RETREATS OR SATSANG w/ floyd ONE-ON-ONE, by TELEPHONE, by INTERNET CHAT ROOM, and via THE ADVAITA COURSE BY INTERNET (see link to right)
For details click ADVAITA VEDANTA RETREATS & SATSANG
or contact floyd by clicking CONTACT floyd
FROM A SITE VISITOR: I’m new at this so pardon if I seem slow but you say realization does not stop enjoying the pleasure but if I’m not my body, how is sex supposedly to be enjoyed after I “realize”. And what’s the difference in terms you use like Love sometimes and love sometimes and sex and making love and Showing Love. You talk about deer, but they have sex and seem to enjoy it but there is no love or Love involved right? Signed, Very Confused
F.: Hello, Very. A few comments will be offered, but the suggestion is that you go back to the
Now, take “Love” (upper case) as a term pointing to what can be called Real Love for the sake of discussion, rooted in an understanding of the Oneness that is revealed with Realization. The term “love” (lower case) points to all of the various notions that the non-Realized have about what love is or isn’t, all of which is relative nonsense.
Sex is sex, a totally natural process at its core. Among persons, it has been engaged in for pleasure alone; for a “show of love” (lower case, which is rooted in distortion among persons); for money; for procreation; for stress relief; for controlling; for consummation; as a rite of passage;
as an act of rebellion; as a way to “make up” after a fight; as an act of aggression among those driven by personality defects or insanity; for sustaining a lifestyle; for establishing lines of succession in nations or among families that are still attached to the chauvinistic concept of “primogeniture”;
for the stroking of ego; for sustaining one or more ego-states; and for a host of other motives that are often hidden from persons and that are far from being something having a “noble” connotation that some claim to believe in when they speak of “making love.”
This was shared recently in that regard:
Over the years, hundreds of men have come here ready to die because of “her having left him.” Yet the male ego in almost every case was ready to move right along to the next woman in order for her to “build him up and fill the empty space he thinks is inside.” I have suggested to those hundreds to try something totally different before entering into their next relationship, and it is this: “Make Love before you make love.”
Of course Love cannot be made, it can only be understood, but the point is that if Love is understood first—that is, if both parties involve Realize the Oneness—then the act described as “love-making” happens in a most unique manner: it is actually a “Showing of Love.”
All of the beauty and the Beauty can be savored on multiple levels as the sixth sense merges into an all-five-sense happening and as a relative happening merges into the Real.
(And even “merge” is used for discussion only since there is no “this” joining “that.” All that is happening is that All which has always been One is finally understood to be One. The drop that falls into the ocean is H2O, as is the ocean. There’s really no merging since it was all One anyway. It’s really just a movement.)
Next, when Reality is overlaid onto the relative and the understanding of True Love and the Oneness manifests, then only can there be a Showing of Love which merely accents the oneness. The flavor of the essence is sampled, that is all.
As it is, though, all of the fingers on one hand would not be required to count the number of men who understood the pointer above, and that fact is reflected in the results of certain studies dealing with this subject matter.
Survey results show that more females than men understood the Love/love/sex differentiation. In one study in the
Men reported that they are “very satisfied, but wanting more.” If the results of those two surveys are studied side-by-side, then there is likely some credibility to female complaints that “whatever their partners are doing during the sex act has little or nothing to do with love or Love.”
Recently, a visitor to the site thought he had found a contradiction between one pointer which suggested (A) that not only can pleasure happen post-Realization but is intensified, relatively speaking and (B) that pleasure leads to pain.
As in the case of Love and love, there is a distinction between personal, dualistic pleasure which leads to pain and the term “Pleasure” which is used to point to what can be known post-Realization. It was explained this way to one visitor:
There are those pleasures that are sure to lead to pain, but once Love and Bliss and Joy manifest via Full Realization, there is a Pleasure that has no counterpart. The lies about “love” are rejected, (Real) Love is understood, Reality can be overlaid on the Am-ness, and unbounded Pleasures can happen.
Also, this was included in a recent post:
Such Pleasure can manifest when Love is understood, when Love is Shown as Reality is overlaid on the Am-ness, and when the Noumenal Oneness is thereafter adumbrated in acts of phenomenal oneness.
Meaning? Once Realization happens, an understanding of the Noumenal Oneness happens; once an understanding of the Noumenal Oneness happens, then it is echoed in “acts of phenomenal oneness” whereby the “symbolic union” or “physical uniting” is understood to be the physical manifestation of Advaita itself…of the “not-two.”
How many will never understand that? If Maharaj’s estimate that fewer than 5% will ever realize, then probably 95% or more will never “get it.”
So, to review the main pointers in regards to the terms you asked about: “Love” refers to “True Love” which can be “Shown” via the phenomenal act of oneness after the Noumenal Oneness is totally understood. To the contrary, “love” is a term misused by billions who haven’t the slightest clue about what “Real Love” or “True Love” is.
“Making love” is an almost-euphemistic phrase that is substituted for fornication or engagement in the sex act, the term used to try to assign some loftier connotation to a physical act that—among the masses—has very little “exalted” meaning or “elevated” significance attached, at least according to survey results.
Among the non-Realized, there is very little difference in what they are doing sexually and what the deer are doing sexually. The only real difference is that the deer are not deceiving themselves or others when so engaged.
And if not Realized, then all beliefs about “love” and “sex” and “making love” will indeed be—as is the case with all beliefs—nothing more than distortions and delusions generated by the “minds” of humans as a result of their programming and acculturation and domestication.
As for your query regarding the deer, or any other forms that engage in the sex act, your implication hits the mark: the act is pretty much one-dimensional in those cases, though some sense of "connection" does manifest during the period that a buck and doe share together.
While the natural manner in which the deer lives is a far less stressful and far more sane style of living than among humans, it is the Realized that can know all that is multi-dimensional including the seemingly multi-dimensional "sex + Love" paradigm...which is a paradox since that paradigm is not really "multi" at all but is totally "uni."
Finally, you are again invited to read the May-July 2008 postings for a full treatment of the subject. For a thorough discussion of relative existence “relationships,” and of what mars them, and of what can “improve” them (especially when dualistic beliefs are eliminated), see the title on relationships below. Please enter the silence of contemplation.
FOR AN IN-DEPTH TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT:
