Celibacy

well the point is to gain will power and for people to vow to love someone for who they are..................................

But to me it's a cop-out if you you can't sperate love and sex than thats your problem not mine and don't try to force my children into that BS with trems lik "chastity." and pure that's just BS I was pure and having sex and now they are saying well you can do other things like dry humping WTF man I hate that word and all it sit for...... you can deal with your own issues with sex and love than hey here's a new flash wait until your mental ready thats all I have to say

 

thank you

 

No problemo.


x

 

Agreed ... upto a point, ... men will always be men and women always women ... even after enlightenment, and our bodies ( the misperception of our being as separate from eachother) will still have the instincts that bodies (beings) have ... to eat sleep and procreate ect, and a part of enlightenment is to see the natural purity of this. Identifying with spirit is the cleansing of thought and realisation of oneness ... realising the being so there is less focus on the object ... and the illusion of the object falls away and becomes transparent. We 'die before we die' so we can really live ... so we can get our prioritys right; being primary, doing secondary... so we can still love and enjoy sexual union but not NEED it.

 

Speaking as a man in a serious drypatch right about now, celibacy is dumb and no-one should even think about trying it ever. Not having sex when the opportunity presents itself may not be a crime against God, but it's a bit of a kick in the teeth to me.

 

So what you're saying is, you're all about enlightenment, right up until the point where it might make you gay?

 

No that's not what i'm saying, though i guess that's your interpretation of what i'm saying. Enlightenment never made me gay in the common usage of the word but did allow me too feel and express love towards my male friends.

Really i'm just saying that it doesn't do away with sexuality but rather enriches it. This is in my experience anyway although it seems that some people go off and be ascetic or renunciates but i personally don't see the point. I guess it's just a choice, or whatever you feel is right for you.

 

It was a dig more than anything, but hey, science has more or less proved that provocation keeps people's synapses from clogging up with chewing gum, so...

I'm always interested in the enlightened attitude towards sexuality. So many people seem capable of telling us all how x y z things shouldn't matter because we might eventually mean we can do without our bodies. But suggest manlove and all they can worry about is maintaining the integrity of their pooper

But nah, wasn't accusing you of anything. I just don't get how you'd get sexy without a body, so I don't see the point of celibacy. We may not have bodies in the next world, but we have them now, and they're pretty good at fucking each other, and with any luck genetic engineering will make them even better at it.

 

I think the point of celibacy is to retain the sexual energy that is expulsed as a result of climax, so that it can be transmuted to higher energetic centers.

 

Well yeah, it's like swearing off drink and thinking that means you don't have an alcohol problem, isn't it. The way you know you've overcome alcoholism is when you can have a drink. seems like it's the same with sex; just avoiding any form of sexual contact to avoid lust makes about as much sense as making sure you don't covet your neighbour's ass by moving to a ranch in Wyoming where your nearest neighbour is several miles away. And still thinking about banging him.

 

Yeah i knew that .. i was just being a silly bugger

Sure one can separate love and sex, but one can also combine them ... like it's not what you do but the conciousness with which you do it, OR 'It ain't what you do but the way that you do it'.

 

Oh, I know. I just think that the tradition of demonising sex that isn't about love is bad. It's implies that man only has any capacity for love in the absence of temptation, that monogamy is the only right choice, etc. Sex with someone you love deeply is immensely rewarding and wonderful. But, weirdly, if you can't get that, sex with someone you hate/who hates you is probably the next best thing!

 

The desire for celibacy is just an ego scheme in playing out its game of "I'm getting enlightened". The whole point is not control but surrender to what is.

 

But surrender implies control. You have to control that which doesn't want to surrender. Change it so it does want to surrender.

But actually, what do you think it is we have to surrender to?

 

Surrender means to let go the illusion of a control that we don't really have and never did have, and never can have.

To the natural flow of Life. You can also call it God, or Spirit, or Higher Wisdom, or whatever. I don't care what word you use.

 

It's kind of like buying a Fedora to prove that you can act, isn't it.

 

But if control is an illusion then how could we actualize any process of letting go, or even decide to surrender?

.

But many would say that surrender to God is in a sense counter to the natural flow of life.

 

It is true that control is an illusion. It is not true that we already know this. So in order to surrender we must LOOK WITHIN AND SEE all the attempts at control that we engage in. We must recognize all the futile and pointless things we do to play out our attempt at control. In truly seeing it, in recognizing the futility and falseness of it, then the letting go happens naturally. There's no trying to let go. There's no trying to surrender. You could say it happens on its own when we stop giving energy to the control-seeking preoccupation.

God is life. God is just a name we give it. There's no separation there.

 

I think maybe there's some language problem here. How could we decide to look within if we have no control? We couldn't decide anything because it would all be an illusion.

I think God is somewhat grerater then life which is only one partial and imperfect manifestation.

 

It's only a perception that we have a choice. But if we assume we don't have a choice that's a perception too. What's real is what is actually happening. So, for example, if it occurs to you (whether from an insight or from some 'stimulus' in your environment) to look within and you find you're able to do that, then that's the path that's available to you (and this we call choice). It's not available to everyone (and this we call no choice). If you notice, what happens in reality is that some people are able to do things that others aren't. If we assume anything, meaning if we think we know, then we're most likely wrong. We don't know. Life is fluid and changeable. We may suddenly develop an ability that we didn't have moments ago. Something may click, some gear shifts into place, and voila.. now we can.

I have a friend that becomes a maniac when she's driving. Everything pisses her off. Why? Because at this point she has no ability to be different. That can change in an instant. I'm typically extremely peaceful and laid back when I'm driving. Why? Because I can be. Because I find myself able to be.

It's that little way of being called "not knowing" and not assuming anything. It's the constant looking to see what is possible now.... what is possible now... what is possible now. And then not making oneself and others wrong for how it winds up being in reality. Because the way it happens is the only way it could be in that moment.

Byron Katie wrote a book called Loving What Is. Not what should be. What Is.

good advice.

Whatever. Makes no difference to me what you call what. That's entirely up to you. I'm not stuck on any particular term or definition.