. :D What I find as my consciousness expands through practice of the guru mantra and the tantric siddhis is that all these moral issues are illusions. Which moral issues? Having coitus with underage female students? Allegedly that's what Muktananda did but in India underage may mean something different. In the US he would have been in big trouble but generally Indians coming here are ignorant of such laws. And enlightenment won't give you instant knowledge of those laws either. :D They are just head games. Serious head games. As one realizes this one just chuckles. Radha doesn't seem to be chukling; she seems pretty serious that there was a sexual offense committed. BTW, I'm not saying because they're head games or illusion one shouldn't use common sense or commit some crime. So I would say a God realized person could do things that society might find disconcerting. We do things based on our samskaras and if those are completely gone then your physical body is usually dead as those samskaras are what bind you to this physical plain. Apparently Muktananda was not dead at the time of his indiscretions, so apparently he still had some karma to work out. Maharishi went a little overboard on what enlightenment does too many followers think that enlightened people are perfect. They can't be or they'd be dead. :) Jivanmukta indicates a state of enlightenment in the people who are still living. This is the Tantric and the Adwaita doctrine. Perfection in this sense doesn't mean perfect moral conduct, it means perfect *transcendental consciousness*. So says Sri Sri Richard. :D :D :D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Why not? Healing would, sooner or later, involve that recognition. --- Allen deSomer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard J. Williams wrote: Radha doesn't seem to be chukling; she seems pretty serious that there was a sexual offense committed. BTW, I'm not saying because they're head games or illusion one shouldn't use common sense or commit some crime. Speaking of common sense, since this thread was started by someone who writes about being a victim of sexual abuse, I strongly advise against describing sexual moral issues as illusions. This is clearly not the time or place to bring up this concept. -Allen Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Allen deSomer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard J. Williams wrote: Radha doesn't seem to be chukling; she seems pretty serious that there was a sexual offense committed. BTW, I'm not saying because they're head games or illusion one shouldn't use common sense or commit some crime. Speaking of common sense, since this thread was started by someone who writes about being a victim of sexual abuse, I strongly advise against describing sexual moral issues as illusions. This is clearly not the time or place to bring up this concept. -Allen But they are. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. A lot of sexual morality was programming as a birth control method to keep the population down during times of famine. The sexual urge is a very primal animalistic drive to reproduce that all creatures have. Enlightened people will recognize it as such and have a great chuckle as they will not be as swayed by it as the typical man on the street. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Why are we assuming she is still a victim and unable, therefore, to hear the truth? --- Allen deSomer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not? Healing would, sooner or later, involve that recognition. That is for the victim to decide. Do you find my POV too PC? -Allen --- Allen deSomer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of common sense, since this thread was started by someone who writes about being a victim of sexual abuse, I strongly advise against describing sexual moral issues as illusions. This is clearly not the time or place to bring up this concept. -Allen Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Allen deSomer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) The sexual urge is a very primal animalistic drive to reproduce that all creatures have. Enlightened people will recognize it as such and have a great chuckle as they will not be as swayed by it as the typical man on the street. :) I believe that enlightened people know when it is time to chuckle and when it is time to shed a tear. -Allen The word believe shows you don't know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shadow of the Guru
Well, we differ. I am a veteran of two abusive marriages and I was raped by my uncle when I was young. Currently, I'm taking care of a neighbor who's just moved out of the women's shelter. So I am no stranger to victimhood. When all is said and done, getting over it means seeing the truth. And the truth is that 1) it's past. 2) it was all based on a lot of stories. Deconstruct the stories. It's good for ya. --- Allen deSomer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why are we assuming she is still a victim and unable, therefore, to hear the truth? How can we assume she is not? To do so is to violate my view of common sense. Victims deserve the benefit of the doubt. -Allen Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
