Search & Read
Sex, Eternal Bodies, Gurus
Thomas: Ram, in loving the body we in a sense give it permission to be its eternal self, i.e. open-ended, and potentially infinite in fact. This goes also for that aspect of us that is sexual in nature… our sexuality is open-ended and a vital part of the process of transformation. Approaching sex in a sacred, reverential, tenderhearted manner helps to nurture its open-endedness, thus allowing this energy to fulfill its endless potential – and not get put on the back burner like your Scottsdale friend is doing.
Ram: Sounds good, where do I sign up? Seriously, Thomas, what about the downside of sex? I’m not saying that sex is unspiritual and I think that the attitude you have is pretty healthy, but what about all the problems that come from pursuing sexuality as a path to fulfillment? What about the craving, for example? Perhaps you’ve noticed how a sexual encounter produces craving for another sexual encounter. Very often in the middle of the sex act you start thinking of when you will do it again and suddenly the freshness, the nowness of it, is lost and you become separated from what you’re doing and your enjoyment stops. What about the torment one feels when one has the craving but the person who is meant to satisfy it is not in the mood? How wonderful is sex at that time? What about all the scheming necessary to get laid? Is the mind with God then? Sure, sex is wonderful, but it’s also awful.
You missed the point of my story about my Scottsdale friend. He found peace when he realized the inherent problem in seeking love.
Thomas: There’s an old saying: “One can’t find the Tao by seeking, yet only seekers find the Tao.” Is this a fact or an illusion?
Ram: I think it means that you can’t seek what you already have. You need to realize that you have it. But if you have an inquiring mentality, are willing to look at things from different, perhaps more radical, perspectives, you will eventually discover that you are what you are seeking.
Thomas: I am doing my best to see women as divine spiritual beings… I’m gaining on it.
Ram: Good. It is the way they prefer to be seen. See anyone like that and you’ll have everything you want in life. See them as different, unique, separate, and you’ll have nothing but problems.
Thomas: Ram, I think we are all perfectly imperfect… no absolutes in this dual/relativistic reality.
Ram: If “perfectly imperfect” means that imperfection is not a problem, I would agree.
If ours is a dual/relativistic reality, then that’s the best way to see it. If it’s a non-dual absolute reality, then you need to subtract the word “imperfect” or you need to put the word “apparently” before “perfectly/imperfect.”
Thomas: It seems to me you separate yourself from your body and degrade the body, therefore in your eternality you leave the body behind.
Ram: I explained above how you might get your mind around the issue of the negation of the body and its subsequent divinity.
Thomas: Besides Jesus, there are numerous avatars who have eternalized their physical bodies. Why not us? Bodies are such glorious creations of God, perhaps even one of the crown jewels of creation.
Ram: There is no substantial evidence for this. This is a belief. But let us assume it is true – just for the sake of argument. Jesus and avatars are those who have realized that they are God or one with God, that everything here, including the body, is eternal. If Jesus were here today I wouldn’t be surprised if he saw your body as eternal.
The problem with this idea is that it depends on transforming something that isn’t real into something that is. Remember, the definition of “real” I’m using is enduring, unending, unborn. As I said above, seeing the body and physical reality as imperfect is the problem. It isn’t. It is just the body of God, so it is already immortal, therefore there is no need to try to make it so.
Thomas: Much of your thinking seems to me to be either/or rather than both/and… aka exclusive rather than inclusive. Yes, I am what I am before I manifest it AND after as well. BOTH are facts and both are real. Not accepting this, I think, keeps one on the karmic wheel.
Ram: This is true. But it is by design, not confusion. I think the primary purpose of any spiritual path is to separate spirit from matter in the beginning so it is clear what the relationship between spirit and its manifestations actually are. To realize the spirit in essence, unencumbered by changing forms, gives clear, pristine knowledge. The next stage happens naturally, the adding back of the forms so that nothing is excluded from your vision: the unchanging, immutable center around which all the changing things spin AND the changing things themselves which only spin because they are infused with spirit. It is a realization that they are also self, just like the web of a spider is the spider’s body shaped by the spider’s intelligence.
The first is called discriminating wisdom, the second non-discriminating wisdom. The first leads to self-realization, the second to enlightenment.
Thomas: You say the way you tell if you’re surrendered is if you are content. I say if you realize you are simultaneously content and discontent, holding the tension of the full spectrum of feelings, walking that fine-line center path, then you know you are surrendered and not before. Again we differ.
Ram: I don’t disagree with your statement. In fact it’s one of the best things you’ve said so far. But it doesn’t contradict my statement for this reason: in my statement I was referring to the ego that was surrendered to something apparently other than itself. This gets it off the hook so its tensions dissolve.
In your case, although you might not realize it, I think you’re not talking about the ego, you’re giving a statement from the self about the self. You’re speaking as God. I wouldn’t call it surrender exactly (but if this is what you call surrender it’s fine with me) since the one who realizes that it is simultaneously content and discontent would be God, that to which an ego might surrender. The words “fine-line center path” seem to be your way of talking about God, the self.
Thomas: I don’t have anything significant against gurus. I just have a need to understand both their good points and their “shadow” points (which they generally try to hide).
Ram: With the concept of guru that you have, I’d say that your view is very intelligent. For me there is no such thing as a guru. There are people claiming to be a guru as if it were a special identity, but they are fools. For me there is only the self. The self, God, is guru, not a guru. Guru is composed of two syllables, gu and ru. Gu is a contracted from of a Sanskrit word that means “darkness,” a symbol of (spiritual) ignorance. And ru is a contracted from of a Sanskrit verb that means “to remove.” So guru is what removes darkness. It is a principle that applies to auto mechanics as much as it does to the realization of God.
Thomas: Unlike you, I know that the external world exists in tandem with the internal, both simultaneously help each other and one is not superior to the other – they are equal and equally real but in different ways.
Ram: I’ve addressed this idea of the apparent reconciliation of contradiction above in two places. When you take it on board our perceived differences will greatly reduce, I think. The inner and the outer are part of the same transcendent whole.