Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Spirituality & Polyamory

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-15-2013, 01:25 AM
Rosque Rosque is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 15
Default

It reads as if we have very different definition about what poly means to us in each case , I do use it pretty narrowly. anyway i'd prefer never having a single minute of sex for the rest of my life than monogamy to be honest and I kind of always knew that.
anyway buddhism is a-lot about taking the middle path between extremes even with regard to the teachings themselves, technically, trying to give up desires is quite important. but teaching being actually compatible with any genuine form of love doesn't mean that practitioners will understand or accept it.

Last edited by Rosque; 05-15-2013 at 09:03 AM. Reason: [This should be merged with my other post]
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-26-2014, 04:33 AM
RumRumi RumRumi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 7
Default

I was taught that the Buddha is a sh:tstick.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-22-2014, 12:35 AM
JennySpain JennySpain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 5
Default

I've been a practicing Buddhist for a little over a year now, in the tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh, in a very non-dogmatic and westernized Sangha.

It was learning to care for my suffering, and to look deeply at the roots of my suffering, that led me out of jealousy (which I came to recognize as fear), and allowed my husband and I to start the poly conversation.

I was so interested in finding this thread here, even though it is old now. My Sangha practices the version of the five mindfulness trainings that commits us to sex only in the bounds of a monogamous and public relationship. I pretty much vocalize against this every time we study them And I have found that despite that, the only people I can talk to about nontraditional sexual and romantic relationships are in my Sangha. I'm so grateful for this practical application of loving kindness and deep listening!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-02-2018, 10:24 AM
Kajibabu Kajibabu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Posts: 18
Default Similar interest

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
I was recently browsing a local bookstore when I stumbled upon a book, Touching Enlightenment, by Reggie Ray. Subtitle: Finding Realization in the Body. Sounded like my cup of tea, so I opened it and examined it to see if it wanted to come home with me. It did. And since then I've purchased Reggie's ten CD audio set, Your Breathing Body, part one--and I've been listening and viewing his stuff online. Wow! What a fine man and teacher/teaching! I'm hooked. - - - Interesting thing -- I've never been attracted to the vajrayana / Tibetan traditions until now. I've always been most attracted to zen, primarily, and to the insight/vipassana approaches. But Reggie is a unique dude, and a one-time very close student of Chögyam Trungpa.

Just over the last couple of weeks I feel real shifting happening in my awareness. Somatic (bodily) mindfulness is the essential key!

http://www.dharmaocean.org/default/index.cfm
Happy to read your post here that you also enjoyed reading and listening to REggie Ray.... I am also into his teaching and practicing as well. I am from Nepal, beginner of Vajrayana Buddhism.... with Love...
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-02-2018, 10:40 AM
Kajibabu Kajibabu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Posts: 18
Default Very good thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackUnicorn View Post
Okay, somewhat old-ish thread, but hey, I'll post my two cents anyway.

From a Tibetan perspective, the Buddhist teaching (dharma) is a ladder, composed of three steps;

1) Theravana or Souther Buddhist tradition, which is mostly concerned with liberating an individual. This is sometimes in the West seen as the 'essence' of or 'original' Buddhism, as per our obsession with age (the older it is, the more original it must be, and originality is good).
2) Mahayana or Northern Buddhist tradition, which is concerned with grasping two spiritual concepts; 'emptiness' and 'lovingkindness' or 'compassion', and cultivating a 'boddhichitta' consciousness instead of the 'arhat' consciousness of the Southern Tradition..
3) Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism, which is concerned with becoming a Buddha through meditation, yoga and adequate grasp of the two, from this perspective, 'preliminary' steps.

Mahayana tradition is in general more accepting of women and homosexuality. However, the Western idea of Buddhism being a sort of 'If it harms none, do as thou wilt' of the East in what comes to issues of sexuality is often somewhat wishful thinking. I understand the thorough disappointment with Western patriarchal monotheist traditions which fuels this search for a more accepting tradition, but there is no religion on Earth which is free from prejudice or can be totally harmonized with our personal understanding of sexuality.

That being said, I feel that the Vajrayana Tradition is perhaps most accessible to Westerners who seek to transform desire and positive self-image into spiritual tools. Buddhist concerns of non-duality and interbeingness speak to profoundly feminist concerns, as well. However, polyamory coming from a language of 'needs' isn't really coherent with Buddhism in my mind. The point in most Eastern esoteric traditions is realizing that the Experience, the Experiencer and the Experienced are one and the same. Thus I seek to become free of addictions in the form of 'needs' and 'wants' instead of constantly looking for new partners to feed into them.

Thanks for your healthy and balanced thought !
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-04-2018, 06:00 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 2,904
Default

Years ago now, BlackUnicorn said,

"The point in most Eastern esoteric traditions is realizing that the The point in most Eastern esoteric traditions is realizing that the Experience, the Experiencer and the Experienced are one and the same. are one and the same."

That older post was recently quoted, so I guess it's okay to comment on it these years later.

BlackUnicorn's statement about the relation of Experience, the Experiencer and the Experienced is roughly accurate. However, I'd ditch the capital E, since it vaguely suggests a theistic bent, which need not be there.

Anyway, the phrase "the same" is only roughly true, in some cases. In most of the traditions there have been a diversity of metaphysical stances taken. Personally, I'm inclined toward the naturalistic stance in which the perceiver / experiencer is simply regarded as non-separate from the perceived / experienced. Sometimes this relationship is called "not two". But in the type I have in mind this "not two" relationship is not simply reduced to "one" (oneness) either. Instead, the emphasis is on the radical, deep relatedness of all things -- including what in the modern West is often called "subject / object relationship".

There are some folks, whom I regard as a bit nutty, who insist that everything in the world, universe, cosmos... is nothing more than "awareness". One prominent such person is a guy named Rupert Spira, who has set himself up as some kind of spiritual guru. His teaching centers on the notion that nothing exists other than awareness.

Well, I don't see it like that at all. For me, there are real mountains and rivers which exist whether anyone is aware of them or not. If it's night time and everyone is asleep, the mountains and rivers keep going on being mountains and rivers. They don't disappear.

Still, the mountains and rivers are not separate from me or you, nor are we separate from one another. We are distinct, and individual, yes. But not separate. The universe (cosmos) is a whole, and the nature of this wholeness is such that nothing whatsoever exists independently within it. Awareness and "objects" of awareness are, indeed, "one" in some sense. But it is not in the sense that reduces them to ... well, vaporous nothing, as that loon Spira does.
__________________
"Love is always a matter of learning how to live in an unknown land."

"Love is always about learning the Nature of things."

-- Martín Prechtel


River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-04-2018, 07:06 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 14,766
Default

IMO ...

Things are only "one" in the sense that they share space in the same universe, and that they interact to some degree. I myself am but an organized system of individual atoms, and an atom is an organized system of subatomic particles.

IMO ...

There is no awareness after death.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-04-2018, 07:39 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 2,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
IMO ...

Things are only "one" in the sense that they share space in the same universe, and that they interact to some degree. I myself am but an organized system of individual atoms, and an atom is an organized system of subatomic particles.
I think there are highly problematic and rather stupid forms of the "oneness" notion, but I also think it perfectly consistent with modern science and reason to say "all is one".

According to the best available cosmology, our universe was -- very long ago -- a tiny point of mysterious something ... which existed (at the time) outside of time and space. When it suddenly exploded one fine non-day, it burst forth as time and space as timespace expanded into what we now call our universe. That's science, not mythical mumbo jumbo or religion. That's cosmology.

Maybe this theory of our cosmic origins is importantly flawed? Who knows? I'm not an expert in physics or math. But that's what the scientists are saying. Everything which sprung from this cosmic beginning -- all energy and matter and timespace is part of a whole and a totality, and we can observe this wholeness and totality all around us in the astonishing intricacy of all things (such as ecosystems, which are amazingly complex wholes, which is to say that they are "one".

But this one manifests as both unity AND diversity (and complexity, and many).... The universe is both one and many.

All local events, on any scale of an event, is part of the total and single event which is the ongoing unfolding of the universe.

I don't care if there is any ongoingness of "my" awareness after my personal death. Why should I? (And I doubt there will be.)

I've experienced eternity. It is right at the very core of now. Any now. One need not believe in rainbow flying unicorns, or gods demons and devils (or heavens...) to experience eternity in this very now moment. One simply has to learn how to accord with the eternal within this moment. Its is always here.

(Well, generally we have to learn how. But sometimes it happens by pure accident, without trying. Especially when we are children -- or when we are in very beautiful and serene places..., etc.)
__________________
"Love is always a matter of learning how to live in an unknown land."

"Love is always about learning the Nature of things."

-- Martín Prechtel


River's Blog

Last edited by River; 03-04-2018 at 07:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-04-2018, 08:31 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 14,766
Default

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't believe in an afterlife.

I do "believe in the Big Bang," so to speak, and from what I understand, it was as you describe it. To wit, the origins of everything in the universe, including space and time, were an infinitely small point (outside of the dimensions of space) in an infinitely brief moment (outside the passage of time). Looked at another way, this infinitely small point "did not exist." The only thing that existed was the explosion of space and time and everything therein that issued from it. The point did not "exist;" the explosion did. That's how I think it was, anyway. Put another way, it was an explosion of existence itself. Of the stuff of existence.

I don't know if there are other universes besides The Universe. I'm leaning in the direction of, "Probably not," but who knows.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-04-2018, 11:19 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 2,904
Default Chalk

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
I don't know if there are other universes besides The Universe. I'm leaning in the direction of, "Probably not," but who knows.
You'll have to ask Sheldon Lee "Bazinga" Cooper, Ph.D. If anyone knows, it will be him. Problem is, though, he'll answer with a bunch of indecipherable squiggly lines on a chalk board, and only three people in the whole (or the many) universe/s will know what he said with that chalk.
__________________
"Love is always a matter of learning how to live in an unknown land."

"Love is always about learning the Nature of things."

-- Martín Prechtel


River's Blog
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:32 AM.