zizlz, I'm so long in spirituality. I do not blame myself anymore if ego pops in, if day is a little off. I have still more to be thankful for...than complain about.
Bliss is not something I pursue. It's something what happens when I stop check inside heart, take deep breath, I'm using it, every time I find myself lost in thinking, or I start to feel some suffering.

I do not feel anymore like I have to change something. Maybe I have to remind myself, to not protect myself from what my mother sometimes say, or sister :D they comment a lot, and sometimes I loose myself in those little silly conversations, and I'm forgetting I do not have to protect myself anymore. My goal is to, not protect myself, and letting go, letting go, letting people say, letting people have a comments, and what a relief is finding myself, I'm fine, and what people say has nothing to do with myself.

But I do not think I treat spirituality so seriously anymore. If someone on Ramana Maharishi page wrote, I have to eat sattvic, well I'm still eating meat, even though I wouldn't be able to kill animal by myself. If someone say on facebook, and feel good about - spiritual life is about to help neighbors with their desires. I am not agreeing with it. I treat all of those rules very lightly.

I also noticed that enlightened people do not have children, but I think, it is not because they are not having sex with their partners, but because in the world there is a lot of lost children who needs them. If they were focused on their family life, they wouldn't have time for helping to grow up other people. In one spiritual book, I ve red that enlightened people are able to grow healthy baby/human without suffering, but at some point their child will have to identify itself with body, but I do not remember why, I think Tolle wrote this in book New Earth.

Sounds like we pretty much have the same attitude towards spirituality, Raja. So naturally, I think you have the right attitude ;)

About fully enlightened people having sex, I'm not so sure. Of course, there's no clear definition of enlightenment but if you take for example Theravada Buddhism's map of enlightenment, they map out four stages and in the third stage, the sex drive disappears.

I think this is the elephant in the room of the spiritual scene that so many people who think they're fully enlightened love to ignore. But I think it's right. In my period of "divine bliss" or whatever to call it, I experienced a sort of ongoing merging with the divine (sorry for sounding new agey), and the notion of merging with another human body wasn't appealing at all. I suspect that if there's such a thing as "fully enlightened", loss of sex drive would be an aspect of that.

But like with the bliss of oneness, I don't think loss of sex drive is something that should be pursued. That would just result in frustration rather than liberation.

BTW, sorry for calling you Raja, Gaja!

I do not know, but in my opinion if desire is mixed with love, there is nothing wrong with making babies, or having sex, when in truth this is not needed for being fulfilled already.

This is like. If someone who is enlightened loves dogs, and is taking one, to take care of the dog, it doesn't make this one not enlightened. So if someone loves babies, and would like to have one...can adopt, or have one. Is being enlightened mean, one must seat under the tree for all day long, and meditate? :)

Sure, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. Maybe it's just the compulsory aspect of the sex drive that disappears. But since we were talking about bliss and the identification with separation (i.e. ego) that keeps the bliss away, I'm interested in looking at the extreme side of it, what happens when ego-identification has diminished so much that bliss is (almost) permanent? Ramana is the only recent case of this that I can think of. He didn't seem to be compelled to engage in relationships and sex. And this was my illustration of the evolutionary function of the ego. Ego-identification results in more babies, is my hypothesis :)

The reason I bring up the things I do is because I've stepped in the Mooji/neo-advaita trap and feel like I've gotten out of it thanks to the insights I'm sharing here, for the benefit of those who have stepped in the same trap. If you become aware of a limiting mechanism like too much ego-identification, it helps to understand that this problem is actually both hardwired and programmed into us, so we don't have to blame ourselves for having this problem. It's only natural.

You know what? If enlightened people do not feel any sexual desire anymore, then why they get married? They may as well get best friend from the same gander and live, and spend the rest of their lives together. If for them it doesn't matter and they equally love all people...

If they do not have any desires, then why all gurus are having their main servant to be a girl, much younger girl and attractive girl ? Check out : Osho, Maharishi, Mooji, well Papaji got married with one of his devotees and had baby with her. The rest I have not give much of observation.

Actually Ramana at the beginning was like that. No relationships, not interested with food, just mediating. Later when desciples build the ashram. He loved a lot people who were around him, also animals. But he wasn't in intimate relationship with a woman. I think he was not interested. I got this impression while reading the book.

zizlz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The reason I bring up the things I do is because
> I've stepped in the Mooji/neo-advaita trap and
>
what he was teaching? As I remember, one girl on one of his satsangs was complaining about her boyfriend is not interested with sex as much as she does, even though the relationship is amazing, loving, and all oh, and ah. And moo told her, if she is able to go deep with meditation, this is not going to be a problem anymore. She is not going to need sex...I'm not sure really, this was long time ago, when I was listening him.

Quote
Gaja
If they do not have any desires, then why all gurus are having their main servant to be a girl, much younger girl and attractive girl ? Check out : Osho, Maharishi, Mooji, well Papaji got married with one of his devotees and had baby with her. The rest I have not give much of observation.

Exactly. Whatever "full enlightenment" is, it's pretty obvious to me that those people were not fully enlightened.

A scientific understanding of enlightenment is developing, and it's becoming clear that it involves a structural change in the brain, a significant reduction of Default Mode Network activity. It's interesting that Gary Weber (who has himself had this structural change according to brain-scans and who incidentally reports that this change came with a loss of sex drive) invited many spiritual teachers to have their brains scanned to see if they have had this structural change, and almost all of them refused. Here's some info about the research: [jeffwarren.org]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2020 09:19PM by zizlz.

This is interesting, I will read it. Thanks for sharing.