Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-:
Share1 on sunny autumnal day Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness... Not my line but too hurried to look up reference. From: Robin Carlsen To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:34 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good morning again, RC Share:It could be that we are expressing the very wide difference between masculine and feminine in these matters. Indeed the practice Marnia Robinson suggests seems as if it would be quite challenging for males. Thus the Taoist practices seem more realistic, compassionate and healthy for both masculine and feminine. Robin: I agree with this, Share. I believe I am naturally ignorant about the matter of sexuality as experienced by a woman. What it is like, from the point of view of her subjectivity qua woman. So, perhaps, Marnia knows something I don't know. She's a woman after all. :-) I only know that I have not met or seen any man--in my lifetime, that is--who could 'spiritualize' the sexual act. Not that some have not believed they could, maybe even experienced they could; but the very notion of there being any counteractive force to male sexuality, so as to bring it under control and into submission, well that is just a dream. I still don't believe I have met someone who I thought had complete and intelligent mastery over their sexuality--either man or woman. Although, again, seeing the reality of sexuality in a woman not perfectly integrated into her personality and self-will does not mean that I know what a woman's experience of sexuality is, or could be. I would say this: most woman are not aware of the extent to which their sexuality dominates the attention of a man. Share1: Sigh... What a lila the whole thing is! Men not understanding women. Women not understanding men. Hope God is having fun! I don't think it's necessary to bring sexuality under control in order to render it more spiritual. I think that happens with the deepening and maturation of love between the two. But as always, I could be wrong (-: Share:The other difference I sense we are expressing is that between East and West, the latter having been much more imbued with the spirit matter split I've written about in other posts. I have turned from the epitome of that resulting ignorance, the Catholic Church. Whereas you seem to be at least intrigued by the ideas on the Church both professes and attempts to enforce. Robin: All this about the Catholic Church is the result of the absence of supernatural grace from the Personal God (the Holy Trinity), Mary, the Eucharist, and the Sacraments. I am not "intrigued" by the idea of sexuality as understood inside Catholicism: once it could produce Saints, as that story of Aquinas proves. Nothing like that can happen now: that grace is gone. And that grace is necessary to make the Thomistic truths of that essay in our previous conversation live and prove themselves. Share1: Nonetheless Mary intervened with the GMH poem (-: R: With regard to East versus West, the West bears the burden of the personal approach to reality, and even sexuality. No Eastern tract on sexuality is likely, if it posits the supreme reality of the Self, to give sufficient regard to the realm of personal intimacy and tenderness that is part of the Wester tradition of romanic love. I find Eastern spirituality does not have a literature which represents even fractionally the profound notion of man-woman love that is the centre of meaning for much of Western literature. The only form of spirituality which for me would, in the abstract at least, be relevant here--to our experience of sexuality in the West--would be a spirituality which was imbued with the understanding of the mystique and significance of Man-Woman relationships. I doubt Taoism (in its teachings about human sexuality) addresses the intimacy--in a personal sense--of the sexual act. Share1: This brings to my mind the whole courtly love tradition which also contributes to the spirit matter split. Hmmm, this just came to mind: that neither East nor West is expressing highest about all this. Highest is yet to unfold. So not all personal as in the West. But not all detached as in the East. But something new, maybe both embodied and universal. Just thinking out loud here. Share: I readily admit that I could be wrong and deluded about all this. However, I'm willing to take that chance in order to again experience that sex can indeed lead one to God. If only momentarily. Robin: Well, I can't speak for you of course. But I think the sexual experience can be--obviously--experientially wonderful; but that something that powerful and overwhelming could actually bring one closer to ultimate reality, that see
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-:
Unity Consciousness). That's interesting, your having "already integrated many divergent points of view of you into my awareness"--evidently my critic was concerned about *you*, that you might labour under the illusion that there was, after all, *anything* real or interesting about those ten years. I think whatever FFL readers and posters make of my attempts to clarify my past, especially to do with my enlightenment, the only valid perspective would come from an extremely critical, but honest scrutiny of all that I say--but I hardly thing much will come from an approach that makes zero demands on that person's own belief system--both conscious and unconscious. I am pretty sure of my own honesty and good faith in all this--explaining my past--so when someone is highly critical or dismissive of me, they in some sense have to possess as much honesty and good faith as I do. I doubt if I will ever influence you away from anything you believe in, Share, but I certainly sense your generosity and sympathy in trying to understand what I am about--this is enough for me. It is a matter of whether my critics in being hostile or dismissive of what I have to say knowingly or otherwise have more reality inside their judgment of me than those who express some interest in and even appreciation for what I have to say. Share: It's tricky when someone is so brilliant especially with words. Others can come to distrust the sincerity of the words. And to state the obvious, here on FFL we are limited to words. None of us know you now as you are in 3D day to day life. I rely on my own felt sense to grok the truth of what your words express. Willing to take a chance on that too (-: Robin: Yes, it would be nice to be able to appear in 3D in one's posts. While "we are limited by words" I don't think that in the expression of ourselves in words we do not reveal something significant about who we are, and the kind of person we are. I think a lot of the human being Share Long gets into your words, so I find you in your words. All of our acts, but especially when we express our beliefs in words inside the context of passionate argument and disputation, reveal our identity in a first-person ontological sense. [I think I need a bubble diagram for this first-person ontology thing.:-)] An actor is always giving an underlying motivation for each word he or she speaks (just as what is there when we speak to someone in life). I think when we write this is not so obvious, but I sense in most people's writing the signature of their soul. You certainly have added something very real to this forum, and you can be grateful that your well-being is guarded by persons who would have you not deceived by the writing of an apostate Hindu, someone who would have the temerity even to make judgments about the Western and Eastern spiritual traditions. Look, Share, let's face it: You are as likeable a person who has ever come onto FFL. And the fact that you are intelligent, well, this makes for a most felicitous experience for all of us who have a tropism for sunlight and blue sky. ____ > From: Robin Carlsen > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 12:27 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too > (-: > > > Â > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Share1: Marnia Robinson writes: "Take, for example, the ancient Tibetan > Buddhist myth, The Great Stupa. It confirms that passion is indeed the > reason for mankind's fallen state, and says there are three paths to > liberation: > > ~the overcoming of passion through renunciation > ~the neutralization of passion by pouring all one's energy into selfless > service > ~the conquering of passion through controlled indulgence. That is, using sex > itself in such a way as to transcend passion's treacherous downward suction. > > It says that the third path is the fastest and most powerful path, although > also the easiest one to fall from...until one masters it. > > Robin1: I think this just BS, Share. There is no spiritual path that entails > sex or abstinence from sex: celibacy. "Controlled indulgence"--any being with > the intelligence to know how susceptible we all are to the power of this > reality inside our bodies, knows this is just plain ridiculous. 'Mastering' > "controlled indulgence"--this is the most absurd and ludicrous idea I think I > may have heard when it comes to traditional idea of spirituality, Share. > Beautifully sincere, but hopelessly naive. > > Look: here is where I come out on all this. I believe that only the grace of > the Personal God can make of celibacy something real, c
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-:
nderful an evening as it turned out, Lord knows. But this is all good. Good for me anyhow. I am very much myself in writing to you, Share. I like this. Thank you for your respect and your intelligent affection. I am aware of how our differences remain intact. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Good evening Robin, > Apologies for just responding. Busy afternoon with writing group and > release session, then Dome and dinner. > > > This essay has a decidedly Catholic tone to it. Would it be possible to > know the author? > > > That tone gives this reader the sense of someone demonstrating a waltz with > their legs and arms tied. I don't even know why I say this. It is simply > my sense of it. > > I still maintain that Western culture is severely marred by the spirit matter > split that began long ago. For this reason I find the Taoist approach to > sexual intimacy to be healthier and more compassionate and spiritually > viable. I do not believe that the only right use of sex is for > procreation. Nor do I find myself distracted from spiritual matters during > loving intimacy. > > > Thank you for taking the time and attention to reply. I'll respond to the > other posts tomorrow. Wishing you a wonderful evening... > > Share > > > > ________________ > From: Robin Carlsen > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 1:46 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too > (-: > > >  > Sexuality Before Marnia Robinson: for Share > > "The pleasures of sex are more vehement that the pleasures of food and exert > more pressure on us; they need more whipping into line, for the more we give > way to them the more they dominate us and the more able they are to overthrow > our strength of mind. Even married sex, adorned with all the honourableness > of marriage, carries with it a certain shame, because the movements of the > genitals unlike those of other external members don't obey reason. The virtue > that deals with the sex-act we call chastity, and the virtue concerned with > more public actions such as looking and kissing and caressing we call > *purity*. *Purity* is a sort of adjunct serving chastity, not a separate > virtue but a sort of environment to chastity. Sexual sin is thought of as > more disgraceful than other immoderate action, partly because of the > uncontrolled movements of the genitals, but also because our reason gets > submerged. > > There are three levels to be considered in the act of sex: the physiological > level (the breaking of the hymen, etc) has no moral context as such; at the > psychological level shared by body and soul, emission of seed brings sensory > pleasure (the material side of the human moral act); and at the deepest level > there is an act of intention in the soul aiming at such pleasure (and making > that act a human, moral activity). Now *virginity* is defined by a moral > integrity: not then the integrity of the hymen as such, but a material > immunity from the pleasures of orgasm, wedded with a formal purpose of > perpetual abstinence from such pleasures. A hymen broken from some other > cause is no more a loss of virginity in this sense than a broken arm or leg. > And the pleasure of orgasm can be experienced unintentionally during sleep or > externally forced without a person's consent. In no such case is virginity > lost. > > External goods are meant to serve our body's good, our body to serve our > soul, and in our soul the active life should serve the contemplative life. So > it is not a bad thing, but reasonable and right, to abstain from external > possessions, which are otherwise good, for the sake of the body's health or > the contemplation of truth. And in the same way abstaining from bodily > pleasure so as to make ourselves more freely available to contemplate truth, > is reasonable and right. > > The injunction of the law in us by nature to *eat* must be observed by > everybody if individuals are to survive; but the injunction to *be fruitful > and multiply* obliges the community of mankind reproduce whilst others, > abstaining from that, give themselves up to the contemplation of God, and so > bring a beauty and health into the whole human race. To refuse all pleasure > as such because of dislike for it and without good reason is to be > insensitive and boorish. The practice of virginity doesn't refuse all > pleasure, but only that of sex, and that only for a good reason. Virginity > seeks the soul's good in a life of contemplation *mindful of the things of >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-:
Good morning again, RC It could be that we are expressing the very wide difference between masculine and feminine in these matters. Indeed the practice Marnia Robinson suggests seems as if it would be quite challenging for males. Thus the Taoist practices seem more realistic, compassionate and healthy for both masculine and feminine. The other difference I sense we are expressing is that between East and West, the latter having been much more imbued with the spirit matter split I've written about in other posts. I have turned from the epitome of that resulting ignorance, the Catholic Church. Whereas you seem to be at least intrigued by the ideas on sexuality the Church both professes and attempts to enforce. I readily admit that I could be wrong and deluded about all this. However, I'm willing to take that chance in order to again experience that sex can indeed lead one to God. If only momentarily. Share PS We have switched places Ghazali and I am cheering for you as you walk that high wire across Niagara Falls. Being the Gemini I am I had already integrated many divergent points of view of you into my awareness. So, no surprises. It's tricky when someone is so brilliant especially with words. Others can come to distrust the sincerity of the words. And to state the obvious, here on FFL we are limited to words. None of us know you now as you are in 3D day to day life. I rely on my own felt sense to grok the truth of what your words express. Willing to take a chance on that too (-: From: Robin Carlsen To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 12:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Share1: Marnia Robinson writes: "Take, for example, the ancient Tibetan Buddhist myth, The Great Stupa. It confirms that passion is indeed the reason for mankind's fallen state, and says there are three paths to liberation: ~the overcoming of passion through renunciation ~the neutralization of passion by pouring all one's energy into selfless service ~the conquering of passion through controlled indulgence. That is, using sex itself in such a way as to transcend passion's treacherous downward suction. It says that the third path is the fastest and most powerful path, although also the easiest one to fall from...until one masters it. Robin1: I think this just BS, Share. There is no spiritual path that entails sex or abstinence from sex: celibacy. "Controlled indulgence"--any being with the intelligence to know how susceptible we all are to the power of this reality inside our bodies, knows this is just plain ridiculous. 'Mastering' "controlled indulgence"--this is the most absurd and ludicrous idea I think I may have heard when it comes to traditional idea of spirituality, Share. Beautifully sincere, but hopelessly naive. Look: here is where I come out on all this. I believe that only the grace of the Personal God can make of celibacy something real, creative, strong, holy. Without that grace, all you have is will power and some religious idea of how good and necessary it is to be abstain from sexual activity. The sexual drive in human beings, Share--unless it has simply just attenuated because of age, or just doesn't assert itself for some unknown reason--always conquers the individual person. One can only do one's best to act with integrity in this matter. But turning sex into some kind of path of truth, that is just a hoot. Don't you see, Share, for this to be true would mean that encountering the methodology and teaching of Marnia Robinson *would be to encounter something more powerful, or potentially more powerful, than sexual desire*. That can't happen. The reality and power of sexuality is something *no human being in my lifetime* has ever mastered--mastered here means, having more control over and intelligence about than what the sensation of sexuality presents to us. *We cannot truly command this aspect of ourselves as human beings without the grace given to us by the author of sexuality* (before the Fall). I have never seen a single human being, Share, who I intuitively knew: *This person knows more about his or her sexuality, what it is, how it acts within him or her, how it can be put it inside a context such as to make it submit itself to that person's will--than the power of this reality to determine that person's experience*. Marnia Robinson: The myth, which is very old, predicted there would come a time when the unstable energies produced by increased indulgence in passion would create chaos at both seen and unseen levels across the globe. The first two paths, celibacy and compassionate service to others, would no longer open the door to enlightenment, though they wo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-:
Good evening Robin, Apologies for just responding. Busy afternoon with writing group and release session, then Dome and dinner. This essay has a decidedly Catholic tone to it. Would it be possible to know the author? That tone gives this reader the sense of someone demonstrating a waltz with their legs and arms tied. I don't even know why I say this. It is simply my sense of it. I still maintain that Western culture is severely marred by the spirit matter split that began long ago. For this reason I find the Taoist approach to sexual intimacy to be healthier and more compassionate and spiritually viable. I do not believe that the only right use of sex is for procreation. Nor do I find myself distracted from spiritual matters during loving intimacy. Thank you for taking the time and attention to reply. I'll respond to the other posts tomorrow. Wishing you a wonderful evening... Share From: Robin Carlsen To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 1:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-: Sexuality Before Marnia Robinson: for Share "The pleasures of sex are more vehement that the pleasures of food and exert more pressure on us; they need more whipping into line, for the more we give way to them the more they dominate us and the more able they are to overthrow our strength of mind. Even married sex, adorned with all the honourableness of marriage, carries with it a certain shame, because the movements of the genitals unlike those of other external members don't obey reason. The virtue that deals with the sex-act we call chastity, and the virtue concerned with more public actions such as looking and kissing and caressing we call *purity*. *Purity* is a sort of adjunct serving chastity, not a separate virtue but a sort of environment to chastity. Sexual sin is thought of as more disgraceful than other immoderate action, partly because of the uncontrolled movements of the genitals, but also because our reason gets submerged. There are three levels to be considered in the act of sex: the physiological level (the breaking of the hymen, etc) has no moral context as such; at the psychological level shared by body and soul, emission of seed brings sensory pleasure (the material side of the human moral act); and at the deepest level there is an act of intention in the soul aiming at such pleasure (and making that act a human, moral activity). Now *virginity* is defined by a moral integrity: not then the integrity of the hymen as such, but a material immunity from the pleasures of orgasm, wedded with a formal purpose of perpetual abstinence from such pleasures. A hymen broken from some other cause is no more a loss of virginity in this sense than a broken arm or leg. And the pleasure of orgasm can be experienced unintentionally during sleep or externally forced without a person's consent. In no such case is virginity lost. External goods are meant to serve our body's good, our body to serve our soul, and in our soul the active life should serve the contemplative life. So it is not a bad thing, but reasonable and right, to abstain from external possessions, which are otherwise good, for the sake of the body's health or the contemplation of truth. And in the same way abstaining from bodily pleasure so as to make ourselves more freely available to contemplate truth, is reasonable and right. The injunction of the law in us by nature to *eat* must be observed by everybody if individuals are to survive; but the injunction to *be fruitful and multiply* obliges the community of mankind reproduce whilst others, abstaining from that, give themselves up to the contemplation of God, and so bring a beauty and health into the whole human race. To refuse all pleasure as such because of dislike for it and without good reason is to be insensitive and boorish. The practice of virginity doesn't refuse all pleasure, but only that of sex, and that only for a good reason. Virginity seeks the soul's good in a life of contemplation *mindful of the things of God*. Marriage seeks the body's good--the bodily multiplication of the human race--in an active life in which husband and wife are *mindful of the things of this world*. Without doubt then the state of virginity is preferable to that of even continent marriage, though married people may well be better people than those practising virginity; more chaste, having a spirit that would have made them better virgins were they called to it than those actually practising virginity, and more virtuous in general. The general good ranks above the good of the private person when those goods are of the same sort. But the private good may be of a higher sort; and that is what happens when virginity dedicated to God is compared with bodily fruitfulness. Howev
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-:
Sexuality Before Marnia Robinson: for Share "The pleasures of sex are more vehement that the pleasures of food and exert more pressure on us; they need more whipping into line, for the more we give way to them the more they dominate us and the more able they are to overthrow our strength of mind. Even married sex, adorned with all the honourableness of marriage, carries with it a certain shame, because the movements of the genitals unlike those of other external members don't obey reason. The virtue that deals with the sex-act we call chastity, and the virtue concerned with more public actions such as looking and kissing and caressing we call *purity*. *Purity* is a sort of adjunct serving chastity, not a separate virtue but a sort of environment to chastity. Sexual sin is thought of as more disgraceful than other immoderate action, partly because of the uncontrolled movements of the genitals, but also because our reason gets submerged. There are three levels to be considered in the act of sex: the physiological level (the breaking of the hymen, etc) has no moral context as such; at the psychological level shared by body and soul, emission of seed brings sensory pleasure (the material side of the human moral act); and at the deepest level there is an act of intention in the soul aiming at such pleasure (and making that act a human, moral activity). Now *virginity* is defined by a moral integrity: not then the integrity of the hymen as such, but a material immunity from the pleasures of orgasm, wedded with a formal purpose of perpetual abstinence from such pleasures. A hymen broken from some other cause is no more a loss of virginity in this sense than a broken arm or leg. And the pleasure of orgasm can be experienced unintentionally during sleep or externally forced without a person's consent. In no such case is virginity lost. External goods are meant to serve our body's good, our body to serve our soul, and in our soul the active life should serve the contemplative life. So it is not a bad thing, but reasonable and right, to abstain from external possessions, which are otherwise good, for the sake of the body's health or the contemplation of truth. And in the same way abstaining from bodily pleasure so as to make ourselves more freely available to contemplate truth, is reasonable and right. The injunction of the law in us by nature to *eat* must be observed by everybody if individuals are to survive; but the injunction to *be fruitful and multiply* obliges the community of mankind reproduce whilst others, abstaining from that, give themselves up to the contemplation of God, and so bring a beauty and health into the whole human race. To refuse all pleasure as such because of dislike for it and without good reason is to be insensitive and boorish. The practice of virginity doesn't refuse all pleasure, but only that of sex, and that only for a good reason. Virginity seeks the soul's good in a life of contemplation *mindful of the things of God*. Marriage seeks the body's good--the bodily multiplication of the human race--in an active life in which husband and wife are *mindful of the things of this world*. Without doubt then the state of virginity is preferable to that of even continent marriage, though married people may well be better people than those practising virginity; more chaste, having a spirit that would have made them better virgins were they called to it than those actually practising virginity, and more virtuous in general. The general good ranks above the good of the private person when those goods are of the same sort. But the private good may be of a higher sort; and that is what happens when virginity dedicated to God is compared with bodily fruitfulness. However, the theological virtues and even the virtue of religion, being directly occupied with God, are to be preferred to virginity. Again martyrs cleave to God more mightily, because they lay down their own lives, whilst those who dwell in monasteries lay down their own wills and all they possess; virgins lay down only the pleasures of sex. Simply speaking then virginity is by no means the greatest of virtues. Use of food properly ordered for the body's welfare is no sin; and in the same way, use of sex properly ordered for the purpose of human reproduction is no sin. Virtuous balance is not measured quantitatively but by rightness of reason, so the high degree of pleasure that attaches to a properly ordered sex-act doesn't stop it being balanced. In any case virtue isn't concerned with how much external sense-pleasure accompanies the act (that depends on the body's temperament), but with the way that pleasure interiorly affects us. Though not even our distraction from spiritual matters at the moment of enjoying such pleasure makes it unvirtuous; for it is not unvirtuous to suspend reason for a time for a good reason, otherwise sleeping would be a vice." --- In Fairf
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Share1: Marnia Robinson writes: "Take, for example, the ancient Tibetan Buddhist myth, The Great Stupa. It confirms that passion is indeed the reason for mankind's fallen state, and says there are three paths to liberation: ~the overcoming of passion through renunciation ~the neutralization of passion by pouring all one's energy into selfless service ~the conquering of passion through controlled indulgence. That is, using sex itself in such a way as to transcend passion's treacherous downward suction. It says that the third path is the fastest and most powerful path, although also the easiest one to fall from...until one masters it. Robin1: I think this just BS, Share. There is no spiritual path that entails sex or abstinence from sex: celibacy. "Controlled indulgence"--any being with the intelligence to know how susceptible we all are to the power of this reality inside our bodies, knows this is just plain ridiculous. 'Mastering' "controlled indulgence"--this is the most absurd and ludicrous idea I think I may have heard when it comes to traditional idea of spirituality, Share. Beautifully sincere, but hopelessly naive. Look: here is where I come out on all this. I believe that only the grace of the Personal God can make of celibacy something real, creative, strong, holy. Without that grace, all you have is will power and some religious idea of how good and necessary it is to be abstain from sexual activity. The sexual drive in human beings, Share--unless it has simply just attenuated because of age, or just doesn't assert itself for some unknown reason--always conquers the individual person. One can only do one's best to act with integrity in this matter. But turning sex into some kind of path of truth, that is just a hoot. Don't you see, Share, for this to be true would mean that encountering the methodology and teaching of Marnia Robinson *would be to encounter something more powerful, or potentially more powerful, than sexual desire*. That can't happen. The reality and power of sexuality is something *no human being in my lifetime* has ever mastered--mastered here means, having more control over and intelligence about than what the sensation of sexuality presents to us. *We cannot truly command this aspect of ourselves as human beings without the grace given to us by the author of sexuality* (before the Fall). I have never seen a single human being, Share, who I intuitively knew: *This person knows more about his or her sexuality, what it is, how it acts within him or her, how it can be put it inside a context such as to make it submit itself to that person's will--than the power of this reality to determine that person's experience*. Marnia Robinson: The myth, which is very old, predicted there would come a time when the unstable energies produced by increased indulgence in passion would create chaos at both seen and unseen levels across the globe. The first two paths, celibacy and compassionate service to others, would no longer open the door to enlightenment, though they would remain useful spiritual disciplines. Why? Because general unrest would render impossible the necessary degree of inner stillness. Robin1: Nice talk, Share--but sex will defeat the person every time. It's one of those either or things: either there is the grace to transcend this desire and be protected from its furious vehemence and insistence, or there is not the grace to do this. For me, I have never seen that grace sufficient to insure the physical integrity of a human being. Although I don't therefore, discount the tremendous intention to conquer or control this aspect of ourselves. Obviously a Catholic priest is living with this intention (presumably). But Marnia Robinson, she has as much insight into her sexuality as Eve did: None. *It just is a given that concupiscence takes our measure, Share*--although, again, I say: there are obviously persons in the world heroically fighting against this reality within themselves. It is just that the grace (from the author of sexuality) is being withheld.--This was decidedly not the case before I was born; before World War II. Then those nuns and religious, they, some of them anyway--like Saint Therese of Lisieux, like Saint Francis of Assisi, like Saint Teresa of Avila, like Saint Ignatius of Loyola, like Thomas Aquinas (to take examples of persons who refer to this very topic (their own sexuality) and how they somehow were recipients of the supernatural grace which is a sine qua non in being innocently and intelligently celibate)--*lived the life that none of us can now*. Marnia Robinson: Instead, only the third path, balance with a partner, would serve. Apparently a loving relationship, devoted entirely to the goal of transcendence, can create enduring inner peace and stability. In this way, we can reconnect the broken circuit of gender and perma
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-:
Which karma is that? Do you really have proof of the various allegations that kicked around here? L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > > Balinese medicine man Ketut from Eat Pray Love: To lose balance sometimes > for love is part of living a balanced life. > > > Do watch the interview on Rick's post.  She believes she is helping to clean > up Maharishi's karma re: his not walking his talk on celibacy and says some > other incredibly sweet and simply and insightful things that apply to us all, > as human's.  Who/what will clean up his karma related to finances?   > > > > From: Share Long > To: "fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com" > Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 9:55 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-: > > >  > Marnia Robinson writes: "Take, for example, the ancient Tibetan Buddhist > myth, The Great Stupa. It confirms that passion is indeed the reason for > mankind's fallen state, and says there are three paths to liberation: > > > > ~the overcoming of passion through renunciation > ~the neutralization of passion by pouring all one's energy into selfless > service > ~the conquering of passion through controlled indulgence. That is, using > sex itself in such a way as to transcend passion's treacherous downward > suction. > > It says that the third path is the fastest and most powerful path, although > also the easiest one to fall from...until one masters it. > > The myth, which is very old, predicted there would come a time when the > unstable energies produced by increased indulgence in passion would create > chaos at both seen and unseen levels across the globe. The first two paths, > celibacy and compassionate service to others, would no longer open the door > to enlightenment, though they would remain useful spiritual disciplines. > Why? Because general unrest would render impossible the necessary degree of > inner stillness. > > Instead, only > the > third path, balance with a partner, would serve. Apparently a loving > relationship, devoted entirely to the goal of transcendence, can create > enduring inner peace and stability. In this way, we can reconnect the > broken circuit of gender and permanently rise about our built-in sense of > lack. By contrast, > celibacy still allows gender polarity to create severe longings in many of > us, if only for simple loving touch. And I suspect this trait is less a > product of moral weakness than a result of the easily inflamed body chemistry > that we have bred into ourselves for millennia. These bothersome longings > may also mask intense yearnings for reunion with our Source. The silver > lining? Many of us are apparently now primed for shared enlightenment > should we care to use our urges for a higher end." > > from Marnia Robinson's Peace Between the Sheets, pg 137-8 > > Balinese medicine man Ketut from Eat Pray Love: To lose balance sometimes > for love is part of living a balanced life. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8csr68LjUM&feature=relmfu >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-:
Share Long: > "Take, for example, the ancient Tibetan Buddhist myth, > The Great Stupa..." > The Great Stupa at Sanchi, India, is an example of South Asian edifice architecture. The ancient stupa at Sanchi shows a parasol emerging from the center of the space enclosed by the harmika fence. This, and the domed architecture of the mound, is repeated with variation in countless thousands of stupas and mounds throughout the ages in all countries from the Swat valley all the way to Java and to Sri Lanka. But in fact, the Patanjali Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge at Fairfield, Iowa, USA, home of the TM-Sidhi program, is a tope! That is to say, the Golden Dome at Fairfield, on the campus of the Maharishi International University (MUM), is sort of like a oriental dagoba that I once visited in Nepal, the like of which is suggested by a morthological similarity to the great Svyanbhunatha Stupa at Patan in the Katmandu Valley. And why? In other words, the Golden Dome at Fairfield, (not to be confused with the Maharishi Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge at Radience, Texas), is a sort of empty mound, surmounted by a kalasa, suppored by the amalaka in which the akasha, symbolizing dimensionless space, and is supported by the linga, surmounting the eight-angled cintamani, or an 8-sided prototypic harmika with a rail surrounding the hypaethral pavilion constituting a veritible 'chaitya garbha pradakshina', with a nice fence around it! The parasol, atop the Buddhist stupa and the MUM Golden Dome, as at Sanci, at Sarnath and at Taxila, (circa 200 B.C.) the earliest evidence of edifice architecture in India, is the canopy of heaven, its pole being the cosmic axis mundi and the dome's surface is the earth. As a 'cosmic egg' image it is preeminent among the aniconic images of the Buddha. In Buddhist mythology the bodhi tree, symbol of MUM, is the original parasol duplicated in the dome and the kalasa on top - the point where the pole of the parasol pierces the canopy corresponds precisely to the point defined by the harmika, where the pole emerges from the summit of the stupa garbha. This is pure Buddhist vastu, except that inside the Golden Dome, at both Fairfied and at Radience, is found HOLLOWNESS, so that the siddhas can have room to enjoy, unobstructed, just like the Buddha when he was 'levitating' over Sravasti. This, you have got to admit, is ingenious - a hollow stupa for flying!
