"You wanna see public orgasms? Go to a pentecostal church!"
I rather like that quote, though my beef with the girl in the video is that she seemingly sells "healing", but also says that "healing can only take place if there is complete surrender without expectations". So the customer shouldn't expect anything. And probably still has to pay.
Doesn't sound very promising to me.
Empathy. Rationality. Sensuality.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
That hilarious crossover of mysticism
While researching kundalini yoga, I came across a lot of criticism from evangelist/fundamentalist christians.
Some have even come up with their own set of yogalike postures, combining them with christian praise music and calling the result "Christoga" or "ChristMoves", neatly allowing for a whole new bunch of DVDs and books.
Not that I'm opposed to making money of course. Stretching + prayer certainly is equally valid as stretching + chanting. As long as it gets people to exercise, that is a good thing.
But what strikes me is that deeply rooted magical mindset, that mystical-mindedness behind all this.
Isn't it somewhat odd for a christian to assume that a yoga pose has a spiritual effect in and of itself? Inside hinduism, this might make sense, since they assume that body and mind are essentially the same. But clearly, the hinduist explanation is invalid from a christian point of view. "Because it comes from a hinduist context, and because the pose is originally meant as an expression of devotion for a hindu deity - therefore practicing it must lead christians astray." - Well... aren't those hindu gods merely figures of stone? How can a physical pose somehow force your mind to succumb to a deity you don't even believe exists?
What they basically say, over and over again, is that the chakras actually DO exist, that the kundalini snake really IS there - only it's not a source of healing energy, but basically a demonic force.
Think of it: This is a practice that was invented by a religion that all those fundamentalist christians deny has any merits. It is a lie. It is simply not true. Inside christianity, there is no such thing as chakras. They're never mentioned in the bible, and St. Augustine of Hippo certainly never pictured them.
And furthermore, there is no objective evidence pointing to the existence of chakras, or the kundalini (or meridians, for that matter). All there is is anectdotal evidence that can easily be explained as autosuggestion.
The same people do the same thing with basically all things mystical. The ouija board, spiritist séances, dowsing rods, aura photography, you name it - it all boils down to one thing: demonic, satanic influence.
But... why assume that practices of another religion, that were invented in a totally different context, that are based on radically different ideas - ideas that those folks clearly deny - have any effect at all? And to be clear, the reason they dislike it is not because it leads people away from christianity (which it probably does, by the way). It is because actual demonic forces cause actual effects in humans - the kundalini snake IS the serpent from the garden of eden in the minds of those folks.
In order to come up with that explanation, you have to assume that the effects of kundalini yoga are real. You have to assume that the effects of, basically, all esoteric practices from all religions and ideologies are real - and you can never let any critical thinking come in your way.
They inadvertently affirm the validity of all religions, really. And of all other ideologies. Of everything that claims to be mystical, ultimately. Only that they then put the label of "demonic" on it and therefore reject it.
Think of it... The question is, how do they ever tell the difference between a mere physical effect, and demonic influence?
For example, if I were to tell one of those preachers that I have developed a practice of regularly fondling my left nipple, and after a while my nipple started to hurt - is that, then, demonic influence? I hope not. What if I told them that after years of that practice, I was able to produce milk from my nipple? What if 100 people were convinced of the same?
What if those 100 people didn't claim that they can produce milk, which is probably too easy to debunk, but that they experienced sudden visions of beautiful colors? Getting closer, folks, aren't we? What if I can produce ancient chinese texts describing the practice? What if those texts mention the names of boddhisattvas and devas?
And suddenly, I have a vision: I see agent Mulder's big poster that he keeps in his basement office and that says in huge letters: "I WANT TO BELIEVE." Because that's what's really going on, isn't it? They want their world to be full of mysteries, of things to be afraid of, and it doesn't matter one bit to those people whether there might be other, less mystical explanations for the same phenomena.
Ironically, those christian fundamentalists are in that regard pretty much the same as their esoteric, new age, buddhist, hinduist, muslim counterparts: gullible to the extreme, afraid of the dark, and deeply mistrustful of anything and anyone that doesn't fit their worldview.
I sit, I breathe, I clench some muscles. Good feelings arise. What exactly are the criteria for deciding whether this is demonic or not?
Some have even come up with their own set of yogalike postures, combining them with christian praise music and calling the result "Christoga" or "ChristMoves", neatly allowing for a whole new bunch of DVDs and books.
Not that I'm opposed to making money of course. Stretching + prayer certainly is equally valid as stretching + chanting. As long as it gets people to exercise, that is a good thing.
But what strikes me is that deeply rooted magical mindset, that mystical-mindedness behind all this.
Isn't it somewhat odd for a christian to assume that a yoga pose has a spiritual effect in and of itself? Inside hinduism, this might make sense, since they assume that body and mind are essentially the same. But clearly, the hinduist explanation is invalid from a christian point of view. "Because it comes from a hinduist context, and because the pose is originally meant as an expression of devotion for a hindu deity - therefore practicing it must lead christians astray." - Well... aren't those hindu gods merely figures of stone? How can a physical pose somehow force your mind to succumb to a deity you don't even believe exists?
What they basically say, over and over again, is that the chakras actually DO exist, that the kundalini snake really IS there - only it's not a source of healing energy, but basically a demonic force.
Think of it: This is a practice that was invented by a religion that all those fundamentalist christians deny has any merits. It is a lie. It is simply not true. Inside christianity, there is no such thing as chakras. They're never mentioned in the bible, and St. Augustine of Hippo certainly never pictured them.
And furthermore, there is no objective evidence pointing to the existence of chakras, or the kundalini (or meridians, for that matter). All there is is anectdotal evidence that can easily be explained as autosuggestion.
The same people do the same thing with basically all things mystical. The ouija board, spiritist séances, dowsing rods, aura photography, you name it - it all boils down to one thing: demonic, satanic influence.
But... why assume that practices of another religion, that were invented in a totally different context, that are based on radically different ideas - ideas that those folks clearly deny - have any effect at all? And to be clear, the reason they dislike it is not because it leads people away from christianity (which it probably does, by the way). It is because actual demonic forces cause actual effects in humans - the kundalini snake IS the serpent from the garden of eden in the minds of those folks.
In order to come up with that explanation, you have to assume that the effects of kundalini yoga are real. You have to assume that the effects of, basically, all esoteric practices from all religions and ideologies are real - and you can never let any critical thinking come in your way.
They inadvertently affirm the validity of all religions, really. And of all other ideologies. Of everything that claims to be mystical, ultimately. Only that they then put the label of "demonic" on it and therefore reject it.
Think of it... The question is, how do they ever tell the difference between a mere physical effect, and demonic influence?
For example, if I were to tell one of those preachers that I have developed a practice of regularly fondling my left nipple, and after a while my nipple started to hurt - is that, then, demonic influence? I hope not. What if I told them that after years of that practice, I was able to produce milk from my nipple? What if 100 people were convinced of the same?
What if those 100 people didn't claim that they can produce milk, which is probably too easy to debunk, but that they experienced sudden visions of beautiful colors? Getting closer, folks, aren't we? What if I can produce ancient chinese texts describing the practice? What if those texts mention the names of boddhisattvas and devas?
And suddenly, I have a vision: I see agent Mulder's big poster that he keeps in his basement office and that says in huge letters: "I WANT TO BELIEVE." Because that's what's really going on, isn't it? They want their world to be full of mysteries, of things to be afraid of, and it doesn't matter one bit to those people whether there might be other, less mystical explanations for the same phenomena.
Ironically, those christian fundamentalists are in that regard pretty much the same as their esoteric, new age, buddhist, hinduist, muslim counterparts: gullible to the extreme, afraid of the dark, and deeply mistrustful of anything and anyone that doesn't fit their worldview.
I sit, I breathe, I clench some muscles. Good feelings arise. What exactly are the criteria for deciding whether this is demonic or not?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
On being soft
It seems that a lot of people equate male "sexual prowess" with being hard, probably for extended periods.
Once you let go of that weird and completely unnecessary presuppusition, you discover a lot of interesting facts. One of those is that a flaccid penis is actually way more sensitive than an erect penis. Another is that the erection will come back in the course of your lovemaking. So I'd suggest to just enjoy the flaccid phases along with the erect phases, probably using them for slightly different activities.
Once you let go of that weird and completely unnecessary presuppusition, you discover a lot of interesting facts. One of those is that a flaccid penis is actually way more sensitive than an erect penis. Another is that the erection will come back in the course of your lovemaking. So I'd suggest to just enjoy the flaccid phases along with the erect phases, probably using them for slightly different activities.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
A sorta kinda warning
When practicing tantra, it can happen that you enter a state where you feel extremely energetic, and yet you don't get anything done because you lost your focus.
Just happened to me today.
So I'll keep you posted on how to re-gain that focus, while still preserving the energy.
(And it's still no mytical energy! It's still just a metaphor for something physical that we don't quite understand as of yet.)
Just happened to me today.
So I'll keep you posted on how to re-gain that focus, while still preserving the energy.
(And it's still no mytical energy! It's still just a metaphor for something physical that we don't quite understand as of yet.)
Practice in a sitting position!
For the males among us who practice on their own, I strongly suggest giving the lotus seat, or a similar sitting position, a good try. I think this bears mention, since most of us - such as myself - probably got used to masturbation lying down (right before sleepy time, probably), adn to be perfectly honest I found it rather amusing when I realized how obviously stupid this is.
I mean, think about it: When you're lying on your back, how easy is it to reach your penis? If you're not well-endowed beyond all human possibiltity, it's probably not all that comfortable, right?
But even then - can you reach your perineum (aka "Million Dollar Point" or "Male G-Spot") with your OTHER hand? If so, I applaud you - you've just evolved back into a monkey! I rather think it safe to assume that most people are rather built like myself - mere mortals - and cannot easily pull off that feat.
However, sitting up in a lotus-like position, it is ridiculously easy to do that. And boy, will it make your practice more enjoyable!
Monday, October 3, 2011
Don't be shocked!
Don't be shocked if you start doing tantra, and then find yourself getting into yoga, or qi gong, or karate, or green smoothies, or generally a more healthy diet, .... or the other way around. All those practices will get you more in tune with your body, and that each one will naturally lead to others.
"Higher"
I think that there is a deep and problematic misunderstanding regarding the idea of something being "higher" or "more advanced". We usually mean these words to imply something being "better" in the ethical, moral sense along with it just being an additional skill you've developed - and of course, the other being worse by comparison.
This is simply a halo effect, and it's good to be aware of it. I think that many "authentic tantrikas" do fall for that, and I think that it is one of the most basic mistakes most religions make, to assume that the "higher", which is often associated with the spritual, the non-material, the "heavenly", stands on a higher ethical ground by definition.
It doesn't. It simply doesn't. "Your body is divine" can be a way of saying that you have to stick to certain rules in order to deal with your body in a "godly" way - I personally much prefer it to be a way of saying that your body is, by definition, something to be cherished and enjoyed, regardless of your looks, your intellect, your way of life, your moral and ethical positions, your philosophy, your... whatever, really.
This is simply a halo effect, and it's good to be aware of it. I think that many "authentic tantrikas" do fall for that, and I think that it is one of the most basic mistakes most religions make, to assume that the "higher", which is often associated with the spritual, the non-material, the "heavenly", stands on a higher ethical ground by definition.
It doesn't. It simply doesn't. "Your body is divine" can be a way of saying that you have to stick to certain rules in order to deal with your body in a "godly" way - I personally much prefer it to be a way of saying that your body is, by definition, something to be cherished and enjoyed, regardless of your looks, your intellect, your way of life, your moral and ethical positions, your philosophy, your... whatever, really.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
"The way is the goal"
Of course, it is not about not ejaculating. (If that were the case, tantra wouldn't make any sense for women, for one.) Nor am I convinced that a mystical energy resides in the semen that gets lost.
To me, it is mostly about letting go of any "you HAVE to"s. When you cultivate this inner pleasure that is not dependent on an outer result, after some time the outer result actually does become rather unnecessary, and you gain more independence of outside influences.
So it would be illogical to say, "you HAVE to hold back the ejaculation". Maybe at the beginning, you'll have to do that, because the urge is so strong, and you're so used to associating sexual pleasure with it. But at some point you realize that that's just the prep school. That prescription, that restriction was good for a while, and then it just fell away. You found a pleasure that is so much deeper than the ejaculation, so you will automatically go for that. And if that is not the case (because no prescription fits every human being), then perhaps the wise thing is to just let go of tantra, and do something else!
It is more a practice than an idea or a prescription. Like practicing, I dunno, let's say karate, or rock-climbing. Sure you accept some restrictions, maybe stick to a diet or a harsh training routine - but the restrictions are not the point. You just commit yourself to whatever it is you are doing, and after a time, you discover that there's even more to it than you thought - or perhaps something completely DIFFERENT from what you expected. And then you might stick to it for life. Or, quite possibly, you lose interest, other things become more important, and you just stop practicing... maybe to pick it up again a few years later.
Here's what I've learned from practicing zen: The urge to turn it into a "MUST --- or otherwise...", into an eternally true prescription, into an "only way", a religion, is extremely strong. I certainly fell for it, and I took the decision to stop the meditations at least for a while. And I still stand to that decision, I think it was the right one. Because once you start doing that, you have an internal struggle going on, like a competition - who will win the race, me or me? And that is precisely what it is NOT about. Quite the opposite, really.
But then, sometimes, you "get it", you realize that it's about the doing, not about the result. Those are the times that are really, really good. Those are the times that keep you wondering what else you might discover on this path you've chosen. And those are the times that deepen your commitment.
To me, it is mostly about letting go of any "you HAVE to"s. When you cultivate this inner pleasure that is not dependent on an outer result, after some time the outer result actually does become rather unnecessary, and you gain more independence of outside influences.
So it would be illogical to say, "you HAVE to hold back the ejaculation". Maybe at the beginning, you'll have to do that, because the urge is so strong, and you're so used to associating sexual pleasure with it. But at some point you realize that that's just the prep school. That prescription, that restriction was good for a while, and then it just fell away. You found a pleasure that is so much deeper than the ejaculation, so you will automatically go for that. And if that is not the case (because no prescription fits every human being), then perhaps the wise thing is to just let go of tantra, and do something else!
It is more a practice than an idea or a prescription. Like practicing, I dunno, let's say karate, or rock-climbing. Sure you accept some restrictions, maybe stick to a diet or a harsh training routine - but the restrictions are not the point. You just commit yourself to whatever it is you are doing, and after a time, you discover that there's even more to it than you thought - or perhaps something completely DIFFERENT from what you expected. And then you might stick to it for life. Or, quite possibly, you lose interest, other things become more important, and you just stop practicing... maybe to pick it up again a few years later.
Here's what I've learned from practicing zen: The urge to turn it into a "MUST --- or otherwise...", into an eternally true prescription, into an "only way", a religion, is extremely strong. I certainly fell for it, and I took the decision to stop the meditations at least for a while. And I still stand to that decision, I think it was the right one. Because once you start doing that, you have an internal struggle going on, like a competition - who will win the race, me or me? And that is precisely what it is NOT about. Quite the opposite, really.
But then, sometimes, you "get it", you realize that it's about the doing, not about the result. Those are the times that are really, really good. Those are the times that keep you wondering what else you might discover on this path you've chosen. And those are the times that deepen your commitment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)