judge
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by judge on Oct 10, 2011 8:38:50 GMT -5
Since this board was created by Rose's students, I am sure there are many experts here know about Richard Rose's teachings. Can anyone summarize the key points of his teachings? I found his books are a bit hard to read and understand. What is 'Between-ness'? Is it something similar to 'Hootless', a term used by Lester Leveson for Sedona Method?
|
|
|
Post by popee2 on Oct 10, 2011 10:20:21 GMT -5
If you're ever looking for something good to read and are interested in Richard Rose's work I highly recommend: Richard Rose's Psychology of the Observer: The Path to Reality Through the Selfby John Kent www.searchwithin.org/johnkent/pdf_toc.html
|
|
tomas
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by tomas on Oct 12, 2011 12:06:22 GMT -5
I am a new student to Richard Rose's work. I've been reading and taking in "Richard Rose's Psychology of the Observer". I was first drawn to Chp 11, "Sexuality and the Transmission of Energy". Being bisexual, I've gone back and forth between women and men, it's been one of the central dramas of my life. I've been celibate for 2 weeks, getting close to a record for me! In Chpt 11, he refers to "the tremendous spiritual harm that comes form homosexual activity" ... "Homosexuality will destroy the [nonsexual] monastic sect [of innocence]".
I get how sexuality, love and relationship stuff can hypnotize oneself, that celibacy is a conscious break from this, helpful in finding the truth of one's life. He implies that gay sex is not "natural", resulting in conception. Can't spiritual harm also come from straight activity?
Ok, any comments on whether he exempts bisexuals, and does anyone know any history of Mr Rose, any background on why he is so against gay relationships? I can understand that gay stuff can dominant one's life, since it's "different", it can consume more of one's energy. However, I don't think it's accurate to say that all self realized people are straight. Also, exploring one's sexual feelings, toward the same and other gender, is an avenue of self exploration.
Any comments?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2011 12:16:12 GMT -5
I'd chalk it up to his conditioning and not much else.
I remember reading After the Absolute and wondering how an enlightened fellow could get in a fist fight with someone and try to put their opponent's head in an oven.... didn't quite seem to fit the picture of the beatific expressions floating in my head.
|
|
|
Post by Shawn on Oct 12, 2011 19:47:14 GMT -5
Rose advised celibacy because he felt that, practiced correctly, it conserved the mental and physical energy which could then be used to build and strengthen a spiritual direction.
He had very strong views about the effect of different sexual practices on one's mentality. You can read The Sex Connection for a detailed interpretation of Rose's views by one of his students. In short, he felt all sex was a drain and bind, some types more so than others. Perhaps you could imagine that someone who has sex with poodles might have more hangups/mental confusion that someone who only has sex with their spouse.
Yes, he felt gay sex caused more hangups than straight sex. I don't recall him giving an opinion on bisexuals. He did have some students who were gay, so don't get the idea that he discriminated against them -- he just spoke his mind.
He wrote very little about this; preferring to counsel people individually.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 12, 2011 22:34:54 GMT -5
I am a new student to Richard Rose's work. I've been reading and taking in "Richard Rose's Psychology of the Observer". I was first drawn to Chp 11, "Sexuality and the Transmission of Energy". Being bisexual, I've gone back and forth between women and men, it's been one of the central dramas of my life. I've been celibate for 2 weeks, getting close to a record for me! In Chpt 11, he refers to "the tremendous spiritual harm that comes form homosexual activity" ... "Homosexuality will destroy the [nonsexual] monastic sect [of innocence]". I get how sexuality, love and relationship stuff can hypnotize oneself, that celibacy is a conscious break from this, helpful in finding the truth of one's life. He implies that gay sex is not "natural", resulting in conception. Can't spiritual harm also come from straight activity? Ok, any comments on whether he exempts bisexuals, and does anyone know any history of Mr Rose, any background on why he is so against gay relationships? I can understand that gay stuff can dominant one's life, since it's "different", it can consume more of one's energy. However, I don't think it's accurate to say that all self realized people are straight. Also, exploring one's sexual feelings, toward the same and other gender, is an avenue of self exploration. Any comments? Oh, so you're bisexual? Really? I suppose the next thing you'll tell us is that you're male or female.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2011 8:41:16 GMT -5
Yes, he felt gay sex caused more hangups than straight sex. thanks for that clarification Shawn. This seems simple though...maybe there are more hang-ups with gay sex because one might be ostracized by their family, discriminated against in society, and possibly end up lynched? If people preferring straight sex were also immersed in a culture that said that their preference was inherently unnatural, illegal, and to be shunned, there would be a lot more hang-ups around straight sex. I imagine this convo is old hat in the Richard Rose circle?
|
|
|
Post by popee2 on Oct 13, 2011 9:57:16 GMT -5
How many people around the world are in jail (literally or figuratively) right now due to their inability to control their sexual urges? So if someone can't control their wants and desires, and are enamored with pleasing the body, they are not "surrendering" into This.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 13, 2011 10:21:20 GMT -5
How many people around the world are in jail (literally or figuratively) right now due to their inability to control their sexual urges? So if someone can't control their wants and desires, and are enamored with pleasing the body, they are not "surrendering" into This. Surrendering into THIS doesn't have anything to do with controlling anything. It is beyond the idea of either control or no-control. It is an illusion to think that there is someone who can control anything. Remember, there are not two here.
|
|
|
Post by popee2 on Oct 13, 2011 10:32:24 GMT -5
Yes zd, poor wording on my part. I was trying to say that addictions and such can hinder one's "practice".
good with that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2011 10:36:13 GMT -5
but this is sort of like saying one style of addiction hinders more than another. like crack is worse than cocaine.
|
|
|
Post by popee2 on Oct 13, 2011 10:46:54 GMT -5
I dunno max, would an addiction to pedophilia hinder worse than an addiction to masturbation?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 13, 2011 11:02:25 GMT -5
Yes zd, poor wording on my part. I was trying to say that addictions and such can hinder one's "practice". good with that? Yes, although I'm not sure E. would like it. LOL. "Practice" is a word that gets his dander up.
|
|
|
Post by popee2 on Oct 13, 2011 11:07:01 GMT -5
OK, good enough. Yes, E and his "nothing to do, nor anyone to do it"
But still .. a non-doing practice is something I can resonate with. Hehe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2011 11:23:17 GMT -5
I dunno max, would an addiction to pedophilia hinder worse than an addiction to masturbation? haha yes! IMO. however, here you are setting up the following analogy: pedophila:homosexuality::masturbation:heterosexuality that's probably how Richard Rose and current society/culture would respond as well. But what if that's all just conditioning? In other words, what if putting pedophilia and homosexuality in the same category is just based on a traditional bias? this analogy: crack:homosexuality::cocaine:heterosexuality seems more accurate. Crack has been seen as a problem of the inner-city with mostly a minority demographic (colored otherness) whereas Cocaine is mostly an issue in the burbs (white, normal). Hence Crack crimes get stiffer sentences due to an unconscious bias against the inner city demographic. In actuality the addiction to crack and cocaine is about equally harmful. It's funny because a person who has both homosexual and heterosexual urges is probably the best to decide which is more harmful.
|
|