ego and spirit don't mix
james lee driftmier
Oceanna, Conscious Loving... etc. is to promote the beautiful union of the
"Two" into the "One" or if you are into the religious aspects as well,
then the "Three" into the "One." The third party is your choice of "God."
This isn't a topic that should promote bickering or competition, the whole
focus is to learn to view the world, and especially your partner, through
a "lense" of love. There is not a right way for all. What works for
some, may not provide the path for another.
Take Care,
Jim
Elizabeth J. Jelich-Griffin
>The modernization (if you will) of the concepts of Tantra, Karezza,
>Oceanna, Conscious Loving... etc. is to promote the beautiful union
of the
>"Two" into the "One" or if you are into the religious aspects as
well,
>then the "Three" into the "One." The third party is your choice of
"God."
Hmm.
I would define the third party not as another being, but rather
the relationship between the Two. So, by becoming One,
all three (the Two and their relationship to each other) sort of
"dissolve" (but not really, just a perception thing).
To make this more on topic, when the Two (Three) are One,
then <someone's> Will Be Done.
Make sense?
Beth
--
"I'm a bitch, I'm a lover, I'm a child, I'm a mother,
I'm a sinner, I'm a saint" - (some Meredith Brooks song)
tyagi nagasiva
>
> The modernization (if you will) of the concepts of Tantra, Karezza,
> Oceanna, Conscious Loving... etc. is to promote the beautiful union of
> the "Two" into the "One" or if you are into the religious aspects as
> well, then the "Three" into the "One." The third party is your choice
> of "God."
>
> whole focus is to learn to view the world, and especially your
>
> Take Care,
>
> Jim
Jim, You say some very wise things here. The problem that the religious
Indian tantra yoga practitioners have been having here is that they see
such paths as karezza, conscious loving, magnetation, etc. as merely
"better sex." They do not acknowledge that these practices are of a
spiritual or mystical nature, especially insofar as they do not partake
soleley of Saivite, Shatiite, Tibetan Buddhist, or another Asian set of
religious symbols, practices, or icons. In squabbling over the meritsa
of religiion versus mysticism, either side can lose sight of the true
goal -- so thanks for reminding us.
cat
catherine yronwode ------------------------ mailto:c...@luckymojo.com
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
Lucky W Amulet Archive --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
The Sacred Landscape ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
Karezza and Tantra Yoga ----- http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html
Freemasonry for Women ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
Comics Warehouse ------ http://www.luckymojo.com/comicswarehouse.html
news:alt.lucky.w --- discussions on folk magic, luck, amulets, charms
Bhasmagoptr
tyagi nagasiva wrote in message <37018F...@luckymojo.com>...
>Jim, You say some very wise things here. The problem that the religious
>Indian tantra yoga practitioners have been having here is that they see
>such paths as karezza, conscious loving, magnetation, etc. as merely
>"better sex." They do not acknowledge that these practices are of a
>spiritual or mystical nature, especially insofar as they do not partake
>soleley of Saivite, Shatiite, Tibetan Buddhist, or another Asian set of
>religious symbols, practices, or icons. In squabbling over the meritsa
>of religiion versus mysticism, either side can lose sight of the true
>goal -- so thanks for reminding us.
Using Tyagi's name now?
The "problem" is none of these things. Again, you are twisting this around.
The only "problem" is when these things are being promoted as Tantra. They
are not. As long as the terminology is clearly defined so as to avoid
confusing others, there's no "problem" at all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tzimon Yliaster
Tools of CHAOS
http://www.xiqual.com
PO Box 26362,
San Francisco, CA 94126
nagasiva
james lee driftmier <jim...@u.washington.edu>:
# The modernization (if you will) of the concepts of Tantra, Karezza,
# Oceanna, Conscious Loving... etc. is to promote the beautiful union
# of the "Two" into the "One" or if you are into the religious aspects
# as well, then the "Three" into the "One." The third party is your
# choice of "God."
this reminds me greatly of something that was repeated often in my
studies (mostly in books, sometimes with other devotees; even Kali
suggested it as a possibility a time or two):
Eventually the god must be left behind, trascended,
in order to achieve 'moksha' or liberation.
I disagree with this very strongly, and I don't think (though admit
of the possibility :>) that it has to do with my fervent devotion
to my goddess as I understand Her.
this contention makes its appearance in the Christo-Indian
statement that everything must be reduced to a 'God-unity'.
neither do I see this as necessary nor do I understand that
this requires the desertion of the god ('burned away' as
was reported of gurus like Sri Ramakrishna). I'd agree that
this is ONE way to approach liberation, but there are others.
the perspective that ego represents an 'obstacle' to
spiritual development is bound up with very specific notions
of what the 'ego' represents. Freudian psychology does not
seem to favor the Ego, nor in many ways do Eastern mystics
who like to adopt Western psychological language to justify
or explain their ideas.
Jungian and Transpersonal psychologists seem to have more
useful ideas about the Ego as a centerpoint of the personality,
contrasted with the 'person' which is applied over it as a mask.
typically the mystic will demonize the 'ego' rather than come
to understand that phenomenon of ego-inflation is but one
possible outcome of personal exploration and transformation.
those mystical systems which promote 'casting aside the ego'
are liable to be misunderstood by those who are fond of what
they call 'individuality' and 'egocentricity' as positive
and healthy developments of personality. what they come off
promoting (rather than 'putting aside buffers between oneself
and the world -- the personae) is self-disintegration and
self-destruction, especially when combined with some type of
guru-chela relationship in which hierarchical, dominating or
surrendering activity.
this activity on its own can be quite valuable, but I contend
that the center of personality is never "lost" or "dropped"
except in truly sad cases, becoming drones for the cult.
instead, the success of mysticism involves the realization
of the self in a clearer and honest personality which has
few buffers between the ego and the world. it is truly
'egocentric' in a valuable sense (i.e. 'grounded and
centered') and exemplifies honesty, sincerety and, as
sri catyananda has made plain in another thread,
vulnerability).
this clear-centeredness is what I would associate with
'spirituality' as the individual is resolved and freed
from the torment of contending personal energies. its
climax is what I have identified as 'moksha' or
'liberation' quite aside from Indian cosmological models,
and I think it has been described in a number of mystical
and psychological contexts (e.g. 'nirvana', 'beatitude',
and 'self-realization'.
but I don't think that such clarity is ONLY approached by
the resolution of the person, the world, the worship, to
an undifferentiated unity. it seems to me that the variety
of attention-foci exemplified in meditation throughout the
world symbolize the corresponding variety of possible
means of self-clarifying. that is, it may be done in
response to a single object, two (forming a triad), three
(forming a quartad), etc., as well as diffusion within an
unbounded unity (the preference of many monotheists and
pantheists).
# This isn't a topic that should promote bickering or competition,
# the whole focus is to learn to view the world, and especially
# your partner, through a "lense" of love. There is not a right
# way for all. What works for some, may not provide the path
# for another.
anything can become the subject of contention. the religious
world is sometimes pent up with a resistance to respectful
struggle, thus seldom setting an example of it. those who
thereafter engage in disputation will at times venture off
into ad hominem and rudeness because they have not caught
the meaning of "as brothers fight ye!" in texts like the
Evil Book. it is one thing to disagree, another to insult.
complaining about bickering is sometimes quite valuable in
bringing the conversation around to a more loving atmosphere.
however, at other times it is just another way for religious
to make one another wrong. my preference these days is to
ignore the bickering wherever possible and try to set an
example of plain dispute with respect. a number of us doing
likewise will eventually set the stage for curtailment
of bickering and disrespect, setting a standard that could
spread throughout usenet, the internet and the world.
call me a utopian :>
nagasiva
--
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com; http://www.abyss.com/tokus
(emailed replies may be posted); cc me your replies
see also http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatspells.html
catherine yronwode
>
> tyagi nagasiva wrote in message <37018F...@luckymojo.com>...
>
> >Jim, You say some very wise things here. The problem that the
> >religious Indian tantra yoga practitioners have been having here is
> >that they see such paths as karezza, conscious loving, magnetation,
> >etc. as merely "better sex." They do not acknowledge that these
> >practices are of a spiritual or mystical nature, especially insofar
> >reminding us.
>
> Using Tyagi's name now?
Silly! He used my computer yesterday, changed the prefs in Netscape to
reflect his identity -- and forgot to change them back when he shut
down. As soon as he saw this post he called me and told me to change the
prefs back. So i did. "Sorry for any confusion" and all that...not that
you were confused, of course!
> The only "problem" is when these things are being promoted as Tantra.
> They are not. As long as the terminology is clearly defined so as to
> avoid confusing others, there's no "problem" at all.
That's good to hear. In another post of yours i saw today, you seemed to
be saying something quite different -- that neotantra inherently
"trivializes" religious Indian Tantra Yoga. In that other post i tried
to clarify my use of terms so thoroughly as to leave no room for further
misunderstanding on your part. I look forward to your comments.
However, debate over the use of the word "Tantra" is not the only
"problem" you seem to have had with me. Not stated here, but reiterated
several times lately, is your insistence that i write about sacred
sexulity as part of a "commercial" business.
In the first place, i happen to be a professional writer and editor, so
the charge is a difficult one to dispute because, in essence, *anything*
i write about -- from vegetable gardening to collecting plastic jewelry
of the 1930s -- can be said to part of what i do for a living (i.e.
write). But you can hardly assert that writing per se is either contrary
to the doctrines of Tanra Yoga or generally anti-spiritual, else why
would the tantras themselves exist?
Secondly, you seem highly offended by the fact that i have created an
online business growing herbs, manufacturing herb-based occult supplies,
and importing religio-magical artifacts. (Incidenetally, it is my
writing ability -- more than any mercantile talent -- that aids this
venture, as the thing that sets my line of goods apart from many others
is the informative text that accompanies the items, most of it online
*for free* at the Lucky W Amulet Archive.)
Why you think that my earning a living by writing and through a
manufacture-import business has ANYTHING to do with sacred sexuality is
unclear to me. In fact, your repeated attempt to link these things
together in order to discredit me is so muddled that i despair of making
any sense of it.
I have no knowledge of what you do for an income. However, whether you
write, import folk-magical and relgiious art, test computer software,
clerk in a convenience store, haul trash to the local recycling center,
or live on an inheritance, you must have *some* way of paying the bills.
You are not a renunciate ascetic -- not with that internet connection
and the computer equipment you must have! Therefore for you to castigate
my spiritual practices because i am working for a living is so petty as
to defy description.
Perhaps you will drop that part of your self-proclaimed "grudge" against
me and confine your dispute with me to the issue of sex-mysticism and
sex-religion? If so, i would appreciate it greatly.
cat
yogi R. Lund
it love to look from one to the other. "When two become one", or "observer
becomes the observed" there is no technique involved, and it is indeed a way
for all, because no one evolves except by coming this way; no one evolved to
this present point without coming this way; this way is where the little
children walk.
What is perception but something that binds all as one, not as one perception,
but as one work to do together on the one perception. All diversity gives you
one perception of God, to whom all life is apprenticed, to whom evolution is
solemnly devoted, and if you have not felt enough of God, perceived enough of
God, all you ever have to do is find someone different, a fly, a snake, a
little girl, a bush covered in frost, and more perception comes.
This is not clear if you have ceased to consumate your relationships with
meditation, which is simply that amount of rest natures' intution tells it to
get. Meditation is to complete relationships, which it says in your
countenance that you will do when someone meets or sees you, if you will
indeed do it; as it says on your countenence that you will not do it, if you
will not, so that it is futile to meet you except as the proverbial example
of bad, a study of the pathology of decay, or as opportunism if one is such.
In article
<Pine.A41.4.10.990330...@dante13.u.washington.edu>, james
lee driftmier <jim...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> The modernization (if you will) of the concepts of Tantra, Karezza,
> Oceanna, Conscious Loving... etc. is to promote the beautiful union of the
> "Two" into the "One" or if you are into the religious aspects as well,
> then the "Three" into the "One." The third party is your choice of "God."
>
> This isn't a topic that should promote bickering or competition, the whole
> focus is to learn to view the world, and especially your partner, through
> a "lense" of love. There is not a right way for all. What works for
> some, may not provide the path for another.
>
> Take Care,
>
> Jim
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
james lee driftmier
I agree. My motivation for writing what I wrote was simply that my hope
is that this does not continue to be a forum for philosophical elevation
of views. One can not gain spirtuality at the expense (and judgement) of
another's perspectives.
Take Care,
Jim
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Elizabeth J. Jelich-Griffin wrote:
> james lee driftmier wrote in message ...
> >The modernization (if you will) of the concepts of Tantra, Karezza,
> >Oceanna, Conscious Loving... etc. is to promote the beautiful union
> of the
> >"Two" into the "One" or if you are into the religious aspects as
> well,
> >then the "Three" into the "One." The third party is your choice of
> "God."
>