tomas
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by tomas on Dec 17, 2011 14:12:49 GMT -5
Just joined this forum. I knew Rose and worked with him for many years. He was consistent and validated his ideas through direct experience. Many of his early students were homosexual. He treated everybody the same. I've read a number of your posts and it strikes me that you are on the Path, and it is a difficult one. From personal experience I can only say don't give up on celibacy as it is truly the key to mental freedom and a reservoir of energy that will accelerate your progress. And, as you already have found, there are very few people who will share your enthusiasm for any views on sexuality that are not politically correct. But you can't let that discourage you. It only matters that you get up one more time than you fall, in regards to breaking celibacy. Rose used to say that after a while, when celibate, your 'power' comes upon you, and you can only be tempted by yourself. Also, that you have to lose something to really know the value of it, whether it's a nickel or your celibacy. Bazoleo, thanks for your post. Rose's theory on the socalled "bug" afflicting gay people is fascinating to me, and explaines alot, especially about all the unhealthy behavior gay people engage in... particularly anal sex. How can anyone contest Rose's statement that the anus is made for elimination and that the male organ is made for elimination and impregnating a woman? The "bug" theory also make sense in my own inability to completely shake it, and following my upper brain to pursue women rather than my lower brain to pursue men. Could you say more about Rose's attitudes toward his gay students? Didn't they resent his "bug" theory? His "bug" theory is unpopular with others on this forum, as well as in spiritual circles, which are accepting rather than critical. Gay people often seem obsessed with sex, suffer unhealthy conscequences, and live alternative lifestyles. Was that why he was so against it? I think celibacy is more difficult for gay people than straight. My intuition is that Rose had a bad same sex experience - did he ever speak of this?
|
|
|
Post by bazoleo on Dec 26, 2011 7:20:43 GMT -5
Just joined this forum. I knew Rose and worked with him for many years. He was consistent and validated his ideas through direct experience. Many of his early students were homosexual. He treated everybody the same. I've read a number of your posts and it strikes me that you are on the Path, and it is a difficult one. From personal experience I can only say don't give up on celibacy as it is truly the key to mental freedom and a reservoir of energy that will accelerate your progress. And, as you already have found, there are very few people who will share your enthusiasm for any views on sexuality that are not politically correct. But you can't let that discourage you. It only matters that you get up one more time than you fall, in regards to breaking celibacy. Rose used to say that after a while, when celibate, your 'power' comes upon you, and you can only be tempted by yourself. Also, that you have to lose something to really know the value of it, whether it's a nickel or your celibacy. Bazoleo, thanks for your post. Rose's theory on the socalled "bug" afflicting gay people is fascinating to me, and explaines alot, especially about all the unhealthy behavior gay people engage in... particularly anal sex. How can anyone contest Rose's statement that the anus is made for elimination and that the male organ is made for elimination and impregnating a woman? The "bug" theory also make sense in my own inability to completely shake it, and following my upper brain to pursue women rather than my lower brain to pursue men. Could you say more about Rose's attitudes toward his gay students? Didn't they resent his "bug" theory? His "bug" theory is unpopular with others on this forum, as well as in spiritual circles, which are accepting rather than critical. Gay people often seem obsessed with sex, suffer unhealthy conscequences, and live alternative lifestyles. Was that why he was so against it? I think celibacy is more difficult for gay people than straight. My intuition is that Rose had a bad same sex experience - did he ever speak of this? Tomas, Rose's attitude toward gay students was the same as his attitude toward heterosexual students. He viewed sex as a trap; meaning one could easily become addicted to a particular sexual experience. Celibacy was a TOOL, nothing holy or sacred. After the survival urge or drive, sex is the strongest force in a person. So it makes sense to use sexual energy on the spiritual search, kind of like adding high-test gasoline to the automobile tank. Re: the 'bug' theory (which isn't a theory so much as a description); just as talking about the negative aspects of booze to an alcoholic, talking about the negative aspects of ANY sexual experience to one who is addicted, is useless. The person is unaware that it's the booze, dope, or sex habit talking, and not themselves. If you look into history, every culture on the face of the earth has had a belief in entities, or unseen spirits, creatures, call 'em what you will. Incubi and succubi are two terms sometimes used. Only with the advent of so-called modern psychology have we decreed that such things to not exist. Yet modern psychology and psychiatry are unable to cure or heal many people, and the only remedy is pharmeceutical. The pure state of mind brought on by an extended period of celibacy will often reveal many things. Some people can see more clearly than others. Once you've tasted or experienced the mental clarity and freedom from obsession a celibate lifestyle brings, it's hard to deny certain things. Rose did not to my knowledge have any same-sex experiences, though he spent time in the seminary when he was 12 years old. He did talk about some priests there who were apparently homosexual. His argued that the gay lifestyle was a trap and unnatural, for reasons you cited, and others that can be found in "The Sex Connection". Obviously his view is not politically correct, but he had no concern for that...nor for the masses in general. He often said, "I am trying to contact a few people". You yourself have mentioned in previous posts your own experiences and how they feel degrading and how the pull of gay sexual experiences is so strong. The only rememdy, is to RESIST...until there's a moment of freedom brought on by starving out the bug; or retaining your energy. Bazoleo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2011 20:15:28 GMT -5
bravo sharon!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2011 20:25:30 GMT -5
Rose did not to my knowledge have any same-sex experiences, though he spent time in the seminary when he was 12 years old. He did talk about some priests there who were apparently homosexual. His argued that the gay lifestyle was a trap and unnatural, for reasons you cited, and others that can be found in "The Sex Connection". Obviously his view is not politically correct, but he had no concern for that...nor for the masses in general. He often said, "I am trying to contact a few people". You yourself have mentioned in previous posts your own experiences and how they feel degrading and how the pull of gay sexual experiences is so strong. The only rememdy, is to RESIST...until there's a moment of freedom brought on by starving out the bug; or retaining your energy. Bazoleo Bazoleo, thanks for chiming in on this. It still sounds, from your version as well, that Rose may have been dispensing the Absolute through a distorted filter. Hey, we're human. But I'm hearing your mention of him not being 'politically correct' a defense of a message pointing to obsessive gay sex/fantasy being worse than obsessive hetero sex/fantasy. That sort of spin is a HUGE distraction. The addiction is something to pay attention to, not as much the particular flavor.
|
|
|
Post by bazoleo on Dec 28, 2011 18:10:17 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome, glad to join this discussion.
Re: Sexuality of Various Types; all that matters is that one person finds true Freedom...or becomes Free. No one ever argued anyone into Truth, and there are many paths to the top of the Mountain. (pardon the caps; just a way of indicating the condition that is referred to by various names, including Enlightenment). True, it doesn't matter which drum a person beats, only if he or she knows who it is that is making the noise.
This line came to mind: "Art thou in the whirling hub of the wheel, or in the seat of the chariot" (from RR poem name of which eludes me right now). Maybe it points to something relevant, regarding addictions in general. That some are more constraining than others, some are more debilitating than others, and some may bring total destruction of the organism. It's pretty tough to do any spiritual work, or drumming, from the cemetery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2011 20:55:42 GMT -5
aye, true enough. methinks my addictioin is to thinking. not in the gutter yet, but not fully functioning either. i am powerless to it, so there's that recognition. but everyone around me serves it socially and pushes it hard. that's one reason I come here. to hear from the people who have spoken to ducks and squirrels and who sip McDonald's coffee with abandon. they say to look elsewhere than the recurring thoughts
|
|
|
Post by bazoleo on Dec 29, 2011 7:23:20 GMT -5
aye, true enough. methinks my addictioin is to thinking. not in the gutter yet, but not fully functioning either. i am powerless to it, so there's that recognition. but everyone around me serves it socially and pushes it hard. that's one reason I come here. to hear from the people who have spoken to ducks and squirrels and who sip McDonald's coffee with abandon. they say to look elsewhere than the recurring thoughts Well said sir, well said. You are a poet. Though we all are so addicted as you say, only a few realize the fact, and become aware of the tremendous hold thinking has on our awareness. If only we could turn it (awareness) around, and focus on its source! Ah, then we become true explorers of the hinterlands. Rose called it the Maximum Reversal path. You are a kindred spirit.
|
|
tomas
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by tomas on Dec 29, 2011 20:56:14 GMT -5
Sexual orientation is one of the most charged topics, not only here, but in US politics. It's been one of the central dramas of my life, am I straight... gay... or bi?
Reading "The Sex Connection" about Rose's attitudes on sex, one of the things I was most struck by was his statement (underlying his position) that the purpose of the male organ is to impregnate the female.
This could be refuted by the argument that humans do lots of unnatural stuff, such as going to the moon.
My own unscientific observation is that gay people are more "spiritual" than straights, I think because so much of their life is counter to the straight culture.
Questions around my own sexuality have been the source of much inner work: what kind of woman / man am I attracted to, what does that say about me, who do I end up with, and what are my own biases in being intimate?
So often I want an answer... yet here, for the lack of an answer, all I can do is inquire.
|
|
|
Post by bazoleo on Dec 30, 2011 7:09:39 GMT -5
Sexual orientation is one of the most charged topics, not only here, but in US politics. It's been one of the central dramas of my life, am I straight... gay... or bi? Reading "The Sex Connection" about Rose's attitudes on sex, one of the things I was most struck by was his statement (underlying his position) that the purpose of the male organ is to impregnate the female. This could be refuted by the argument that humans do lots of unnatural stuff, such as going to the moon. My own unscientific observation is that gay people are more "spiritual" than straights, I think because so much of their life is counter to the straight culture. Questions around my own sexuality have been the source of much inner work: what kind of woman / man am I attracted to, what does that say about me, who do I end up with, and what are my own biases in being intimate? So often I want an answer... yet here, for the lack of an answer, all I can do is inquire. Truth is every single thing can be refuted by clever or sophisticated argument, but the simplest answer is often the best or most accurate. Rose didn't try to convince anyone of anything, and often encouraged students not to believe him, but to find out for themselves. Proof is in the pudding sort of attitude. Re: inner work; there are many definitions of such activity, many things to be discovered. It's even possible that what you call inner biases to intimacy micght be a programming designed to protect the individual from self-destruction. Only time will tell, and in that regard, I can honestly say that after sixty years, reflection has brought to light many truths that were previously conceptual, or taken lightly, by me, when I was younger and more vital. In most of these cases, "it's too late now" is an epitaph that applies. I wouldn't call it regret exactly, but more a wistful longing for the opportunity to give it another go, with more commitment, more earnestness than before.
|
|
judge
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by judge on Jan 1, 2012 21:30:20 GMT -5
Both Richard Rose and Robert Adam died of Alzheimer. I wonder what happened to their consciousness when they had Alzheimer. Did they still know they were enlightened?
|
|
|
Post by bazoleo on Jan 7, 2012 4:57:18 GMT -5
Both Richard Rose and Robert Adam died of Alzheimer. I wonder what happened to their consciousness when they had Alzheimer. Did they still know they were enlightened? Hi, ahh..the question is somewhat misguided in that Awareness merely IS. Body consciousness is related to protoplasm. I used to visit Rose in the nursing home. There was a Light about him that was palpable, even to the staff, many of whom had no idea about his spiritual teachings. He was a West Virginia hillbilly, by his own admission. Very tough guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2013 18:18:53 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? I also chalk some of his statements up to his old-world conditioning. Where I do see something of value is his recommendation to take a time-out from the sex indulgence, to clear up a bit. Ug Krishnamurti once said that sex is actually quite painfull to the body, which may help us to see it from a different perspective. I've read a lot from Richard Rose, and while I find many of his teachings helpful, sometimes the man scares me with talk of entities and so on.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 27, 2013 18:43:56 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? I also chalk some of his statements up to his old-world conditioning. Where I do see something of value is his recommendation to take a time-out from the sex indulgence, to clear up a bit. Ug Krishnamurti once said that sex is actually quite painfull to the body, which may help us to see it from a different perspective. I've read a lot from Richard Rose, and while I find many of his teachings helpful, sometimes the man scares me with talk of entities and so on. Entities: Disembodied parasitic thought-forms... What's scare about THAT?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2013 19:36:54 GMT -5
I also chalk some of his statements up to his old-world conditioning. Where I do see something of value is his recommendation to take a time-out from the sex indulgence, to clear up a bit. Ug Krishnamurti once said that sex is actually quite painfull to the body, which may help us to see it from a different perspective. I've read a lot from Richard Rose, and while I find many of his teachings helpful, sometimes the man scares me with talk of entities and so on. Entities: Disembodied parasitic thought-forms... What's scare about THAT? Nothing if one is immune! Anyone know of the vaccine? Lol
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 27, 2013 20:49:30 GMT -5
Entities: Disembodied parasitic thought-forms... What's scare about THAT? Nothing if one is immune! Anyone know of the vaccine? Lol Addressed in the ACIM chat we're having. www.searchwithin.org/download/pregnant_witch.pdfWhen I read this, I intuited the antidote. The key is to not believe in the hypnosis and shift in perception that the entity tries to use to get you to accept it into your energy system. You let go of the experience and root into who you are in relating to the experience. Believe nothing that is perceived and wait for the entity to tire itself out. It's a dominance game. Just be more dominant. For the stronger entities, you have to root into what some call the Ground of Being. Stand upon the Rock and not the shifting sands. Know thyself and you will never be lost again.
|
|