The Animal Realm

[popkidu2]

The Animal Realm

"The animal realm is the realm of instinctual gratification, of the biological drives of hunger and sexuality. In the Tibetan cosmology, its distinctive characteristic is stupidity....Ignoring the Animal Realm only seems to empower it, as the sexual scandals that have rocked spiritual groups and leaders testify. Sexuality is a threat to spirituality only when it is not integrated (Thoughts Without A Thinker - Mark Epstein, M.D, 1995, pp. 25, 27)."

Interesting quote I came across tonight while working on a paper. It's a book about Eastern Philosophy and Western Psychotherapy. What struck me about this quote was in regards to the whole Catholic abuse scandal and the arguments for/against priests being celibate.

I think the author makes a good argument (and unfortunately, I didn't have the patience to type out the entire section of the chapter) on why when humans deny or demonize their sexual urges it always gets them in trouble. Accepting sexual urges as a natural human emotion, and understanding the concept of love and sex as part of our human psyche seems to be something that is missing nowadays. People either vilify it, or turn it into simply an "act".

Thoughts?

 

[TheU2]

Originally posted by popkidu2:
The Animal Realm

"The animal realm is the realm of instinctual gratification, of the biological drives of hunger and sexuality. In the Tibetan cosmology, its distinctive characteristic is stupidity....Ignoring the Animal Realm only seems to empower it, as the sexual scandals that have rocked spiritual groups and leaders testify. Sexuality is a threat to spirituality only when it is not integrated (Thoughts Without A Thinker - Mark Epstein, M.D, 1995, pp. 25, 27)."

Interesting quote I came across tonight while working on a paper. It's a book about Eastern Philosophy and Western Psychotherapy. What struck me about this quote was in regards to the whole Catholic abuse scandal and the arguments for/against priests being celibate.

I think the author makes a good argument (and unfortunately, I didn't have the patience to type out the entire section of the chapter) on why when humans deny or demonize their sexual urges it always gets them in trouble. Accepting sexual urges as a natural human emotion, and understanding the concept of love and sex as part of our human psyche seems to be something that is missing nowadays. People either vilify it, or turn it into simply an "act".

Thoughts?

I think your fantasy baseball team sucks.

CK

 

[TheU2]

On a more serious note....I agree with the author's quote. I'm not in favor of the current Catholism viewpoint that priests should be married to God.

Let priest marry. More holy men would apply for the job.

Deacons are holier,

CK

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by TheU2:

Let priest marry. More holy men would apply for the job.
CK

I agree with TheU2.

However, I would like to ask popkidu2 what he means by "when humans deny or demonize their sexual urges it always gets them in trouble"? Are you talking about if someone chooses not to have sex, it gets them in trouble, or do you mean something else? Because, if you are saying that, you're wrong. I haven't had sex since 1990, and why? Because I believe it's wrong to have sex if you're not married. I messed up then, and it caused great problems - my "mate" gave birth to 3 month premature baby, who died 8 hours after birth. I have not had sex since then, although I have messed up twice and went a lot farther than I wanted to.
I am celibate because I want to be, because I know it's what is right for me. If I were to marry, it would no longer be right for me to be celibate. I am not a child molester, I am not a rapist. Nor do any of those things ever even run through my thoughts. I have a very healthy attitude about sex. There is such a thing as self-control. It is one of the things that separates us from the animals.

 

[popkidu2]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

Originally posted by TheU2:

Let priest marry. More holy men would apply for the job.
CK

I agree with TheU2.

However, I would like to ask popkidu2 what he means by "when humans deny or demonize their sexual urges it always gets them in trouble"? Are you talking about if someone chooses not to have sex, it gets them in trouble, or do you mean something else? Because, if you are saying that, you're wrong. I haven't had sex since 1990, and why? Because I believe it's wrong to have sex if you're not married. I messed up then, and it caused great problems - my "mate" gave birth to 3 month premature baby, who died 8 hours after birth. I have not had sex since then, although I have messed up twice and went a lot farther than I wanted to.
I am celibate because I want to be, because I know it's what is right for me. If I were to marry, it would no longer be right for me to be celibate. I am not a child molester, I am not a rapist. Nor do any of those things ever even run through my thoughts. I have a very healthy attitude about sex. There is such a thing as self-control. It is one of the things that separates us from the animals.

No, I'm not saying that it's wrong to believe that sex before marrige is wrong. That's your perogitive. I may not agree with it, but it's your choice.

What I meant by that comment is that people sometimes have a tendancy to villify the act of sex. They posses the notion that sex that is not simply for the purpose of procreation is somehow wrong, that even when it is for procreation it is a dirty and evil act. That's kindof an extreme explanation, but I think it makes my point. Sex, when it consumates love in the truest sense, is an amazing thing. It's not simply something you do to procreate....

Does that make sense? I'll clarify if you need me to...

 

[Angela Harlem]

I dont agree with those who say it should be kept for the purposes of procreation. I dont want to start on a war between Freud and Maslow, but I am comfortable with the heirarchy Maslow made. Sex in itself is a need, and one that enables healthy functioning, not exclusively, and *not* always for procreation. http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM

*not* added...


[This message has been edited by Angela Harlem (edited 05-15-2002).]