Rupert Spira - Realigning Sexuality with the Understanding

[@razoo9]

Nobody explained sexulity the correct way like rupert. Rupert is the best available teacher. 👃👃👃

[@sarthakjoshi3797]

The word tantra is widely misunderstood. The word "tantra" literally translates to technology. The technologies of becoming more aware, more conscious,, through processes, based within the body, to know what this body is made of, and what our true nature is, or the true nature of reality to be more precise. OM NAMAH SHIVAYA

[@FreeFlow__]

Who needs Tantra when there is simply love? As Barry Long said, Tantra is an excuse for the West to become interested in its favorite subject, which is Sex.

[@luistirado6305]

@@FreeFlow__ but then didn't barry long become a tantra teacher?

[@FreeFlow__]

@@luistirado6305 not at all. He taught men and woman in being honest to love.

[@luistirado6305]

@@FreeFlow__ I own a couple of his books. He wrote one called Making Love: Sexual Love the Divine Way in which he guides the reader through tantric sex with a partner.

[@gentlemani85]

Great! Thank you Rupert!

[@yappap4195]

Sexualty exists in all forms as long as we attach to it there will always be rules because forms exist in attachment and power, present humanity is attached to forms and power, therefore it is difficult for most of us to be not influenced by be power & sexualty. I can only say deeper you inquire or discover yourself as part of the existence these questions become irrelevant.

[@christopetkov4168]

This sounds all very logical .. In my personal case its not applying at all (unfortunately) .. I experience tremendously powerful states of awareness (both metaphysical and physical, to the point that ‘I’ visually and energetically witness consciousness participating in creating material reality), that have transformed literally every aspect of ‘normal life’, but the ‘nature’ of the person’s sexuality remains completely unaltered and unaffected Not sure exactly ‘what to do’ (if there is anything to do) .. I’ll keep on watching for now .. but the advice given here does not work for this body-mind ..

[@zain4019]

Beautiful question:)

[@hengrave5]

How do you know 'you' are 'unlimited' awareness. 'You' may not see the limits of that awareness but that doesn't mean it has none. The 'eyes' with which you view can only see so far. Equally, when you go looking for the 'I' and can't find it is it fair to say it is therefore not there? It could be briefly in abeyance or invisible to a certain type of viewing. If you're in a busy train station and regularly hear announcments on the PA, you may wonder who is making them. If you look around the room, examine the speakers, check behind you, under the benches etc, you will not find that 'self' making the announcments. Does it therefore mean it doesn't exist?

[@TheJooberjones]

Yes, it means it does not exist. Even if you were to track down the PA announcer, split his head open and go rummaging around at the time of his announcement, all you will find is neurons firing in a particular pattern at that precise moment (and even those you couldn't really nail down to any concrete existence, per quantum mechanics). Life is a giant probability field in one sense, and our mind is capable of wave-function collapse due to its capacity for observation. But even the collapse into "knowing" or "THAT is me" is just one more wave pattern, that will end whenever that particular thought or sensation ceases. There is no permanent tangible structure of "me", anywhere nor anytime. There is just one awareness happening through all "things" at once. An unfolding ocean of possibility and - when one has unidentified with ones apparent "location" - great peace. It is also the possibility of awareness that it can identify (to a degree) with series of thoughts and sensations over time and form something called "me", with much assistance from the conditioning of other human beings dancing the same dance. This inevitably leads to great suffering, and *should* eventually lead to the kind of self-inquiry Rupert espouses.

[@hengrave5]

@@TheJooberjones Interesting answer! So we can conclude that Rupert has not found a self and that you speculate that one wouldn't be found by examining the brain. You also claim that no tangible structure of me exists anywhere nor anytime'. Possibly, that is correct if you're referring to the 'little me' personality structure (although even that might be located one day) but the broader self which might include the so-called 'higher self', the 'heart' and even the soul are indeed limited by vibration and density. 'Pure consciousness' which non-dualist like to believe is a selfless experience of all consciousness is a fallacy. You are only ever experiencing you self in its entirety which is not limitless....according to my pet poodle.

[@TheJooberjones]

hengrave5 right, we are obviously limited to the sensations/experience of the particular form which consciousness seems to be housed in at the moment or we wouldnt be having a conversation to begin with. It is that identification with that form which has no inherent existence. The sense of it being me. It has recently been broke down even further regarding the default mode network in the brain (where this sense of self seems to correlate in terms of brain function), which is distinct to the TPP, responsible for tasks and immediate action. Check out gary webers work on the subject.

[@hengrave5]

@@TheJooberjones I'm familiar with Gary Weber and the blah-blah vs tasking modalities. You might also find Actualism (the so-called wide and wondrous path to actual freedom) to be interesting. The proponents seem to have rid themselves of any shreds of the emotional, mental, cultural self. I'm not sure whether non-dualistss have no sense of self OR that their sense of self has expanded to being 'I am everything'. If the channelings of Darryl Anka and many others are to be believed, humans will ,even when they merge with source, will ALWAYS have a sense of self. I agree there is state of consciousness where it feels like self has disappeared but hiding there, as Adyashanti puts it, ( as in Tony Parsons, Jim Brewer and many non-dualists) is not the point. I like the phrase 'I am everywhere. I am nowhere and I am here' I think this neatly covers all the perspectives and paradoxes on offer.

[@TheJooberjones]

hengrave5 well put. “No self” versus “sense of self has expanded to include everything” seem to me to be the same thing. Language gets very difficult here with so many different people using same words for different things. There is no self (little s), there is just the Self. Everywhere, nowhere, and here seems to sum it up nicely as you said.

[@Misslotusification]

5:51: Sex would no more being used as an alternative to tobacco, alcohol, television,... it would no longer be used as an avoidance of suffering, it would no longer be used as a distraction, because there will no more be a need to distract oneself, and that will refine one's sexuality tremendously. So sex is no longer used as a means of filling up the emptiness that we feel inside, the loneliness that we feel inside; nor will it be used as a means of kind of obliterating our anxiety, and our fears, and our neuroses, and our seeking it will no longer be seen as an avenue of escape. Sexuality will be relieved of the neurotic demands and fears of the separate self; it will no longer be used in the service of the separate self, to either defend itself or aggrandise itself, or protect itself, or... It doesn't mean that sexual intimacy gradually peters out or comes to an end, not at all, it is just liberated from the straightjacket of the separate self; and in fact in some people it will flourish, it may become more colourful, in others it may go quieter, but in each case the true intimacy is the same. What is important is the quality, the intimacy, whether it's expressed in a colourful way or in a much quieter way. It just varies from one body-mind to another.

[@alfogel3298]

All sex is lust which seeks fulfillment but true love experiences fulfillment without the need to penetrate another body form. According to my spiritual Master Avatar Meher Baba: promiscuous sex must be avoided or you will not gain God-Realization. Sex in the context of a truly loving monogamous relationship will not be spiritually harmful. But the quickest way to Realization is to abstain from sex altogether. I've been celibate about 25 years. It can be done if you truly long for the Truth of your Being. All love always al

[@equilibrium4193]

I personally plan to continue having sex on my spiritual path, I'm still young, maybe in the far future I would give it up in order for God realisation but as of now I'm going to live my life in every aspect, relationships, family, love, sex.

[@JonathanJonesYoga]

@@equilibrium4193 yes, do what ever feels right to you. Celibacy may be for some, but not for others. There is nothing you ‘need’ to do as you’re already everything. It’ll all unfold perfectly and you just enjoy the ride/show.

[@equilibrium4193]

@@JonathanJonesYoga definitely, it may not feel like it but everything is happening perfectly as it should, so whatever we do it is supposes to happen.

[@TheJooberjones]

collaborative sex, instead of escape and rape, which is mostly its use now..

[@xdfckt2564]

Intimate sexual relation. Intimate -