Thank you, weaver! I can feel you know what I am going through! Yes, a lot of karma resolving! And I am bound to do it. So my thinking, Near, is that as weaver says… one day or another I would have to go through this. I might as well do it now. Or actually… my whole evolutionary nerv system urges me to do it NOW! As if I am in some sort of hurry… (but I’m not, I know)… it is just that everything is falling in place so quickly.
I no longer have any romantic ideas of a relationship. My love has no direction. The reason to hold on to ONE partner is for the sake of the ego mostly. The ego is so scared that the safety of familiarity is needed. Otherwise I would not be able to proceed and dare to do the journey. It is practical for the spiritual development. But actually, I love the divine masculine when it merges with the divine feminine.
“Well, it hasn’t been my experience. Over the years, I’ve definitely experienced a lot of ‘purification’ and ‘inner silence’ and the development of a loving heart, and yet I found that it did not make physicality a less important element for sexual attraction in my case.
When I discovered this, it was something of a surprise for me too, because I too was under cultural and personal presumptions that it would. You know, I was somehow thinking that if I have spiritual development that I would make me care only about ‘Inner beauty’. But no, it didn’t, and that’s the way it is.”
Very interesting to know.
I spent 14 years with a woman with whom I did not have much in common, but who is exactly my type, when it comes to physical attraction. I have sometimes wondered if I would have had a better life with a woman with whom I had more in common (more into spirituality, more low maintenance etc.), even if I would have been less physically attracted to her. According to Schopenhauer attraction is just to assure the best offspring possible, and I cannot imagine a greater success in that field than what we had.
I do not want any more children, but I still find it impossible to pursue a relationship with a woman who does not trigger my “mating instincts”, so to speak.
I have not done as much spiritual work as you, but in my imagination I was convinced that over time I would become less “shallow” in my preferences in that field. I guess I would just hurt myself, if I would try too hard to get into that line of thinking/feeling.
I have not done as much spiritual work as you, but in my imagination I was convinced that over time I would become less “shallow” in my preferences in that field.
Yes, I thought exactly the same at one time. But I’ve learned to presume a lot less about sexual preferences.
Does the word ‘shallow’ meaningfully apply to a sexual preference? When we use a value-laden word like that, what are we thinking? Are we implying that some or all of the following are true:
- That it would be better for us and the world if we didn’t have this preference?
- Given that we do have it, that it would be better for us and the world if we suppressed it (or didn’t allow it to be involved in our choices)
- That we can actually change it
- That ‘spiritual development’ will change it
I believe that, for many given sexual preferences that might be called ‘shallow’ or deemed for some reason to be imperfect, it is true of all four presumptions above that they are often wrong (though of course, none are always wrong – never say never, and never say always). So if ‘shallow’ is supposed to mean these 4. above, it is not necessarily making sense as a term.
Take for example a preference for athletic bodies. It should be pretty clear that this is a good probabilistic indicator of health and vitality. So it is not necessarily better for humanity if we do not have this preference. Regarding physical beauty, it’s very likely to be something your children are better off having, regardless of anyone’s ‘spiritual’ ideals, so it’s not necessarily better for society if you don’t have the tendencies that tend to lead to beautiful children.
By the way, it’s interesting that certain kinds of sexual preference are almost never criticised as ‘shallow’ or deprecated in any way, while there would seem to be few objective reasons to consider them less ‘shallow’ than a preference for physical beauty. Why is this? One example is a sexual preference for someone who is funny, someone who makes you laugh, which is actually quite a common preference too, especially in women. Why is this not ‘shallow’ and the preference for beauty presumed shallow?
And here at AYP, we probably won’t get much criticism of sexual preference for someone who is ‘spiritual’ or a yogi, except maybe a wry bit from me occasionally.
Namaskara David & All,
Adyashanti was engaged in dialog with a satsang attendee, and the guy was quizzing Adya on monogamy, along the lines of, “Well, if it’s all One, and you know it - and you are Love - why would you restrict a particular expression of that love - namely sexual love - to only one person?”
(Adya is happily married, and has publicly stated the monogamous nature of that marriage, more than once.)
Adya shrugged, and said, “I dunno - conditioning, probably.”
And then he went on to say something that, for me, gets to the very heart of this whole discussion:
“Enlightenment doesn’t eliminate conditioning - it eliminates our unconscious attachment to our conditioning.”
Enlightened people who liked chocolate before enlightenment will probably still like chocolate after enlightenment has happened in the space of that body-mind, that was formerly governed by the ego (and what is the ego, if not a temporarily swirling eddy of conditioning - stronger at times, weaker at others?)
Enlightened people who were sexually attracted to athletic bodies, or dominance, or people of their own gender, or vulnerability, or nice butts in tight jeans ---- will probably still feel the same way, after awakening / enlightenment.
I don’t claim to be enlightened (another great Adya quote, “Those who claim to be enlightened — aren’t”) - but have had what I would call an “awakening process of increasing intensity”.
The only changes I have noticed in my sexual proclivities are:
A. Greater equanimity
Cool if it’s happening (in general, in my life); cool if it’s not; okay either way.
B. Greater Clarity, Concerning Conditioning
Today at lunch, I caught myself thinking about a woman at work, who I find particularly attractive - and she is admittedly the type of woman, who would be considered “hot” - er, wait - make that “ultra-hot” 
in terms of society’s general standards of female “attractiveness” (young, exceptionally pretty, in shape, really truly exceptionally nice body, smart, nice, genuine personal depth, consummately professional, etc.)
I kind of smiled at myself, and thought something like, “Wow, that conditioning sure runs deep, but hey, it feels good - and it’s kinda fun!” - and went right back to enjoying my thoughts (not overt fantasies, but leaning in that direction).
If I could sum it up, based on the awakening experiences I’ve had (and understanding that ego still “gets” me at times, every day - these comments aren’t from a place of spiritual ego, but from a place of simple reporting), I would say:
Awakening produces more changes on the inside (how I think and feel, including how my body feels, how I experience each moment), and less on the outside (I still eat junk food, am quite lazy in ways, can be sensitive to other people’s feelings, etc.) - than I expected.
(I thought being [kinda-sorta sometimes] awake and being lazy, or being awake and being horny, were mutually exclusive … “apparently not”!).
(And, obviously, many or all of these qualities may evolve, as we each evolve, spiritually – but it’s very unlikely that they will evolve in the ways our ego / mind thinks they will, and exceptionally unlikely that they will evolve [for each of us] in the way anybody else’s mind / ego thinks they will.)
All this applies as much to sexual attraction, as to any area of life, for me (and, FYI, I’ve heard very similar sentiments from female yogi friends of mine - this doesn’t seem to be a male-specific set of outlooks or experiences).
Namaste,
Kirtanman
Thanks for your reply, David.
I agree totally with your view that you canot call one preference more shallow than the other, they are preferences that is all. I have read a very interesting book by Nancy Etcoff, called “The Survival of The Prettiest”, that deals with the biological explanations for sexual preferencies. For example good looks are more important in societies with a lot of parasite illnesses and less so in societies without them.
Looking for women who practice Ashtanga yoga is my best solution this far. Good looks and spiritual. Like this woman, with whom I have practiced (she is engaged, though).
http://www.siamweb.org/content/Sanook/203/index_eng.php
Thanks Lavazza. Yip, she’s pretty low in parasites. You should tell her this – maybe she’ll be so charmed she’ll leave her fiancee for you.
Hint to all you yogis, horny or not: Telling a woman that she looks low in parasites might not get the results you’re after. There are better pick-up lines…maybe try a Barry Longism: (“Hey babe, wanna fully integrate?”) (“What’s a personification of love doing in a place like this?”)
Thanks Meg. They are great. How about also, ‘Hey Babe, I could show you the end of your perennial discontent.’
No doubt, if you say something like that, you are home and dry every time without fail. The only downside is that you might have a ‘follower’ on your hands.
Hi Lavazza,
I think this the search for lot of guys. girls who are good looking & spiritual.
ISKCON has a matrimonial website just for iskcon followers. You find good spiritual girls there.
http://www.vedicmarriage.com
Does anybody of you know of other sites like this?
-Near
Kirtaman
Who will be there to have the preferences?
I think he meant that the ego that was there before to think it had preferences is no longer attached to any kind of identity. The awareness will see the body react in certain ways, but there will be no particular feelings, no thoughts about it. The awareness does not have any likes or dislikes. And everything on earth will be so fantastic - it will be vibrations or energies - the whole earth will be alive and we will love it. To see the stones and trees will be so beautiful. You would probably love a piece of steal as much as a sexy woman. It is just that our bodies are not made to make love to a piece of steal. Our bodies are made to make love with another body of opposite sex. So we will make love and rejoice in the union of male and female energies that lives in our bodies.
There will be no one there to have any preferences.
Hi EMC, I am not sure a person who doesn not have preferences has ever existed, ever will exist or ever would ideally exist.
A person whose attachments are very light yes – that is, a person for whom there is very little at stake. But that person will still prefer eating food to eating tar, driving the car properly rather than crashing it, and … and… and… OK I can’t think of anything else but I am sure there are others.
Kirtanman, thanks for your response. This thread has developed into several, which is kinda cool. I’ve always found the word ‘conditioning’ a bit vague. Krishnamurti seems to have used it as his version of ‘Satan’ (I’m being wry but not entirely joking) and I think he was one of the people who brought it into vogue.
Who will be there to have the preferences?
I think he meant that the ego that was there before to think it had preferences is no longer attached to any kind of identity. The awareness will see the body react in certain ways, but there will be no particular feelings, no thoughts about it. The awareness does not have any likes or dislikes. And everything on earth will be so fantastic - it will be vibrations or energies - the whole earth will be alive and we will love it. To see the stones and trees will be so beautiful. You would probably love a piece of steal as much as a sexy woman. It is just that our bodies are not made to make love to a piece of steal. Our bodies are made to make love with another body of opposite sex. So we will make love and rejoice in the union of male and female energies that lives in our bodies.
There will be no one there to have any preferences.
Hi & Namaste EMC, Ultimately you're correct, and Adya would likely agree with you -- just as he would likely agree with me (not that either of those likelihoods matters, of course. :slight_smile: ) -- for we are essentially saying the same thing, and experiencing the consciousness afficianado's ongoing challenge: attempting to express the inexpressible. There is either no Self (see: The Buddha) or only the Self (see: Ramana Maharshi) - two ways of saying the same thing (and apologies if I wasn't clear in my expression of that same thing in the post to which you are responding.) Maybe this (the following) will help clear up what I am intending to say - and (FYI), I trust / experience the statement as true, based in my trust and experience of Adyashanti's realization, and my own partial experience in that same direction: "Sense of self is an operational necessity." --Adyashanti At his last Satsang in Palo Alto, CA in early August (please see www.adyashanti.org if interested in Adya and his teachings), Adya clarified that the statement above does *not* mean there's a self there - but does mean there is a "sense of self" - including after realization. That's what I was referring to, as far as "after enlightenment". Yes, there's recognition / awareness / beingness of no one being there - yet there's *also* the sense of self that drives its car, answers when its name is called, might enjoy eating fritos from time to time (and knows where to put them ...), and just possibly might be aroused by a nice butt in tight jeans, or a warm, caring and spiritual heart (or both, hopefully without parasites! :sunglasses: :grin: ). A satsang attendee once asked Adya about how to deal with the "lower" energies, such as anger, sadness and lust. His response? "Many people think enlightenment is the state of being free from being human; it is actually the awareness of our true nature, which enables us to be fully human." As Yogani might say, "Like that". :slight_smile: Peace & Namaste, Kirtanman
Hey Hey & Namaste, David & Meg,
I got my first, genuine AYP LOL from the parasite comments!
(Thanks!)
I usually just recite the sloka from the Vijnanbhairava Tantra that outlines the woman’s obligation to serve my [male] Tantric evolution – works great with the college chicks (“Ooh, I love Rimbaud! French is so sexy!”)
Cheers & Namaste,
Kirtanman
Howdy & Namaste David,
Getting old can be amusing (me, not you! ) - when I first read “Satan”, I thought you had written “Satori” - and spent a few befuzzled moments, until I cleaned my reading glasses.
Yeah, I get your point, and Krishnamurti’s.
Personally (as the oscillating conglomeration of conditioning typing this response … ), I like the term “conditioning” because it’s so non-specific (aka vague) - there’s not much that the term doesn’t cover, which helps bring it full-circle back into the realm of accuracy.
Vis a vis this thread, for instance.
Not only my personal sense of sexual attraction, but also my writing style, and the tone of my response(s), are driven by … conditioning:
Biological [current], genetic [longer term, closer to fundamental, for this body-mind], mental, emotional, familial (my family of origin, extended family), social (greater social world, beyond family), historical [life experiences], socio-historical [cultural - i.e. I tend to notice breasts, because I have learned “breast focus” (from a very early age, as an American male guy dude) as a member of this society and culture], spiritual [what is, or is not “enlightened” or “yogically correct” in this situation? I don’t let those thoughts govern my behavior, but there’s certainly a pull …], karmic [whatever exactly that means], egoic [ditto], gender-based, age-based / generational, geographical [nationality, and even state-coast], neurophysiological [does mega-ecstasy affect my outlook and behavior? Why yes, it does …] etc. etc. ETC, etc.
And yes, the above paragraph might seem exceptionally “Kirtanman-ish” - but it’s with a purpose (to outline how much we tend to function as expressions of conditioning, nearly 100% of the time.
It really boils down to “who’s driving?”
If it’s the ego - we’re a mass of conditioning, as illustrated above.
If it’s the One, that same conditioning may be expressing, but as an expression of the One, and not as the mass of conditioning.
One can munch Fritos completely unconsciously:
(Yum, Frito … oh, man, I shouldn’t be eating these! Crap, I need to get back to work. I gained three pounds - why am I eating Fritos! Ramana wouldn’t eat Fritos. I suck, yogically. Maybe I should go vegan. Hey, wow, she has a nice butt …")
Or consciously:
(“Yum!”) [crunch, crunch, snorf, swallow, repeat]
Hence my sense of affinitude with the term “conditioning”.
But hey, that’s just me.
Or not.
Cheers & Namaste,
Kirtanman
there’s not much that the term doesn’t cover, which helps bring it full-circle back into the realm of accuracy
Fair enough! It looks like it means to you the sum total of what makes you tick, including genetics and biology. I’ve no issues with that language. J Krishnamurti’s use of language was different – whatever conditioning was to him, he seemed to think (mistakenly I believe) that he didn’t have it. And so his followers tend to idealize freedom from conditioning… I’m not sure where all that is going because I think there are significant mistakes there…
So there you have it. (And K thinks he doesn’t!) 
So if I would get enlightened I would still have my inability to attract men due to “wrong biological equipment to trigger the conditioned response from a male”, but I will have no attachment to it? My ego would still be functioning as a like-dislike master and doom itself out in the sex-competition as a “non-sexy but girl”, but I will just be aware of it and just accept it?
Boring.
It’s not as though the ego is going to be satisfied forever. It sometimes gets what it wants, and in youth it more often gets it than in later years. But eventually the ego’s going to have to bite the bullet in the looks department, as all nice butts go south. An 80-yr-old butt in jeans is…(well, you know). We’re just not ‘conditioned’, as they say, to get aroused by sag. The non-preferential enlightened state that you’re talking about, E, is the ultimate enlightened state, ie, after death. Then and only then will we have no preferences for one thing vs. another, as all will (presumably?) be one. But on this side of the grave, while there is still steel and flesh to choose from, we choose to cozy up to flesh. I don’t see enlightenment as a cosmic sex change operation, where we go in liking blonde, blue-eyed hunks and come out liking large, hairy-knuckled bald men. Do you? Would you be able to look past your egoic preferences and be with a guy with for whom you had zero sexual attraction?
Let’s face it - there are partners with whom we have good sexual energy, and those with whom we do not. As we all know, it’s based less upon physical attraction than something else - who knows what - but that which really turns us on has nothing to do with looks or conditioning. It’s our animal instinct, and when it happens (seldom), there’s no such thing as “wrong biological equipment”, because whatever your partner’s got, and whatever you’ve got, is right. This coupling won’t necessarily be the best long-term partnership, as it’s based predominantly upon sexual compatibility and nothing else. So choose wisely, ye sons and daughters - great sex is but a piece of the pie. But to be with an enlightened man with whom there is no sexual charge? As you say, bo-ring.
Sorry, don’t know what will happen to you when you are enlightened.
May be you will be able to attract men at your will …
but would you really want to be able do that ?
And if you would have the best most attractive equipment,
would you be happy that every guy turns around and chases after you ?
Ok, for me it would indeed be flattering if every girl turns around
and admires me, but then I may feel that I have to please every girl,
and that would soon a bit of a burden 
Hi EMC,
I just like replying to your posts I guess, you always ask great questions!
What comes to mind first is that society has conditioned you to see certain attributes that some people possess as ultimately attractive. What these attributes are today are different than what they were in the 50s and different again from what they were in ancient Greece. I have a male friend who women seem to think is outstandingly good-looking yet he has a penchant for heavier women, God-bless him!
So what am I saying? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, your eye beholds your own beauty or not. They way I see attachment evolving in this situation is to no longer be attached to the idea of what you think others will find attractive and at the same time, no longer being “attached” to the set-frame work in your mind that you have always used to define beauty or what you are attracted to. Haven’t you been strangely attracted to someone who didn’t fit your “ideal” frame-work for beauty before? I know I have.
Who knows for sure, but I suspect you won’t be emotionally involved in it. It will exist for others but won’t affect your life in one way or another. Other far more wonderful and enjoyable things will enter your life and keep you entertained!
A
Great point, Andrew - I think this is the key. So much to be interested in, so little time!