Sex and Spirituality - www.ezboard.com

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Non-SRF Teachings and Ideals > Sex and Spirituality
Page 1 2 3	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Sacred Lovemaker Unregistered User (2/16/02 12:56 am)	Sex and Spirituality Reading over the thread on Tara Mata as well as some of the other threads on this board, I am stunned by how sterile we all are regarding sex. Sex is enjoyable and profound. As a celibate, I was very ungrounded. Sex helped me put my feet on the ground. Together with Kriya, it is sublime. You may think I am advocating lots of sex plus kriya. Not necessarily. That's your call. What I'm advocating is that, if you do have an opportunity to have a lover -- whether in marriage or not -- you really enjoy the fullness of the experience and allow it to heal you and appease your desire for human connection and intimacy. Let sex instruct you on how to feel pleasure from within. Then perhaps those individuals who have practiced kriya for ages without much results might begin to melt some of their frozen energies and learn to transfer that experience to the search for finer states of self pleasure in kriya. Many people quoting Sri Yukteswar -- such as on the Tara thread -- although well-intentioned and seemingly open to the value of healthy sexual experience tend to state their ideas about it in clinical terms, as if the last vestiges of the so-called "fig leaf" consciousness Guruji talks about have not completely abdicated their minds. Sri Yukteswar reveals a natural and unaffected attitude towards sex. Regarding its indulgence, this is what he has to say: *Quote:* The sexual desire in its normal state makes man quite free from all disturbing lusts, and operates on the organism (awakening a wish for appeasement) only infrequently. Here again experiment shows that this desire, like all other desires is always normal in individuals who lead a natural life as mentioned. Have your ever really sat down and reflected upon what Sri Yuketeswar meant when he wrote "awakening a wish for appeasement only infrequently"? My interpretation is that, at least once-in-a-while, an individual will want to experience sex. And, in the absence of a partner, may want to masturbate. He doesn't mention anything about enjoying the experience, but it is obvious that one does not become "appeased" unless one enjoys. We no longer live in Victorian times. The canon of literature and research in the field of human sexuality is growing immensely. It is commonly accepted that orgasm can be explained physiologically as a release of tensions in the muscles around the pelvic base plus the regulation and balance of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems (the former associated with self-assertive activity and the latter, with the recuperative function of the body). There is a disappointing tendency among spiritual seekers to hyper-associate sexuality with immoral behavior and license. Perhaps it is true that what most people experience in sexuality is its dysfunction. Looked at rationally, there is little difference between sexually abberant behavior and any other abberant behavior than can be done with food, money, power, or influence, and so on. Its just that sex ranks second in prominence to the self-preservation instinct, so issues associated with it effortlessly get top billing. I encourage members of this board and all sincere spiritual seekers to reevaluate their attitudes towards sexuality. Perhaps we may find that we are not very mature about it. Certainly most of us can't claim to have a natural, non-antagonistic relationship to it as Sri Yukteswar would no doubt counsel us to have. The problem has been monasticism. To my knowledge, no one has proven that extreme celibacy as practiced in monasticism has led anyone quicker to God than one who practices embraces their sexuality in a friendly way. Take a look at the leaders of SRF and then decide. I have chosen the latter and still have the same excellent quality of concentration in my meditations. In fact, having completely abandoned the entire SRF monastic framework, I've come in contact with that simple easy-going, and playful self I used to be when I was a child. A coworker gave me a copy of Margot Anand's classic "The Art of Sexual Ecstacy: The Path of Sacred Sexuality for Wester Lovers." If you are are a Kriyaban, you are already practicing the interior form of Tantra. And if you are one of the many devotees of the SRF path who have grown tired of the emotionally stifling influence of the monastic way of thinking on your personal life and yearn for a way which embraces creativity and groundedness, check out Margot's book. It is a great place to start to challenge all those sexual myths you've been burdened with. Describing the ultimate goal of Tantra she writes: *Quote:* The Tantra vision is one of wholeness, of embracing everything, because every situation, whether pleasant or unpleasant, is an opportunity to become more aware about who you are and how you can expand your capacities. And this provides a greater opportunity for integrating all aspects of yourself, including those parts that you may normally reject or hide. This vision also recognizes that within each adult human being there is a natural , unspoiled, childlike spirit who can openly and innocently explore unfamiliar territory. The innocence of this spirit remains intact and represents our natural capacity to enjoy life, to love, to play, and to be ecstatic. On the Tantra tradition she writes: *Quote:* Tantra originally developed as a rebellion against the repressive, moralistic codes of organized religions and the ascetic practices of the Brahmins -- the Hindu priesthood -- particularly against the widespread belief that sexuality had to be denied in order to attain enlightenment. Tantra means "weaving," in the sense of unifying the many and often contradictory aspects of the self into one harmonious whole. Tantra also means "expansion" in the sense that once our own energies are understood and unifled, we grow and expand into joy. Always a rebellious and noncomformist approach that challenged taboos and belief systems, Tantra branched out and influenced not only the Hindu but also the Taoist and Buddhist traditions. Tantra influenced western history through the ecstatic cult of the Greek god Dionysus around 2000 B.C. Sex is not what ultimately lures me to the Tantric vision. What does is its idea of embracing one's self totally and fearlessly. Because of the many years of harm I experienced under the repressive and overly conformist attitudes promulgated in SRF, I must say that I am very attracted to its rebellious spirit. This may not be an attitude which goes over well amongst the most fundamentalist members of SRF, but then I am not of their tribe anyhow. Lahiri Mahasaya never counseled Kriyabans to make radical changes in their lifestyles. Yet SRF does. No wonder so many well-intentioned SRF-ers feel as if they are going schizoid. It's time to go back to basics, to return to the authentic you. Begin from that basis and climb the spinal stairway naturally. Your body is a system which entirely exists in the present. That is why so many therapists counsel their clients to become aware of what's going on in the body. To listen to the body is to listen to ancient wisdom. I am looking forward to finding a spiritual partner with whom I can share this journey. I have no desire to wear the ochre cloth -- my only desire would be to wrap myself in the embrace of my lover and wear her scent.
Should Free Registered User (2/16/02 2:19 am) ezSupporter	Re: Sex and Spirituality Excellent Posting SL. We have a long journey to unwind the horrible damage done by monasticism to our sexuality -- a long, long journey! Your posting is a good beginning. I suggest the Ezboard op. add this posting to the SRFwalrus teachings. Such postings are no tot be taken lightly; there is Wisdom here. They deserve to be kept for posterity! Should Free
skylark Unregistered User (2/17/02 10:53 am)	SRF and SEX are like oil and water I believe sex is a taboo topic in SRF. Unless you talk about it as if you were a biologist. Romance and intimacy between human beings is rarely, if ever, discussed. How to feel God in that connection isn't discussed. I've come to the conclusion that SRF has Ph.d - level techniques (Kriya) but is a kindergarten of emotions. Really a horrible combination when you think about it, and probably why the Matas may have deep experiences in meditation but be such klutzes when it comes to regarding their fellow human beings with empathy and forethought.
X Insider Unregistered User (2/18/02 9:19 am)	The three letter word How true. One is not even allowed to use the word sex at Mother Center. One says "creative force."
chrisparis Registered User (2/19/02 6:45 am)	I have a question... [SRF Walrus Edit: To debate Kriyananda please use the Ananda section or the catch all section. Let me also say for the record that the Walrus is very much against sex. I am sure my own mother and father never engaged in anything like that. ] Edited by: srfwalrus at: 2/19/02 7:14:39 am
chrisparis Registered User (2/19/02 8:29 am)	I STILL Have a question... ...and apparently I didn't phrase it correctly before, so I will try again, so the tie to sex is more obvious. In an acount I read about life at Mt. Washington under PY, the living arrangements were: monks, for the most part, in the basement; first floor public space, nuns on the second floor, more nuns and PY on the third floor. Now my first question is this: is this an accurate description of the menage at Mt. Washington? And, to save time, my second question is this: doesn't such a living arrangement raise the question of propriety? Doesn't it even raise the issue of hypocrisy, given the emphasis PY placed on continence as part of the spiritual path, and his insistence on seperating the monks from the nuns? Doesn't it lend credibility to the story that Swami Dhirananda left SRF because PY was using it as a personal harem? I have been able to look at the stories on this site as evidence that the ORGANIZATION of SRF is screwed up, which is a seperate issue from that of being a follower of Paramahansa Yogananda, who is a saint; but this issue strikes much deeper and is troubling me deeply. I am in need of some truthful insight from people who are in a position to knowwhat is and was going on
Mani Unregistered User (2/19/02 8:36 am)	Harem at Mt Washington Didn't someone report PY to the police or govt for running that supposed harem at MW? Also didn't the city of L.A. come to investigate MW on charges that he was starving his residents because he only fed them on a rabbit diet (veggies) and were all looking like third world refugees, skinny to the bone with their ribs sticking out?
yogdev Unregistered User (2/19/02 8:41 am)	re: walrus post I'm with Walrus. Abolish sex planet-wide and all the problems with SRF will disappear within 50-100 years�guaranteed!
say yes to sex Unregistered User (2/19/02 8:44 am)	abolish sex? Wouldn't it be easier to just abolish SRF
chrisparis Registered User (2/19/02 10:40 am)	No, REALLY, I STILL have a question... ...and although I appreciate the witty reparte, I had rather hoped that SOMEONE out therewho knows something about this would provide a substantive answer.
Unsubstantiated Unregistered User (2/19/02 10:44 am)	Substantive? Substantive? You want a substantive answer??? You've come to the wrong place buddy...
AumBoy Registered User (2/19/02 10:56 am)	Re: No, REALLY, I STILL have a question... Chrisparis, you may have to wait a few days for a better answer. Not everyone who posts on the walrus is here everyday. Some stop by once/week or so. Or the answer could be in earliers posts, too. The search function has not been repaired yet and it is difficult to look for items on the board.
chrisparis Registered User (2/19/02 11:10 am)	Thanks Aumboy Nice for someone to acknowledge a queston/remark/whatever that I've put up.I was beginning to think it's nothing but puffers on here.
Sacred Lovemaker Unregistered User (2/20/02 1:35 am)	To chrisparis My intention was to generate a thread on the healing aspects of sexuality rather than scandals associated with it. I know the latter is a hotter topic because controversy always wins over subtlety, but I'd prefer to clear a space for a mature conversation about a topic which gets absolutely no attention in our so-called "advanced" higher age church.
username Registered User (2/20/02 3:52 pm)	Re: To chrisparis I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for in this thread, but I have posted a Bihar School of Yoga technique of sexual tantric meditation in the "other yoga" section. www.indiawatch.org.in/yoga/ www.yogavision.net/main_set.htm
chrisparis Registered User (2/20/02 4:33 pm)	I still have a question Sorry to have hijacked your thread, but I think the question I am raising is a serious one, goes beyond scandal-mongering, and deserves an answer. or at least consideration. In my opinion (just mine) sex is neither here nor there on the spiritual path. If celibacy were a real help to enlightenment, many many roman catholics would be enlightened. If sex were an aid to enlightenment, then the sexual revolution of the '60's and '70's would have produced MANY advanced souls, but it hasn't. So, to jump off, sex is what it is, and what IS relevant about it and the spiritual path is exactly how ATTACHED to it one is. My issue, what is seriously eating me alive here, is that, if PY said celibacy was important, continence was important, on the spiritual path, and he abided by that rule, well and good. If he said sane sexual relations within the context of householder relationships was OK, well and good. If he said "I personally don't maintain a celibate lifestyle, and so I can't, in good conscience, call myself a swami, which is, after all, a monk" well and good. But IF he said "celibacy is essential to spiritual development. I, as a swami, a renunciate, have given it up. It doesn't trouble me anymore, just another desire I have put behind me", and at the same time, he was "maintaining a harem" at Mt. Washington, THAT, my friends, is HYPOCRISY, and hypocrisy, I think, is contradictory to spiritual enlightenment. It is exactly the problen I have with Kriyananda. If you are going to conduct sexual liasons with your disciples, and they are consenting adults, then call a spade a spade, but DON'T call yourself a monk. Now, I have read through a good deal of what is on this site, and quite tedious a lot of it is. And I have been able to say "look, SRF as an organization is screwed up. Obviously too many people, especially women, who have been glamourized by the idea of monasticism. But that doesn't have anything to do with Paramahansa Yogananda, or his teaching." But if there is real, credible evidence that he was advocating a monastic lifestyle and, at the same time, slipping in to the nuns quarters at night for a little of the old "raise the kundalini", that presents a major problem, at least to me. I have very little belief in the Ben Erskine business (although I may be wrong about that, too) but surely someone out there, if there are people on this site who have worked at MW for 20 plus years, who have SOME idea, some knowledge about what was going on. So, sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but, I ask again, IS IT TRUE?
Lobo Registered User (2/20/02 7:06 pm)	Re: I still have a question Chris, I understand your dilemma. I share the same one. So do many of us who post here if their posts are any measure. YOu've said you've read through the various posts on this subject on this board and graciously judged 'many of them quite tedious." Nonetheless have you found one post that has the truth behind the rumors? I've haven't either. Just because one was a monastic for any number of years doesn't mean that they are somehow privy to such information. Surely you've noticed in you're reading that only the 'spiritual successor' and her minions have any real knowledge of what goes on, or even, what went on. And again, you'll note if you're paying attention: THEY AREN'T TALKING. So it's up to conjecture and speculation. Some feel quite convinced that old Ben is the 'only begotten son.' Others, like myself, think it's all bunk. What's your opinion, for that's about as far as you'll find this subject progressing until those wielding the power deign to let all us member-bees know the truth.
YoniLingam Unregistered User (2/20/02 7:32 pm)	Sex and the Guru Business Let's not forget that the Guru Business is big business and gurus are bigger than rock stars in India. At the rate facts are coming out about the SRF house of cards I wouldn't doubt anything. To Chrisparis: you're asking for the impossible. Nobody can give you an the airtight, foolproof, 100% bona fide answer you're looking for. You're asking for a guarantee in a world full of uncertainty. The only people who could tell you what exactly went on are those who were there and most are now six feet under (or in a wall in a mausoleum at Forest Lawn Glendale). Only a few are still alive, the Matas and a few bros, and I doubt Daya Mata is going to tell you how they got their groove on back in those days. So I suggest you give up this crusade for the holy grail. Much has already been written up about it (the New Times articles are chockfull of naughty details) and a lot of stuff has been posted on this board and others. Short of that, your only other alternative is to drive up to Sierra Madre and knock on Daya Mata's door and ask her for the low-down. And then report back to us and give us all the juicy details.
chrisparis Registered User (2/21/02 9:22 am)	Fair enough... O.K., I am completely convinced that if I ask Daya Mata or Anandamoy, or any of the others "hey, was he or wasn't he? You know... wink wink, nudge nudge", I'd be shown the door in double quick time. But there are still plenty of "personal disciples" (ridiculous term) out there who could verify or not, the question I am asking. Roy Davis was out at MW at the time in question, and Mr. Paulson, to name just two. If there was hanky-panky going on at the ashram, people know about, and the chances that information could be restricted to an Inner Circle are pretty slim. I guess the point I am reaching here, the conclusion I am coming to, is that NONE of the Gurus in the Guru business is "real". One by one we have seen the sexual issue raised about them one and all. Swami Satchitananda, Swami Rama, Sai Baba, Rajneesh, right on down the line, we have seen disciples come along who said "he used his position as a spiritual leader to coerce me into having sex with him" or "he's supposed to be a Swami, but he's having sex with disciples every night and sometimes in the daytime too" (O.K, Rajneesh is an unfair inclusion, since he openly promoted a free-love philosophy, but we can also view with suspicion a person who claims to be spiritually advanced who maintains a fleet of Rolls-Royces, so his name stays). PY has been the one and only (that I am aware of) who promoted his spirituality and appeared to "walk the walk". That's why I bought in to SRF. But now we see sufficient mud in or near his footprints that we might conclude that he had feet of clay as well. But perhaps the truth is that people like C.S. Lewis who say "I'm trying to live spiritually, but I am far, far from having achieved real spiritual attainment" are really the most spiritually advanced exemplars out there for us to follow. Maybe there IS no technique that infallibly leads to God-Realization, other than persistent striving to reach it, however one attempts that striving. Perhaps it's not "25% disciple's effort, 25% Guru's help, 50% grace of God". Maybe it's 100% grace of God.
YoniLingam Unregistered User (2/21/02 9:42 am)	Bingo -- you got it -- Ding Ding Ding!!! *Quote:* "Perhaps it's not "25% disciple's effort, 25% Guru's help, 50% grace of God". Maybe it's 100% grace of God." You've hit the nail on the head. This 25/25/50 is yet another piece of SRF mythology. Truth is, you get there when God says so. He is the one who put you here in the first place, and you ain't escaping till he lifts the spell and opens the door. And only he decides when. The door opens from the inside, and he's got the key. You could do ten trillion kriyas and not be one iota closer. Huge spiritual figures of India like Ramana Maharshi and Ramakrishna Paramahansa have debunked this guru as savior crutch that so many gurus like to hand their students. Ramana Maharshi said the real guru is God. Ramakrishna said nobody escapes from this world without Divine Mother's permission. Witness when Totapuri tried to drown himself in the Ganges. Even though he was enlightened already, he couldn't do it, because Divine Mother didn't allow him to. Bottom line, you're here as long as God wishes to keep you in bondage. No guru can override God's authority.
Sacred Lovemaker Unregistered User (2/21/02 4:49 pm)	Again I say.... My intention was to generate a thread on the healing aspects of sexuality rather than scandals associated with it. I know the latter is a hotter topic because controversy always wins over subtlety, but I'd prefer to clear a space for a mature conversation about a topic which gets absolutely no attention in our so-called "advanced" higher age church.