but there is only God, or?
God and his energies - much like there is not justthe sun but the sun and heat, light etc
believing this does not mean that saying 'I am God' is necessarily good. On the other hand I am still trying to understand what the problem is if everything is God and portions have sex and portions say 'I am God.'
the problem is that it relegates them to an inferior existence on account of the dysfunctionalism
Certainly God does not have a problem. And if God is all there is, what is the problem then?
If we are dysfunctional we don't diminish anything but ourselves.
So God separated out parts of Godself. A Good state of unity was turned into a bad state of disunity by God.
Depends if you view free will as a curse ..... but then even to have an opinion of free will requires free will so I guess its a non-issue
And in this state God is less Good than before
why?
Although its probably not correct to term it "before", since you can't really say that a sun was a sun (in the full sense of the term) before it started manifesting heat and light ... in the same way, discussing a god that doesn't have a separated parts and parcels is a lesser definition since it doesn't have the potential to manifest free will outside of itself (which takes it down a notch or two on the omnipotent scale) ... you could also argue that it has no means for benevolence since it has zero opportunity for reciprocation .... and philosophically it is plagued by the problem on how it is possible for separation to manifest (as we are currently experiencing it, with identities and all) in which there is only one radical homogeneous existence underlying it all. IOW there is no accounting for variety (except to say that it is all illusion .... which of course doesn't explain how it came to overcome "god" if you ant to carve out a niche for us to come under the umbrella of the term)
and the goal is for these comprimised parts of God to undue this original act of God's, and to do this it helps to control sexual urges?
the goal is not to lose one's individuality but to use it properly. IOW its the nature of being a separated part and parcel that one has a constitutional nature (namely that of service to the whole). To be made without the possibility of rejection of this nature is to be made without the possibility of free will, which of course is a requirement for service
Doesn't this all strike you as a mess that could have been avoided?
Sure it can be avoided, but you are looking at the mess in a manner that wants to absolve all wrong doing from the living entity. I mean from one perspective, god could have refrained from manifesting individual with free will (even though it would make for a lesser god) and relegating the off the wall behavior of the minority to a virtual realm that eventually reforms them .... and from another perspective, the problem can be fixed by the living entity in the grip of illusion reforming themselves (which would also require free will BTW)
Why the hang up?
Why would God cut off one of his fingers - I thought hand was not humble enough? And how can God be compromised?
generally we don't have the experience of our hand manifesting free will. Rather the analogy was meant to illustrate how the functionalism of a part renders it invaluable and its dysfunctionalism renders it worthless. This is both from the perspective of the whole and the part (IOW from our perspective, a separated hand is useless and from a hand's perspective - if it was to have one - its useless since they have no capacity for vigor or enjoyment outside of the whole)
It seems like a different kind of insanity, but the idea that God has lopped off so many of God's parts and then set up the task that these parts figure out how to rejoin
It occurred at the hand (bad pun) of free will. Like suppose the hand suddenly decided one day "why am I engaged in placing food in the mouth? From now on I am going to eat the cake myself." ...... the problem being that it has no capacity to eat or derive energy from food without the mouth.
I am not sure I want to have a utilitarian view of sex. I know that was a bit sneaky here - iow that is not necessarily what you are implying, but still, with that proclamation of sneakiness, I am interesting in your response, since I think some kind of objectification of utilization of the self is implicit here, even it is not quite utilitarianism.
In a broad general sense, a utilitarian view of sex is steeped in a sense of duty (sattva guna). A pleasure seeking view of sex is steeped in a sense of selfishness (raja guna). There's probably no need to discuss tama guna at this point. As long as one is under the grip of illusion they are acting in or between these modes.
Sex life under the modes of nature is superseded by spiritual perfection. IOW the whole thing of sex life giving rise to (or even engaged in the act of while trying to avoid) progeny in the pursuit of pleasure operates exclusively in the material world where everyone is decked out with a corporeal existence. IOW its the nature of material existence to take something in the spiritual world and pervert it in a manner that binds one to attachment to the temporary. I guess it depends what one finds more objectionable - the consequences of attachment to the temporary or incorporating a sense of duty within one's sense of pleasure.
could be, but in any case we both know there are examples of people who do not associate spiritual sex with drugs.
as I said, depends on your location.
But even with or without the drugs, the common usage of the term seems to have more to do about selfishness (ie new positions, new partners, etc) than a sense of duty.
Mention the kama sutra (which actually has nothing to do with spiritual sex and everything to do with the material variety) and you probably won't find a conclusion like this :
Dharma, Artha and Kama are aims of everyday life, while Moksha is release from the cycle of death and rebirth. The Kama Sutra (Burton translation) says:
"Dharma is better than Artha, and Artha is better than Kama. But Artha should always be first practised by the king for the livelihood of men is to be obtained from it only. Again, Kama being the occupation of public women, they should prefer it to the other two, and these are exceptions to the general rule." (Kama Sutra 1.2.14)[12]
Of the first three, virtue is the highest goal, a secure life the second and pleasure the least important. When motives conflict, the higher ideal is to be followed. Thus, in making money virtue must not be compromised, but earning a living should take precedence over pleasure, but there are exceptions.
In childhood, Vātsyāyana says, a person should learn how to make a living; youth is the time for pleasure, and as years pass one should concentrate on living virtuously and hope to escape the cycle of rebirth.[13] Also the Buddha preached a Kama Sutra, which is located in the Atthakavagga (sutra number 1). This Kama Sutra, however, is of a very different nature as it warns against the dangers that come with the search for pleasures of the senses.
So we need to get down to brass tacks and say what that attitude is. But note: an attitude is not a set of rules about behavior. Means may be, but I wonder why attitude is not enough. Or, futher, a lack of bad attitudes and a faith in one's desire in the absence of these.
The attitude of material illusion is "I am this body and everything in relation to it is mine"
Seems like an incredible amount of unnecessary suffering was created by God in this scenario. First separating out parts, then sending teachers that will of course only reach a certain amount of separated parts in each generaton and life after life of suffering just to return to a state that for the life of me I cannot see why God decided to shatter in the first place.
reciprocation is the pinnacle of pleasure for an individual with free will - regardless whether they are fallible or infallible
But ironically so much of religion teaches us to go against the spontaneous unity of body we are. People often end up stiff, controlled and not spontaeous once they go into the various disciplines out there.
the body is unified?
If we ever want to go against the consequences of a spontaneous act there is probably a good reason for going against the spontaneous act in the first place.
They may have flexible bodies from Yoga - if they end up in that position - but their movements - often especially of their faces, seems to lack flow and integration, because so much is seen as being problematic about being out of control.
astanga yoga is not celebrated as the yoga for this age (actually its about three yugas out - which makes it more outdated than wearing woolen full length bathers to the beach). Folding up like a croissant can't solve much.
I do not see practitioners as heading toward unity even in themselves, but rather become more and more jailer and jailed, controler and controlled.
I can't see how absolving issues of duty can lead to anything but suffering
Two beings instead of one.
Since matter is changing at practically every moment, it becomes even more diverse if one is drawing up the complete picture of one's self from it
I cannot see how this aids God's unity.
In fact I am quite sure it is a hinder.
Basically the unity begins at the point of desire, much like the unity of the body begins at the point that the hand is agreeable to placing food in the mouth.
IOW the radical difference between a material and spiritual sense of self is one's service attitude to god.
This tends to grate us the wrong way because material identity dictates that there is nothing worse than being in a position of service
