Friday 20 February 2009

Barry Long - a personal reflection on a couple of his tapes

A friend has asked me to listen to some tapes she has by a man called Barry Long. Although I had heard people speak favourably of him in the past, I had never actually heard him before. I cannot remember the name of the first tape I heard but it was all about what he called the "noble Man". There was a lot of talk of purification of the lance of the noble man and the fight against the beast within. Today, I listened to a talk about how to have sex. Which is, and here I sum up his teaching in my own, partial, way, by eliminating emotion and the imagination and approaching union with woman in perfect love. Which seems to mean for him, perfect rationality.

Woman and man. These are the words he uses. His talk is of absolutes. There is nothing of the individual here - of the wide variety women and men and there widely differing experiences and personalities. Penis in vagina - that to him seems the measure of love. Ideally, there should be no foreplay - for that is of the imagination - it is a distraction from the perfection of penis in vagina. No masturbation - for that of necessity involves imagination. If a man's urge to masturbate cannot be resisted, he cautions against imagining the loved one and focussing the imagination on a generic set of women's genitals.

There is no room in his universe, it seems, for homosexual desire - penis in vagina is the measure of all. But then, in reality there is little room for desire. Love and desire seem to be, for him, mutually exclusive. He says, in fact, that it is preferable for the penis not to erect before entry into the vagina. In this, he strikes me as a true descendant of Augustine of Hippo, who stated that before the Fall, sexual union occurred without any other desire than to perform the will of his god and reproduce the species. An act of perfect love - to quote Long.

Underneath all this talk of man and woman there is a deep misogyny that I find disturbing. In many ways, his diagnosis of the current unsatisfactory nature of the relationship between the sexes is very accurate. But his solution rests upon an extreme essentialist assumption that the nature of woman is love. (I am here, I think, quoting him directly). It is the nature of woman to be receptive - to open herself to the man - providing, of course, that he has "purified his lance".

I confess to feeling profoundly uneasy at a rhetoric that relies upon the imagery of chivalry. Knights, however much romance tries to hide the fact, are killers. The codes of chivalry, devised by such luminaries as Bernard of Clairvaux, were attempts to place the essential homicidal function of the knight into some sort of christian framework. This of course during the time of the mass murderous adventures of the Crusades. Codes of knighthood, far from noble, were a PR stunt - very successful and lasting to this day - Lord of the Rings and Star Wars and much else of modern culture being saturated with it. In both the sagas mentioned, there is little concern for those who are on the "dark side" - be they Imperial Stormtroopers or orcs. The latter are killed in their thousands and are killed with an exultant glee. Such glee was in earlier times reserved for accounts of the killing of, say Muslims in Palestine.

It is here where Long's talk about the beast becomes, to my mind, both sinister and dangerous. The noble man, to use his phrase, has to subdue the beast. The beast consists of the emotions, the passions - the shadow world within us. It consists of our fears and desires, our jealousies and our disappointments. It consists of our imagination. It is, in fact, an intrinsic part of us. If we try to deny it, and this is where I fear his argument takes us, then we drive it underground. We wish to be noble but, deep within, are only too well aware of how short we fall from nobility. That knowledge, however, cannot be articulated so the beast is then transferred from us to the other - however defined. Jew, Moslem, socialist, capitalist, man, woman, homosexual, BDSM, black, white, - the list goes on. The other becomes the repository for the beast and we can only maintain our nobility by overcoming that other.

It is not without significance that the Sanskrit for "noble" is "Aryan". I am not deterred by Godwin's Law from looking at the roots of Nazism. Adherents of the law assert that Nazism was a total aberration - that it is, somehow, ahistorical and born of the very particular circumstances of post Versailles Germany and the particular psychopathology of Hitler and the Nazis. This is, I fear, a pious hope rather than a reality. There is a long and terrifying history of refusal to face our own shadows and the subsequent displacement onto the Other- who can then carry the burden of our own shame at being human into the wilderness.

For, in the end, we are human. I am not, nor do I want to be, a "Noble Man". I am often venal. Very rarely am I noble and unselfish. Even in my most noble of actions there is a high degree of self-interest. There is something I want - even if it is only the good opinion of others. I am OK with this and do not aspire to any purity. I am ok with having a shadow and not being pure light. I am ok with the fact that the tapes I heard have awoken an anger within me. I am also ok with the fact that I am convinced that a large part of my this anger is a response to the anger I heard expressed - but unacknowledged- by Long. The tone of his voice was oftne harsh and confrontational. That is fine and I have no problem with other people being angry. What I have a problem with is when people are angry but then deny it - which seemed to me to underly much of what Long had to say. When someone tells me, in an angry-sounding tone to overcome my anger, my mind turns to beams in eyes and I no longer listen.

Long claimed to be a Tantric guru. That may be true. But if it is, then what I practise is not tantra - which to me involves a recognition and celebration of one's total being. What I heard was the dualism of the Zoroastrians, some of the Gnostics and much of Augustinian christianity. I heard Calvin and Pope Benedict. I did not hear liberation. I realise that his followers will tell me that my feelings are an indication of just how unenlightened I am. So be it. I do not want an enlightenment which leaves me with the repressed anger I heard on the tape that spoke of the noble man.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your characterisation of Barry's teaching is spot on. I was a "student" of Barry's for some ten years. I wish I had been as perceptive as you when I met him before I got myself sucked into the whole "Noble Man / Pure Woman / the only form of love is sex" thing. Ironic for a teacher who made great play of teaching the difference between love and sex. The whole situation just ended up demeaning the individual women and men involved.

You might Barry's entry at the BLog of Death website interesting.

http://www.blogofdeath.com/archives/000605.html

humanas said...

The human urge for 'personality' tends to complicate things in life. That's what the personality is, really, my personal complication. Seeking for some fulfilment it, tends to fill my life and my mind with outer stimulus and distraction. That's the nature of the animal mind.

I find Barry's way of teaching very purifying and clarifying in it's straightness. It helps me to see through the complications, making me much more centered in the Being, and therefore more able to make the journey into realisation of my potential as intellectual animal, which is to realise the Source of all life and consciousness by using the unique self-reflective ability of my intellect.

The difficulty is that one has to be able to 'listen'. To listen with the spark of human consciousness we have in us, and not with the judging, comparing, conceptualising, justifying, compromising adacemic animal mind. ;) "Just get the idea! Don't make a concept of it." as BL said.

http://gnosticteachings.org/books-by-samael-aun-weor/fundamentals-of-gnostic-education/985-knowing-how-to-listen.html

Nofel Nawras said...

You are content with who you are, why then denigrate the teachings of someone you have not met, who's prescence you have not known and have not saught? You are erudite and learned, this is not wisdom, this is mere brain function. We are all perfect where we are and all is dependent on our level of consciousness. Your level is perfect for you. You are as the priests who denigrate the teachings of christ, or think they know him, or what he said and interpret his teachings. You are not original and a parasite that lives on the knowl;edge, divine or otherwise, of others. You will, no doubt, interpret my comments as arrogant, defensive, mysogynistic perhaps. Know that the master cares not what you think and knows you to your core. Your core is fear and ignorance and it seeks to aggrandise itself and justify it's existance. Believe it or not, it is love that motivates my comments, but you are far from ready to hear the truth. You are a long way from the light. But all is well, love is in charge and you will be brought to your knees to know this. It may, of course, not be in this lifetime. Nofel Nawras

Idris said...

I have been neglecting this blog for a long time, Nofel, but I was today informed of your comment by someone we both know.

In many ways you are right - although I would dispute being either erudite or content with who I am. I am, as I say throughout my blogs, human and fallible. I make mistakes, very many, as I go through life. Sometimes I have indeed been brought to my knees. I am full of many human emotions and often feel ashamed of them. I do not claim to be anyone's master and have ceased to aspire to any position of teacher. What I try to do, however, and this is what I tried in this post, is to speak from my heart with as little censorship as possible. I try, as far as I can, to accept myself as I am warts and all. Sometimes I fail. I am human. That is all.

A parasite, perhaps. I am dependent on the words and works of those who preceded me. I interpret those words and works in terms of my own limited life experience. My interpretations change as these experiences mould and change them.

My comments on Long to which you took exception were written as and clearly labelled as "A personal reflection". I claimed no authority other than my own fallible reaction. I did not and do not presume to claim any knowledge of the state of his soul - only my impressions of his teaching. Perhaps I am not, as you say, advanced enough to understand or apply it. Or perhaps it is bullshit. I do not know.

Barry Long put his his teachings in the marketplace of ideas. They were not to my taste. They are clearly to yours. Fine. My words will have no effect on you just as yours have had no effect on me. We disagree. You may be right in your assessment of my state of spiritual development. Equally, you may be wrong. I am in no position to comment on yours and will not do so.

Anonymous said...

I have listened to many tapes by Barry Long although I have never been to a seminar. Obviously I can’t speak for the man but I’ll maybe write as best I can about what I’ve learnt in my own experience from listening to him.
You mentioned the shadow and suppression, what you say makes sense. Obviously trying to suppress emotions, passions, etc isn’t ‘it’. Just as you wrote, it is driven underground to ‘fester’ and can cause illness or can be projected onto others, Race, skin colour, etc, it has to find expression.
But from what I know, it’s definitely not about suppression. It’s about facing this shadow, owning the ‘dark side’ (often referred to as the self by Barry Long). To really face up to and see the fact of what one is (knowing yourself).
Then through stilling the mind (and emotions) the imagination and thoughts diminish. According to Barry Long God is found in the still mind (he’s not the first to say this). So the noble man with the still mind (God’s mind, pure mind) has gotten rid of his selfishness (thought) as much as he is able, which is a virtuous state. When he sees the ugliness (shadow) in the world he knows it’s himself because he’s faced it in him.
Anyway, I’m no expert, but from what I’ve read and practised of his teaching makes sense

Idris said...

Thanks for your comment, Anonymous. I am glad that Long's teachings have given you what you sought. As I said above, my reactions and reflections are simply that, mine. What I hear and experience and what you hear and experience differ widely, but that does not in the end matter. What matters, to me, is that people honour the experience of others, even when there is radical disagreement between them. Thank you for disagreeing with me without insulting me.

Anonymous said...

My experience of Barry Long is that he attracts some real narcissists who cannot abide criticism, use some very devious spiritual tricks to bully others, and play at being guru to give themselves a platform and a sense of power.
The Nawras guy up there seems to be a good example, but there are no doubt worse ones. It's sad really.
Barry Long's teachings are riddled with flaws, unoriginal, not truly lived by the man who claimed mastery and provide a blueprint for oversensitive megalomaniacs to follow.
I would stay away from the cult of Barry, his fucked up followers and the psychological destruction that follows them. Seriously bad news.
You would be much better going for a more generic meditation system like a basic buddhist one if you want to meditate, rather than Long's gurucentric, skewed hodge podge.

Anonymous said...

My experience of Barry Long is that he attracts some real narcissists who cannot abide criticism, use some very devious spiritual tricks to bully others, and play at being guru to give themselves a platform and a sense of power or certainty.
You can see the spiritual threats and territoriality being dished out above. New Age religions attract fundamentalist fire and brimstone preachers too.
Careful - you may be reborn as a slug in the next life for disrespecting the master! So pathetic.
Barry Long's teachings are riddled with flaws, unoriginal, not truly lived by him, and provide a blueprint for megalomaniacs.
I would stay away from the cult of Barry, his fucked up followers and the psychological destruction that follows them. Seriously bad news.
You would be much better going for a more generic meditation system like a basic buddhist one if you want to meditate, rather than Long's gurucentric, skewed hodge podge.
Don't be fooled, you'll be asked to stop thinking for all the wrong reasons.

Idris said...

Thanks, Anonymous. You echo my own thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for letting me say that. Just to add - Barry Long makes a lot of hay about not needing guilt, having no regrets, the conscience being a symptom of thinking.
These are also the traits of various personality disorders.
When you come across someone who claims lack of care or empathy is a sign of evolution, and that they are blissfully happy whatever they do to you or regardless how you feel, that they basically have no fault and any fault you perceive in them is a product of your imagination - you should be wary as hell.
Enjoy your next life as a slug !
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

So many dodgy claims in Long's work. Look at his assertions that people become possessed easily when emotionally weak. It's kind of a standard occultist take. But, really, those possessing entities seem to have less and less room for fun as neuroscience develops. Epilepsy was once a sign of possession. Now we know it's about chaotic firing of neurons and can be brought on by genetics or injury. The brain can suffer all sorts of physical trouble that produces what would once be called possession - tumors, lesions, injury, diseases, parasites, embolisms, strokes, Parkinson's, dementia, drugs, the normal workings of brains under extreme stress - and a whole range of undiscovered stuff. Just to blame "possessing entities" for unknown neurological disorder seems to be the height of irresponsibility, and asking for trouble. Science doesn't exactly totally disprove such things, there may be some mystery there that can never be removed - dark matter lifeforms and such speculation - but it's pushing them in to an ever shrinking corner.
And don't even start on his take on human evolution. Jesus.

Idris said...

Augustine wrote: "The man, then, would have sown the seed, and the woman received it, as need required, the generative organs being moved by the will, not excited by lust”. (City of God, Bk 4 Ch 24. Very close, I feel, to Long.

Anonymous said...

Well, trouble is that Long sold a version of sacred sexuality which is supposed to be natural, as opposed to man-created lust.
I've read his Making Love book closely, and there are many factual errors in it.

He holds, for instance, that there is a fundamental difference between man and animal in that man has a special self consciousness, a fantasizing faculty, that animals do not, and this is why man can masturbate and animals cannot unless encaged.
His knowledge of zoology was obviously lacking here because it has had to be acknowledged, despite resistance and avoidance in our culture, that actually animals have a large variety of sexual behaviours including masturbation, homosexuality, bisexuality, rape, necrophilia etc etc.
You can easily check this on the interwobble.
In short, Long's picture is wrong, and humans show an evolutionary continuity with animals in sexual matters, rather than being spiritually special.

Long claimed that a sign of a master is that they are not subject to mental impressions - yet here Long clearly has an incorrect impression of what constitutes animal sexuality. I conclude from this (among other things) that Long was not the master he thought he was.

Secondly, Long claims that his tantric prescription is the way to spiritual experience, yet a broad reading of sexual literature tells us that many people undergo spiritual experiences during sex, and not necessarily through his special techniques. Not only that but homosexuals have these experiences too, contrary to the thrust of Long's perspective in which he holds homosexuals to be simply afraid of women - in a similar way to many monotheist fundamentalists and evangelicals do.
As with animals, Long seems to speak from ignorance while assuming ultimate knowledge.
And, again, his emphasis on cervical massage is not new, although fairly obscure in the west - there are other sources and practitioners, and one might ask whether he is original in this or had some help from his contemporaries. I don't really care either way because I've seen enough to dispel any idea that he was the great master he claimed to be, rather than an offbeat and experienced semi guru, but I'll happily criticise him, thanks!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for leaving this up. I would just like to add that for anyone brought up in one of the branches of monotheism, it would be very easy to slip back into old habits using Barry Long as a modern replacement of the old patriarchal, dominance oriented, repressive religion.

Nice one, House of Inanna

Anonymous said...

Credit where credit is due, though Barry Long was a good and genuine meditation teacher and was quite straightforward about the inner life even with the obvious flaws. Whatever good was gained from his teaching can't be discarded, even if it was incomplete or mixed with nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Barry Long often expressed that if you did not agree with his teaching or it wasn't working for you to get out. So why would anyone in their right mind waste energy criticizing him & not have the sense to move on? Perhaps what appears as a gap in one's view of his teachings needs to be created by the pupil. That may take too much self responsibility & God forbid that should take place.

Idris said...

I have moved on. This is a very old post in a blog I effectively abandoned years ago. I now only remember Long when someone reminds me by posting a comment. As I originally said, these were simply reflections made after an exposure to his tapes. I was repelled by him then and thus he faded from my memory.

I have left the blog stand because it is record of what I was and it is good to be reminded sometimes. Like looking at an old photograph and not quite believing that I was that man.

Thanks for reminding me. It is good to know that despite all the changes in my life, attitudes and beliefs since then, there are things that remain the same. I know that, were to hear those tapes again, I would be as equally - if not more - repelled as I was seven years ago. For I was more dogmatic then than I am now so am even less tolerant of ex cathedra statements- from whatever source, pope, politician or guru- than I was then. But that is purely a personal reaction. I have never claimed it to be otherwise

Anonymous said...

"So why would anyone in their right mind waste energy criticizing him & not have the sense to move on?"

Paul Davis, why don't you have the sense to move on instead of criticising other's criticism ?

Barry Long said get out of his teaching if you don't like it. When you HAVE got out from the teaching that leaves you free to criticise it any way you see fit, or criticise/question/debate his acolytes. He no longer has authority if you are not in his teaching - has he ?
Why would anyone in their right mind not want to engage in a debate rather than running away or allowing the silence of uncritical ignorance to dominate ?
There is nothing wrong at all with criticising what we think to be problematic or even what we don't understand, for one's own benefit and for other's.

Paul Davis seemed to think it worth while to stick his oar in without offering a proper defence of Long's teaching, thinking that he needs to do some tutting on Long's (or someone's) behalf, and probably imagining it is in our interest that he do so.

Anonymous said...

"In many ways you are right - although I would dispute being either erudite or content with who I am. I am, as I say throughout my blogs, human and fallible."

The trick here is to fish for any discontent that you might have, and then present Barry Long as the perfect answer to all discontent, as demonstrated by Nofel. Then it's argument won and faith reinforced. You might be familiar with this arrogant and defensive tactic from talking to convinced evangelicals of other faiths or ~isms. It doesn't help that Barry Long did seem to have really been enlightened to some extent, likely more than most. But no enlightened person has a monopoly on truth, hence all their books and works differ on the awkward details, and die-hard devotees disappear up their own jacksies when they insist they have found the one true way.
"Sometimes I have indeed been brought to my knees."
Some people just want to see others prostrate in front of them. Or to Mecca. It's a silly attitude, really, or a case of latent, closeted BDSM. Or megalomania.

ta.

Ajax the Great said...

In a word, BOOM. Spot-on analysis indeed, Idris! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your thoughts on BL. Can you say a little more about the misogyny you see embedded in BL's teachings on making love vs sex? I am with a new partner who is a thorough disciple of BL and at first I was very appreciative of his sensitivity to what I would call 'connected intimacy', however he is becoming increasingly sage-like in his advocacy of making love in the prescriptive BL penis in vagina mode. If we do so we will be emancipated as a couple. Like you, I find this simplistic - draining all the colour from the present moment and disrupting intuitive discovery what connects each other. I am concerned that his version of living BL's teachings is actually controlling of women rather than the opposite. If I challenge his singular beliefs, then I am 'identifying with my past hurts and selfish self'. Although my journey has been one of learning that being present to the moment is hugely beneficial, I am also a strong lover of the written word and oral story telling. This has been passed on inter-generationally in my family. I also believe we are all inherently flawed (which makes us complex and interesting human beings). I love that our stories live within us, for better or for worse. Sometimes we progress and rise above our limiting compulsions, and other times we regress. I believe deep sustainable love doesn't come from making love in any particular prescribed way, but from trust and acceptance of the other, despite of and because of their flawed self.I don't think two people's colliding complex emotional worlds can be simplistically resolved in spending hours of penetrative sex. If you have the time, yes nice and tantric and spiritual. We don't always have that time do we? And there is so much more to a full healthy relationship than this. His attempts to 'coach' me feel paternalistic and patronising - despite the fact that he is a lovely man in many ways. I am wary, so any extrapolations of your passing comment about misogyny in BL's teachings would be helpful. Thanks so much.

Anonymous said...

You cant escape or get the upper hand. You're criticizing a criticism of a criticism, and now I jump on, criticizing your criticism of that guys criticism of the OPs criticism of Barry Long. Try cutting with a blade that has a single edge so you don't hurt yourself.

Grace said...

The problem with this post is that you missed the point. The whole point of Barry’s teaching is absolutely meaningless if it’s not lived and practiced and leads to some kind of transformation - or in my case, derives a state of new Conciousness. You are just trying to derive concepts from his teaching, in other words, an identity or repertoire of ideas that you can think about and talk about and ponder about and then identify with as being apart of you. I’ve listened to his teachings to a point that whether it’s “true” “accurate” or conceptually on point doesn’t matter. I’ve been changed permentantly and it’s an irreversible change because, instead of just swallowing what he said I used my experiences to navigate it (which he recommends). Ironically, he also tries to destroy the tendency to create concepts and this even encourages not believing anything he is saying.

I’ve reached a State or Conciousness that’s not dependent on believing anything to maintain itself. If you did not reach this state you are merely lost in your own confusion, frankly. You are right. You can never be unselfish. You rightly recognized that a sense of self is selfish. But instead of all of this useless pondering why not just endeavour to give without judging yourself or questioning yourself for any ulterior motive? What good does that derive?

Just because you can’t live up or take on a teaching does not mean it is wrong. You can only say something is wrong when you have actually truly endeavoured to live it. And his teaching is not done over night. It takes dedication and time, not like taking a few university courses in a subject and acting like an expert. That’s the problem, we all want quick fixes and instant gratification. Lastly, who is to say a stern voice is a indicator of anger?? Is talking sweetly a perfect indicator of sweetness? Anger surely has many more indicators and has to be placed into context. This is so obvious, and for such a critical thinker you present yourself to be, in suprised that this has not occurred to you. Would speaking sweetly really make a difference to you? Or are you just mad that your feelings were hurt? What makes me difference if he spoke so sweetly to the ears and you stilled remained ignorant?

Grace said...

The way you speak is riddled with negativity. Are you sure you are not just projecting your own negativity onto his teaching?

From a person who has actually battled mental illness and a history of sexual abuse, I can tell you with full certainty that his teaching did not make my condition worse. In fact, it saved me from myself.

And, he teaches lack of love of the self, which is the opposite of narrcasism...please do your research about something more fully before offering an half baked critique.

Ch3ck1t said...

For fun, i'll add a comment, just based on a little personal experience.

The more you watch porn, the more you think of girls like a sperm bag. When girl comes in your field of view, immediately body part stands out. Excitations begins, desire arise. Sex.
On the contrary, there are people able to talk with girls without desiring sex with every interaction. In that context they are "loving" them but not "desiring" them. And maybe they are really ready to be there for what they need

Not all girls will give you sex after an interaction, even if you are good at picking up, and why? Because when they grow they start to seek love, not sex. You will not find them in a bar late time in the first place. It's natural.
Most of successful man are not sex obsessed - neither repressed.

What Barry Long is doing is getting rid of this sexual behaviour, like the guys at nofap.com. He is not the only one stating that your personal power diminishes in indulging in porn and masturbation and there is some truth in this.

He says that excitation is linked with emotionality and that does not mean that when you evolve you are insensitive to others!! Not even close, to me. It means that your happiness will depends on you and yourself only, regardless of the situation around you. A lot of "masters" are not influenced by other's behaviour but that does not mean that they cannot connect or help or care for people around!!
Another thing that goes away is personal preference. You start to care for everyone who is with you in any given moment, without being influenced in your "personal happyness".
I think a good example may be: sometimes your son cryes for a whim and you know that consolation is insufficient, they have to let go of a unrealistic desire. The confirmation is that they become angry when you say no to them and that's not "real sadness" (and for sure it's not healthy). That does not make you, the father, sad or depressed but, happily, you are there for his growth. You cannot "switch them happy" but you are willing to stay close (with your happyness)! I think that's also the relation that God, the father, has towards us, humans.

Regarding omosexuality, the best description i read was this (it's not from Barry): it's the process of growth of human brain. It begins with masturbation - autosexuality - it evolves in attraction towards the same sex - omosexuality - and it further proceeds into eterosexuality, attraction towards opposite sex.
One evident "proof" that you can observe in omosexual people is that they behave in more childish manner, like if their brain is not grown up. Please go and check. The brain is at an earlier stage than the heterosexual one. It's not "wrong" but it's like if you remained a child in some way.

Why is that important? Because Barry makes you grow and in nature growth propelles you towards other sex. The only scenario in which omosexuality (animals) shows up is captivity, high number of males and no need of reproduction.

Minimum of foreplay is prescribed in initial stages, along with minimal body movements during sex, because they may be driven by lust built up in time. Hurrying to ejaculate, to orgasm! That sort of things. When impatience and restlessness are gone and these habits "removed", you are free to do whatever you want to. And you are free from the urge to ejaculate, that means free to connect with your lover. Maybe some "sexual things" will not appeal any more simply naturally, not because of Barry's impositions.

That's the whole point! If it works it's only because it's nature propelling in that direction, not because he says so.

Hope i've not been offensive in explaining my ideas, it's late and my brain is smoking! And i'm italian so my english may be incorrect.

Saluti!!

Anonymous said...

The problem with your argument is that you jump all over the place. You basically bake half-arguments and leave it up to the reader to connect the dots. Your argument about nazis and whatever else is silly. Everything conceivable in history can probably be shed in a bad light - even a apple! In the context of Adam and Eve. Rarely is any symbol free of any negative connotation. White…often a word associated with purity, can be labelled as racist. How did the speaker and writer intend it? How were they using it to convey their message?

Second, you mention a major issue you have with Barry, and then end with a more minor issue about his tone. It seems that you did this because you are not fully convinced of your first argument. Passions and desire, undoubtedly, can be dangerous. We live in civil societies but even then, the “beast” gets the best of us. What do you think drives a pedophile to molest? A rapist to rape? A serial killer to kill? Barry never advocated repression. In fact, he advocated the opposite - facing your shadow. Do you know what that means? Obviously not. If you did, you would know that it is a thousand miles away from repression. So, instead, in your ignorance, you judge a teaching that you never even practised. This is like giving a bad review to a restaurant that you never ate it. Simply reading is books is not enough. Practice is needed to understand. I have faced my passions. It is painful. Testing. Heart-wrenching. But liberating as it produces profound spiritual insight. This is not repression of any kind or “turning ones back on ones shadow.” This is facing the shadow. Except, it’s taking responsibility for it. I control my self because not all my passions are right. Having sex with the married man will likely break his wife’s heart. And then I think about all the other people who are forced to repress their sexuality - like non-active pedophiles - and even though mine aren’t considered sinister, I do it for them who must battle this beast for the greater good of humanity, so that I may understand them through understanding myself.

Your anger is a red flag that the source of the issue is within yourself. There is so much going on in the world - yet you chose to get pissed off from someone’s angry tone?

Anonymous said...

Very well said

Anonymous said...

It’s best that you read BL’s teaching directly instead of relying on someone who you think might agree with you to give you an answer (cherry-picking). I promise I’m not trying to be rude, just honest. Also, Barry’s teaching fundamentally is about realizing God outside of existence first and then God in existence (sexual love) after. Purification of the self is a prerequisite, and true tantric love can only be done in my experience by someone who has more or less mastered themselves sufficiently so that they can transform their internal harmony into a unity with harmony. So no, he never advocated that penetrative sex is the means of ridding of all emotional problems. That’s just a very wrong impression and actually insulting. Loving someone is purifying. Making love to someone is divine and brings one closer to God which is also purifying and makes one love Life more and more, and also breeds spectacular spiritual insights. It’s all about creating more love. You only get to have “penetrative” sex if you can sufficiently love the r entirety of the person. Otherwise, sex will become boring, or you will cheat or watch porn or do all the other bullshit our society does because they don’t know how to love. By first mastering yourself and then learning to love someone else, you help yourself to rid of your selfishness (emotional problems) and grow on love

Anonymous said...

Your assessment is correct in my view. What I always found perplexing about him, was his claim that masturbation requores fantasy. It can include it, but it doesn't have to. Sexual energy is just energy. We can link it to the mind if we want, but we don't have to. Most of the time when I masturbate, my mind is blank and I am just enjoying the sensations in the body. In fact, I used to orgasm regularly as a child, with no concept of "sexual". I was quite disappointed when I found out that the almighty orgasm people talked about, was simply the energy build and release that I had been experiencing for years. I don't think he really knew his own body. I don't think he approached the body with enjoyment. Love is supposed to be enjoyable
..

Daniel Hines said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, there is very few people capable of actually living his teaching. As a result, it gets a bad rep because people judge it intellectually, instead of living it. I have practiced his teaching on love and discovered the truth of it and profundity of making love. I cannot convince you of it nor do I want to, since I do believe our personal karma determines if we are ready to receive such knowledge. And, the great evil that man's sexuality has caused on this earth - from rape, to sexual abuse, child molestation, sex trafficking - to turn a blind eye to this fact id absolute ignorance. Man's sexuality is dangerous but it is not politically correct to say it. That's why we fear a man walking behind us at night and not a woman.