--- In [email protected], Kristy McClain <healthyplay1@...> wrote:
>
> Anthony, Steve and all,
> Â
> I read the attached article, and listened to Sally Kempton's podcast on
> this: (link below-- see #7). Here are some thoughts to ponder...
> Â
> Â
> Sounds True: Insights at the Edge - Download free podcast episodes ...
>
> Download or subscribe to free podcast episodes from Sounds True: Insights at
> the Edge by Tami Simon on iTunes.
> itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/sounds-true-insights...edge/id307934313 - Cached
>
> In both, there is an examination of the guru or teacher -discipline
> relationship. (For those who listen you can start in about 11 min, and
> go to about 25 min, if rushed). She is in her late 60's, with 40+ years
> on the spiritual path, and is trained in the Kundalini Awakening
> /Swami-as-guru style). She points out the teacher /disciple relationship is
> one of intense commitment. She needed a guru as she felt that the reason
> for a guru is because of the transmission that is conferred. The guru can
> offer a clear mirror to the student, whereby the difference between one's
> deluded and dualistic, ego-driven self, and the clarity of your essential
> self.
> Â
> The guru takes total spiritual responsibility for the student, who then
> surrenders all spirituality authority. The teacher assumes responsibility
> for the student's awakening experience, according to her. They make a
> profound and intense commitment to each other. in her case, she had an
> "abolute" guru.
> Â
> This reminds me of a D/s-type relationship. (dominance - submissive). One
> has absolute control and authority, and the other submits to the Dom's
> guidance / direction , with complete obedience. All i can say is that this
> requires a lot of trust.. or naiveté, depending on your perspective.
> Â
> ~ Switching gears to the article attached below~
> Â
> In my translation of the Bhagavad Gita, it says we have total control over
> our actions, but no control over the fruits of our actions.
> Â
> Anthony, what do you think of his impression of karma? I think sex can be
> sacred as it is so very intimate. But I don't believe it must always attachÂ
> loyalty or fidelity. Is there not a place for carnal lusty,
> sensation-driven experiences? Emotions like love can co-exist, but must
> they? Can it be a simple exchange of each giving and receiving what they
> seeK? Or not?
> Â
> What do you think of his tantric interpretation?
> Â
> Back to the teacher / discipline relation and sex. Is this any different than
> if I slept with a boss, or college professor? If so-- how? Does
> "spirituality" or "awakening" somehow connote something that trancends the
> usual standards in the power exchang, between an authority figure and a
> studet / employee / child, and the like?  Doesn't it depend on the
> intention? At work, is it a paycheck, a raise, a wedding ring, an
> orgasm, I am seeking? In a guru, amIi seeking satori? There is an
> exchange of information, or money, or spiritual discipline, or any of a
> thousand different possibilities.
> Â
> How do we define a moral construct about this, and should we? This is
> fascinating stuff! *s*Â Â I do indeed have more comments, but i have toÂ
> dash to a meeting. Look forward to others thoughts!
> Â
> Be well..
> Â
> Kristy
Hi Kristy. I have meditated on your post, and here are my thoughts.
I can see that what really fascinates you is the egoic "exchange of power" in
sexual relationships. IMO, the ego is simply a collection of boundary-lines
that don't really exist except in the mind. These boundary-lines are all about
esteem, control, conflict, security. To the ego everything is a transactional
exchange. In sexuality, the most
stark example would be the D/s thing. A Jungian would just see it as being
compensation. Typically, extreme sexual submissives are people who feel
themselves to be rigidly, perfectionistically self-restrained. They feel this
to be oppressively wearysome, and long to be released from it by relinquishing
all control to the dominant partner. Extreme dominants, on the other hand,
secretly feel themselves to be subjugated, manipulated and controlled by people
and/or external circumstances, and seek relief from this by exerting absolute
control over their partners. Now there is really nothing unethical about all
this as long as the relationship is consensual. However, it does nothing to
actually resolve the real causes of the underlying egoic discomfort that
generates the compensationary behavior. As such, it doesn't increase insight
into the real problems: the rigidly self-controlling perfectionism on the one
hand, and the feeling of being subjugated, manipulated and controlled on the
other hand. Of course, this is just the most extreme form of what the
delusionary ego does all the time in countless different contexts. This is, of
course, diametrically opposed to the Buddhist ideal of equanimity, in which
there is no transactionalism at all.
IMO.
Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
